response 79 of 264:

Aug 10 06:09 UTC 2003

Ah, that was my most local alternative newspaper, the East Bay Express.  I've
been too busy with out of town visitors to have seen the article.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2003-08-06/recall.html/1/index.html

response 81 of 264:

Aug 10 16:16 UTC 2003

Yeah, I really like Arianna Huffington. Actually Schwarzenegger isnt 
really all that bad either. But of course, I agree with scg that the 
primary problem with either of them is that they dont have any 
experience. If I were in California, I would probably vote NO to the 
recall and then vote for Bustamante as the replacement. 

response 83 of 264:

Aug 10 17:29 UTC 2003

A person who votes against the recall is still allowed to vote for a 
replacement candidate. 

response 85 of 264:

Aug 11 01:03 UTC 2003

I don't think Davis has done anything that justifies a recall, although of
course valid justification is not required to mount a recall. It is obvious
that the opposition *party* primarily supports the recall, which means it is
a partisan action, which is a poor reason for a recall: the elections are
where partisan issues should be operable.

response 87 of 264:

Aug 11 12:14 UTC 2003

Well, my brother who lives in Norway thinks their implementation of a king
works pretty well.  The royals are hereditary, but pretty much only for
ceremony.  The real work of the govt. is done by elected legislators, so the
king/queen are there to handle more social events.  Gives the public somebody
to rally behind without giving them a dictator.

response 89 of 264:

Aug 11 22:42 UTC 2003

Being against the recall has nothing to do with partisan politics.  A
number of well known conservatives have come out against recalling Davis,
including George Will, Robert Novak, Bill Maher and others.  The issue is
that of respecting traditions, and holding elections when the law says
they are regularly supposed to be held.  If Davis gets recalled, whats
going to happen next year?  Another recall petition, this time from the
Democratic side-- turnabout's fair play right?-- and Arnold will get
recalled.  The petition requirements are low enough in california to force
a recall that the vast majority of those who signed the petition hadn't
voted for Davis in the first place.  Didn't want him in the first place.
So for most who signed the petition, it wasn't about Davis doing anything
wrong, as it was about having a chance to do the election over so they can
vote against him AGAIN.  

So California, in a dire fiscal crisis, will spend $60 million on a
special election, recall the governor, and then next year some rich
Democrat will fund another recall petition.  It will become an ongoing
cycle not just in California but in every state.  Many states have recall
petition laws, but they've seldom been used.  But the rules are changing.

So

If people don't vote against recall elections, they will start happening
everywhere and there won't be any governor in any state capable of governing
effectively because he/she will have to be constantly campaigning, worried
every month and every year about staying in office.  The point of terms is
to give lawmakers time to be in office and do their jobs, before voters throw
them back out.

Don't be suckered in by this beauty contest and the chance to vote for movie
stars.  It is a bad precedent!  

response 91 of 264:

Aug 11 23:09 UTC 2003

Governor Pataki here in New York was up for re-election last year.  He 
got re-elected and now the state is in a dire fiscal crisis that Pataki 
totally downplayed the possibility of  during his re-election.  Pataki 
is guilty of just as much as Gray Davis, when it comes to fiscal 
mismanagement and not owning up to such during an election.  

A lot of people here are enraged at Pataki now.  His popularity is at 
an all time low.  But I wouldn't sign a recall petition to undo the 
last election, even though he was a republican and I didn't vote for 
him.  I wouldn't consider it the right thing to do.  The election was 
held, he won and thats it-- surely its better to have the governor 
concentrating on his job and trying to fix the budget mess, than 
concentrating on facing another *special* election to undo the previous 
election.  You don't get anywhere if you don't allow those elected to 
have the time to govern.

Also when you have too many elections, this is when an electorate can 
get frustrated and you end up with fringe candidates getting elected.  
In Germany in the late twenties and thirties, the electorate was 
divided and there elections called and more elections called, and it 
got to the point where national elections were happening again and 
again.  Because nobody gave the elected leaders the chance to govern.  
So what happened?  Hitler got elected and promptly did away with 
further elections.  His rise to power might never have happened had 
there not been so many elections held that people got so frustrated and 
burned out that they were willing to consider some one that radical.

This is a pivotal moment in California's history.  A vote against 
recalling Davis is a vote for respect of electoral traditions, and a 
vote against re-doing elections unless the elected official has become 
unable to govern.  Davis is a capable governor.  Letting him serve out 
the last three years of his term won't kill anyone.

response 93 of 264:

Aug 11 23:14 UTC 2003

Sounds like Pataki _should_ be recalled.  

On the other hand, y'all could probably have figured out that a fiscal crises
was coming, had y'all bothered to look.  You got what you deserved, I guess.

response 95 of 264:

Aug 12 01:44 UTC 2003

Whatever arguments there are for or against the recall, the recall does seem
consistent with the California constitution.  My opinion is that the
replacement process, at least, should be changed, but what's going on now
appears consistent with the law.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the recall getting on the ballot shows
the signature requirement to be too low.  Signature requirements aren't to
prevent people from voting on things, but rather to prevent people from having
to vote on lots of stuff that only the proposer wants.  Given that most polls
in California now show the recall passing, this doesn't seem like a case of
a low signature requirement thwarting the will of the voters.

response 97 of 264:

Aug 12 03:10 UTC 2003

Go, Ah-nuld.

response 101 of 264:

Aug 13 02:13 UTC 2003

Wow, some commentary from Richard that doesn't come across as pure
partisan advocacy.  What took you so long to get insightful?

I like the idea (#98) of holding pols to their campaign promises.
If their election could be annulled on the basis that they made
misrepresentations, it would force everyone to be more honest.
(Imagine George O'Brien being tossed out of the mayor's office
in Boston for campaigning against a subway fare increase and
changing his mind!  There'd be one less folk song in the repetoire.)
I think that it also might be a good idea to force pols to recuse
themselves on votes on matters concerning persons or groups from
which they obtain significant amounts of campaign money.

I doubt that California will face endless recalls.  Either the
legislature will fix the problem, or abuse of the process will
create a push culminating in an initiative to fix it.  If nothing
else, I'd expect a reform to to limit ballot access to one candidate
per party represented in the previous race for the office.

response 103 of 264:

Aug 13 12:00 UTC 2003

Re #100:  The California deregulation law passed a legislature
completely dominated by Democrats.  When the problems began to appear,
the utilities pleaded to be allowed to make long-term contracts to
buy electricity instead of being forced to buy on the spot market.
Gray Davis instead decided to gamble with the taxpayer's money, and
lost big time.  He deserves his comeuppance.

The deregulation law's problems shouldn't have gotten very far, but
did so because California's legislature is apparently full of
ideologues of various stripes but nobody with much analytical
ability.  You may be right that the electorate has lost the
distinction between reality and story-telling; in any case they
have gotten what they elected, and thus what they deserve.  To
fix this, they have to stop nominating (mostly the Democrats)
candidates who have no experience or record of substantive thought,
but only mouth the politically-correct slogans of the day.  Then
the voters have to punish the parties for allowing insubstantial
candidates to be nominated.

As if that'll happen.