If the latest polls are to be believed, it looks like Gray Davis's days as governor of California may be numbered. The latest Los Angles Times poll puts the numbers at 56% yes (to recall) and 42% no (don't recall), and in the recall race has Arnold beating Bustamante 40 to 32%. So Arnold could be the next governor of the largest state in the country. There are a lot of factors which could affect the outcome though. One of which is the large number of absentee ballots that have already been sent in. Arnold did well in the debate last week and is getting a big surge, but that won't help with those who may have already voted "no" by absentee. I'm betting that it will end up being really close. It still doesn't seem fair to Davis that essentially for him to stay in office, he must get 50% on the yes/no question, but Arnold or Bustamante can get elected with a simple majority (even if its less than ten percent) So Davis might in fact have more support statewide than Arnold-- were they meeting in a head to head contest where the person with the most votes wins Davis might win. But here Davis has to meet a much higher threshold. 49% of the state's voters might support him, but he has to get 50%. I think California's recall system needs overhauling. y130 responses total.
We think that *California* needs an overhauling. Go, Ah-nuld. By the way, Mr. richard: "Arnold or Bustamante can get elected with a simple majority (even if its less than ten percent)" A "majority" of "less than ten percent"? What's that? Democratic math??
If Arnold pulls a plurality of 40%, he'll have a claim to legitimacy as good as Clinton's. The California recall system is kind of wacky; a winning percentage in the 40s is about what you can expect if you have more than two competitive candidates and no runoff system. But I don't know what Arnold will be able to accomplish. The twisted California rules will still allow the GOP minority to block tax increases with only 1/3rd of the legislative seats, while the Democratic majority will have zero incentive to cooperate with Arnold in destroying social service spending.
This response has been erased.
I read a quote from Gray Davis saying the Democratic leadership has already promised another recall in retaliation if this one succeeds. If they do, I wonder when it will occur? Will they start the process of filing it immediately, or wait a year, or wait until after the next election that they don't win? I don't think anyone can govern effectively in California after this recall election. I'm still hoping the recall fails, because it looks to me the turmoil which would follow a successful recall is even more unbearable than the current situation. It might well never end.
I agree that having Gray Davis voted out, despite 49% support, with his successor possibly getting 5% of the vote, is pretty useless. I should hope that the winner would have to at least beat out the incumbant. I've heard that a "recall arnold" group is already gearing up, and plans to start collecting sigatures the day after the recall vote, if Arnold wins. If I were a California voter, I'd be calling my state representatives right now and demanding that they try to get rid of the recall laws and restore sanity to the state.
if Davis gets 49% on the recall question, and is recalled, and Arnold wins the recall ballot with 35%, then who has more support? Davis could be the candidate with the most support, but he has this higher threshold so he could lose. I think Davis should have, as he had requested, been allowed to have his name on the recall ballot as well. It is theoretically possible that he could lose the yes/no recall question, but would still have won the recal ballot race. As it is, Davis's supporters are screwed, they have a candidate who has a much higher hurdle to get over than any other candidate. How is that fair?
This response has been erased.
(...followed by Texas [where everything's bigger]...)
California deserves exactly what it gets.
of 31 recall attemts, a single one has goten this far. as for another immediate ah-nold recall, fuggetaboutit - it's a pipe dream.
for those who missed it, Sunday's Doonesbury had a clipable petition for the recall of Gov. Schwarzenegger. The mailing address was to TOTAL RECALL:c/o California Secretary of State. Why wait?
Hey, with a little bit of organization, Californians could combine the recall and replacement elections of Davis and Schwarzenegger!
My guess is the first thing Arnold will do if he's elected is try to eliminate the recall option. I'm kind of curious what people who would vote against Davis feel the biggest strike against him is. I'm not really clear on what the major complaints are.
This response has been erased.
Given what the economy did, could he have done any better? California's deficit is a smaller percentage of California GDP than the national deficit is of national GDP. Why is there so much less anger directed at Bush than at Davis?
This response has been erased.
Makes sense.
re #15: > Given what the economy did, could he have done any better? He didn't have to base California's budget on the clearly unrealistic growth projections of the dotcom boom years and he badly, badly screwed up trying to end the Californa "power crisis" a few years ago. The fact that a lot of other governors got into similar crunches by basing revenue expectation on wildly overoptimistic projections doesn't make it any more excusable in my opinion. The fact that energy producers and traders may have been trying to game the system in California's strangely deregulated energy market made Davis's position difficult but even above and beyond that difficulty he managed to achieve a spectacularly bad "solution" that combined the worst of both worlds.
ATC had an interview with a San Diego business-booster; her complaint was that Governor Davis has done nothing to improve the climate/environment for corporations, so it is hard for her to convince them to establish themselves in San Diego.
I think any recall begun before the man took office would be thrown out in court. How can you try to throw him out of an office he has not yet held?
bru, Those people will try anything.
heh-heh, yeh, they even tried davis again last november - silly ppl
re #22 Who exactly caused the California energy crisis? That's right Pete Wilson who masterminded a faulty deregulation scheme that allowed Enron (there's that name again) to jack California. Who is Arnold's chief policy advisor? Pete Wilson. Who is actually paying attention to the issues? Almost no one... Am I afraid of the outcome of this election? You betcha. Am I disgusted with the media that always smoothes over right wing lies? (Hello Fox I'm talking to you.) You betcha. Though that is perhaps a rant best saved for another item.
The Davis campaign was running commercials with a collage of pictures of
recall candidates in the background, and arguing that if Davis were recalled,
one of those candidates could win with "as little as 15% of the vote." It
wasn't at all clear to me where they got the 15% number. As others have
pointed out here, the theoretical minimum with well over 100 candidates was
a lot lower than that, and as a practical matter, given that the two major
parties were each lining up behind single candidates, the actual winner was
going to get a lot more than that. The 15% number had the appearance of being
completely made up. Furthermore, Davis has until very recently been
campaigning against a group including Larry Flynt ("and even a porn king"),
rather than against Schwarzenegger. The whole recall defense movement hasn't
seemed very credible.
I'm becoming generally disgusted with the campaign skills of the California
Democrats this time around. It seems obvious to me that in such a non-level
playing field situation, the obvious strategy would be to try to get everybody
who was voting no on the recall to also vote for a good backup candidate, but
that strategy appaears to have ripped apart the Democratic leadership, such
that Gray Davis has now gone back to not acknowledgeing the candidacy of the
Democratic replacement candidate, Cruz Bustamonte, and the Davis Campaign has
been urging Bustamonte to drop out of the race. Perhaps it doesn't matter.
Schwarzenegger is starting to look like he might get more votes than Davis.
Meanwhile, the other big thing on the ballot is Proposition 54, which bans
the state and local governments from collecting racial statistics. The
obvious argument against this seems to me to be that the very idea of the
proposal is flawed. Rather than preventing discrimination, it makes it
impossible to tell if discriminatino is occurring. Instead, the campaign
against it seems to have concluded that such an explanation is too complicated
for the voters, and is instead running with a rather contrived seeming
argument that such a regulation would impair medical research. A more recent
set of ads, which are turning into a big fundraising scandal, features Cruz
Bustamonte speaking agianst Proposition 54. At least, he appears to be
speaking against it, but the Bustamonte speech in the commercial is being
entirely drowned out by cheering, a cheering crowd seemingly oblivious to
what's being said. Of course, these are really creatively funded Bustamonte
campaign commercials, not anti-Proposition 54 commercials, but the idea
appears to be that if we see images of large crowds erupting in non-stop
cheering at the site of Bustamonte, maybe we'll conclude that he's a fat
balding middle-aged star or sensation, rather than a not all that telegenic
politician.
I haven't actually met anybody who will admit to planning to vote for
Schwarzenegger, but maybe my part of the state is weird that way.
Meanwhile, the Schwarzenegger scandals continue. During the only debate he's
taken part in, Arianna Huffington accused him of disrespecting women, and he
responded by offering to stuff her head in a toilet. His popularity went up.
Today he apologized for his bad judgement in groping or trying to pull the
clothes off six different women, all of whom were working for him, on several
different occasions. His popularity went up, with people saying they were
impressed by the apology. He's still refusing to answer questions about how
he'll fix the state's problems, other than saying that he'll fix them, and
his popularity is going up with people saying they're impressed that he's not
letting the media push him around. I don't get it.
I turned on the radio earlier today, and caught a snippet of one of the NPR call-in shows. The caller was commenting on how nice it was to see the Republicans, who still castigate Bill Clinton and campaign against immigration, lining up behind a pot smoking immigrant who gropes women.
Re #54: > Meanwhile, the other big thing on the ballot is Proposition 54, > which bans the state and local governments from collecting > racial statistics. "If you don't want to know the answer, just don't ask the question." I think Arnold's campaign strategy is unintentionally brilliant, actually. If you never take any positions, no one will strongly disagree with you. And California is all about image over substance.
i think it's GREAT that arnie is going to be the governor of california. DADA Lives on!
This response has been erased.
According to news reports, Arnold is running on two big issues: 1. He promises to rescind a bill Davis has promised to sign, which would allow illegal immigrants the opportunity to obtain driver's licenses. This stance is getting Arnold called a racist by latino activists in the state, who claim that if the majority of illegal immigrants were white-- and not latino-- this wouldn't even be an issue because the state needs money badly, and allowing these people to get licenses and buy auto insurance would provide a badly needed revenue stream. They say Arnold wants to relegate undocumented immigrants, of which there are many in California, to permanent second class status. 2. Arnold also promises to rescind the tripling of car license fees that is due to take effect. This is another issue which could get a lot of votes. But the fact is it sounds like Arnold is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The state is in desperate financial shape, and yet he wants to roll back tax increases, and kill two bills which were passed specifically to create desperately needed revenue streams. So where is Arnold going to get the money, if you don't want to raise taxes and you don't want to do things like raise license fees and make it possible for more salary earners in the state to have licenses and thus pay fees and pay insurance? The only thing I've heard Arnold mention, in the way of raising new money, is he's going to try and find ways to shake down the Tribal owners of the state's Indian casinos. So lets see Arnold, you are going to cut taxes so you and your rich mostly white friends will benefit. You are going to rollback the car license fees, so you and your rich mostly white friends who have fleets of cars in your driveways will benefit. You are going to shake down the Indian tribes for money. You are going to disallow undocumented immigrants, mostly poor latinos, from being able to pay their fair share and from being able to rise out of their situations (drivers licenses would allow them to open bank accounts and do other things which could better their lives) It seems clear to me, Arnold is going to widen the gap between the rich and the poor in the state, between the upper and lower classes. Between the rich whites in Orange County and the poor latinos who work in the Orange groves and other farms. Exactly how is this going to make the state of California better?
This response has been erased.
WEll, we could start by making the illegal aliens apply for visas and become legal aliensm then they could get drivers licenses and do other things legally.
(re-posted with a couple of glaring typos corrected..) > So lets see Arnold, you are going to cut taxes so you and your rich > mostly white friends will benefit. You are going to rollback the car > license fees, so you and your rich mostly white friends who have fleets > of cars in your driveways will benefit. Try not to be ludicrous. In the circles of genuinely rich people that Schwarzenegger surely moves in, car registration fees are undoubtedly chump change. Triple car registration fees isn't an issue intended to reward wealthy patrons but it's almost guaranteed to resonate strongly with the middle class, to whom it makes a difference. > It seems clear to me, Arnold is going to widen the gap between the rich > and the poor in the state, between the upper and lower classes. And it seems to me that that gap is going to widen whether it's Schwarzenegger, Davis, or Bustamante who winds up governor when this whole mess is settled. I'd be genuinely surprised if you could come up with any evidence that the income gap narrowed during the Davis/Bustamante administration (except possibly in the immediate aftermath of the dotcom crash, but it's hard to give Davis & Bustamante credit for an event they'd have probably done nearly anything in their power to prevent.) And if the current governor and his wannabe replacement, the other two likeliest-looking hopefuls, haven't done anything to reverse the widening gap between rich and poor is it really fair to single out Schwarzenegger for criticism on this count? As much as I find the idea of a Schwarzenegger governorship ludicrous, nothing does more to convince me to take it seriously as a possibility than the political non-sequiturs being spewed forth by Davis's and Bustamante's campaigns. Listening to any of the three of them, it warms my heart to think that I don't live in California, whose voters really do seem headed for the kind of government they deserve..
re 29 I don't think Arnie reads GreX bbs
I hear Arnold has promised to let Ken Lay off the hook if he's elected. Hardly surprising from someone who is basically Wilson's puppet.
Arnold is suffering a backlash due to allegations that he groped women in the past. One woman says he tried to rape her. The Oakland Tribune withdrew its endorsement. Maybe the head of steam Arnold had coming off the debate a week ago is finally disappating.
#32: Me too. The only (major) candidate I really appreciate in that race is the Green party candidate. He's apparently not running to win, but to steal enough votes from Bustamante so that the Dems start to see that IRV would really be in their best interest....
Ha! Mr. richard is funny!!: Illegal aliens are second class citizens?? (We presume the remainder of his response is a joke, too.)
Michigan's recall law does not allow an official to be recalled during the first N months of a term. (I forget the precise value of N, but it's probably six.) In other words, you can't start hounding a Michigan politician out of office the moment they get elected. As I recall, California has no such bar. The signature requirement for a recall election in Michigan is very large: 25% of the number of votes cast for governor in the constituency of the official in question. I'm not sure what California requires, but I believe it is drastically less. Many states, especially in the East and South, don't provide for the possibility of recall at all. The bizarre aspects of California's law is (1) the simultaneous recall and election of a replacement, and (2) the lack of any kind of primary or nomination process, hence, an "open" election with an unlimited number of candidates. Presumably the rationale is that, once an official is removed, filling the office is a matter of urgency, and there isn't time to hold a primary. Some states, for example Texas, used to hold all special elections this way. If a congressman died in mid-term, they'd hold a y'all-come style election with dozens of candidates, and the number 1 votegetter would win. That worked well as long as all of the candidates were Texas Democrats, but eventually a few Republicans (a tiny minority in 1940s Texas) sneaked into office that way, and the process was revised. Here in Michigan, the recall and replacement elections are held separately. Even so, it is obviously assumed that there isn't time to hold a primary; hence, if it is a partisan office, the political party committees themselves nominate candidates for the replacement election.
er, that should be /bizarre aspects of California's law are/, not /... is/
klg, YOUR relatives were once illegal aliens ya know. At some point you had relatives move to this country who were not citizens and presumably moved here on their own to make a better life. And even those who are illegal aliens, if they have children in this country, those children are u.s. citizens. this is about classism, pure and simple. and klg doesn't care, because klg thinks his race, his class, his country, his everything is better than anyone else's. sheesh. , ./
re #40: unless you have specific knowledge of klg's family history, which is doubtful given the broadness of the second sentence of your post, you're either making a huge assumption or confusing the idea of "immigrant" with that of "illegal alien." Here's a hint, the adjective in "illegal alien" is a significant part of the phrase.
I dont have any ancesters who came here as illegal aliens. Sure, they all were immigrants but they all came here legally.
(If INS or whatever it is now called would grant visas without first deporting people, illegal aliens might consider applying for visas.)
This response has been erased.
Quoth richard: >And even those who are illegal aliens, if they have children in this country, >those children are u.s. citizens. Thereby giving those children a benefit due solely to their parents' violation of the law, and the parents in turn (their children are citizens). Other countries do not grant such boons to scofflaws, and it's long past time that we revoked ours.
'twould require a constitutional amendment.
At least one of my putative ancestors came to the U.S. in violation of the laws of his country of origin.
I think it is fair that anyone born in this country is a citizen of this country even if their parents are here illegally.
The story is that my grandfather (who lived in or near Warsaw) was drafted into the Russian army (20 year term), escaped, was caught and drafted again, and killed someone to escape a second time before he emigrated to NYC.
It is also a problem with regard to Mexico's "brain Drain" . Profsssionals in Mexico are making appointments and having their babies in the U.S. to get their children a better future and themselves access to the country. (there is a visa for parents of Citizen children, and for their siblings)
There wouldnt be a problem with "brain drain" if our so called free trade agreement applied to labor too. We should just let any Canadians and Mexicans into this country to work and vice versa. Imagine how *that* would shake things up.
(I'm reading Peter Drucker's "Managing in the Next Society." He's made very similar points several times, and I'm only on starting the fifth essay. Except it's not just labor; the new commodity is information.)
You caught us there, Mr. richard. How on earth did you find out that our grandparents swam across the Atlantic Ocean in order to avoid passing through Ellis Island?? (It was a closely protected family secret.) He is one sharp guy, ain't he! (Also, a person may be born a citizen even if only one of is parents is in the U.S. It would, I presume, have to be a particular parent.)
klg, what you think every immigrant came through Ellis Island? hardly, many came on smaller boats and deported elsewhere. Even if your ancestors did, there are plenty of people who have become or became productive citizens who did not enter in the normal places or legally. But there is a double standard because most european immigrants were white, and not feared, whereas most immigrants out in California and Texas are latinos or asians. The people like Arnold who want to enact all these strict new laws on immigration, are really acting out of fear, a fear of the changi ng racial demogrpahics in this country. \.
We appreciate your clearing that up.
Oh. My. Arnold is an immigrant. Recent, even, since he came over as an adult. Yet he fears immigrants? Curiouser and curiouser.
#57...read what I said, Arnold is a EUROPEAN immigrant. The immigrants coming into California and Texas are largely latinos and asians. Not white europeans. If you don't think racial politics plays into it, you are being naive. I would bet anything that if all those immigrants coming to California were white europeans like Arnold, he would not have those views. btw, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who is pretty wealthy, is promising to personally fund an immediate effort to recall Arnold if he's elected. The partisan politics in California seem particularly fierce. If the republicans succeed in getting Davis recalled, I don't believe the democrats will rest until a republican is recalled. There will be a recall effort next year, and the year after, and the year after. IMO the only way to nip this thing in the bud, and save California years of political misery and expensive petition drives and recall elections, is to vote this one down. To say, as emphatically as possible, that elections should only be held when they are regularly scheduled to be held.
Actually, I'd bet that if the European immigrants were illegals, in the numbers we see from Mexico et al, he'd feel exactly the same way about them.
Re #57: I'd guess the first thing whoever comes out of this as governor will do is try to change or eliminate the recall option. Overall that would be a good thing, since clearly it's a poorly thought out law. Sort of like how the independent prosecutor law wasn't renewed after the Republicans' massive multi-year, multi-million-dollar fishing expedition made everyone realize how flawed it was.
In Germany (which I realize is not the same as Austria) the Turkish immigrants come over in droves because they can get jobs there. They are viewed with much the same mix of vague fear, disgust or mistrust that Latin- or African- Americans tend to find in this country.
re: #59...wouldn't arnold look hypocritical if he gets elected governor through a recall election, and then moved to eliminate or change the recall option?
It would only look hypocritical if everyone didn't already expect him to do it.
I'm surprised the legislature hasn't already started looking into it.
Good if recall procedure changes become effective afther the next regular election.
My understanding is that the recall option would have to be changed by the voters, not the legislature. I suspect there will be some strengthening of the procedures for keeping non-serious candidates off the ballot, but doubt there will be much support for getting rid of recalls entirely. I voted around 11:30 am (the polls are open from 8 am to 8 pm, I think). My temporary consolodated polling place turned out to be somebody's rather cramped one car garage. The table where the poll workers were sitting was right behind the voters, facing the voting screens, so there was no secret ballot. It didn't look to me like there would have been enough room to do things differently, given the space provided. There wasn't a line (unlike my last time voting in the normal polling place, which took more than an hour), but I think I overheard somebody say that out of around 1,000 registered voters for that precinct, 300 had already voted, which would either be really phenominal turnout, indicate that nobody was waiting until after work to vote, or indicate that I heard one of the numbers incorrectly. Still, I'll take high turnout in North Berkeley as good news, and hope it isn't matched in more conservative areas. The messy part of the ballot was the replacement election. Cruz Bustamonte's name was several screens deep on the electronic voting machine. I'm not sure where Ah-nold's name was, since I didn't look for it.
NPR has been saying that turnout seems to be high. I thought I heard that the recall procedures were in the constitution, so yeah, it makes sense that the changes would have to be made by the electorate. But who proposes them? "Grandfathering" of such things usually protects current office-holders until their next election. The changes I would expect to see are to the threshold for getting a recall on the ballot, and to the threshold for getting replacements on the ballot. _Perhaps_ the change will include separate balloting for the two. (NB: I do NOT think it reasonable to allow people just recalled to run for the positions they were forced to vacate.)
Unlike some people, I do have a problem with Mexicans and such coming here illegally. They may be a boon to the low-wage sector of the economy, but if you made them pay for bilingual education and the other special services they require I'll bet that they'd stay home. This means that the public is subsidizing the difference, and losing a bundle on the deal. How American can someone be if they don't even speak the language? I'd be happy to pay another ten cents a pound for my chicken so that Tyson can make the job safe and rewarding enough to attract workers from this side of the border. Besides, if these jobs are so bad that workers are disabled by repetitive-stress injuries, it's not fair to anyone to work them.
"how american can someone be if they can't even speak the language?" uh...which one? lakota? hopi? anishinabe? choctaw? mandan?
#67..."how american can someone be if they don't speak the language" "if you made them pay for bilingual educa tion and the other special sservices they require I'll bet that they'd stay home" russ you in my personal opinion are indicating racist feelings with those comments. also have you ever lived in a large city like new york? if you had, you'd know there are many MANY people who are americans but who speak little or no english. English isn't "the language", you aren't american because you can or can't speak english.
(But not knowing the language does make it hard to participate in the political debate. Sure, you may get a bilingual ballot, but are the arguments for and against going to be in both languages?)
What fraction of voters read fully the arguments for and against a proposal or person? They mostly get their information verbally, via the media and personal contacts (with equally poorly informed voters). I suspect that persons that do not know English but live in their ethnic communities, are not particuarly less well informed than the English speaking community, especially on matters and candidates that are of direct concern to them.
You are probably right, Rane. I'm not likely to hear their thoughts, though.
Certainly not as continually as thoughts expressed in the language of the majority (if you are a member of that language group). However minority opinions from other language communities do have spokespersons, although their voices, even though in English, do not get as widely reported.
Regarding the results: Ick. The touch screen voting machine gave a choice between getting the ballot in English, Spanish, or some other language, Mandarin probably. But even in California, non-US citizens can't vote. The rights of illegal immigrants issue is really an extension of hte California vs. the rest of the US issue. California in many ways operates like a quasi-independant country rather than a US state (and is big enough for that to work fairly well most of the time). Illegal immigrants are a rather large part of the California population and the California workforce, Spanish is a major language here, and California law is starting to recognize that. I don't see much of a contridiction in California giving as many rights as it can to those not in the US legally. I suspect if California were allowed to control its own immigration policy, those immigrants wouldn't be illegal at all.
Yeah. Those immigrants are a very important part of the labor force in California. I think the answer to the immigrant problem is to not only have free trade of goods in North America but to have free trade in labor too.
Re #74: > But even in California, non-US citizens can't vote. Though that doesn't stop "B-1 Bob" Dornan from complaining on every single show he does that the illegal immigrant vote cost him his election.
re: "#74 (scg): . . . But even in California, non-US citizens can't vote." (Shh. Don't let Mr. richard know they are being treated as 2nd class citizens.) And, is what we heard true about participation in this election greater that in any previous gubernatorial election?? Gee, that must make Swartzeneggar the most legitimate governor in Cal. history! So, now that Ah-nuld is the gubernator-elect, who's moving to Canada?? (And, don't forget to write.)
This response has been erased.
Re #77: Why would I move to Canada because California did something stupid? The great thing about states is that there are 50 of them.
you can bet the recall arnold movement is starting today. arnold's i mage was really tarnished by all those sexual harrassment charges. I find it interesting that all those republicans who acted holier than thou over Clinton's indiscretions and voted to impeach him, were falling all over themselves to vote for Arnold for Governor despite all the women who said he groped or sexually assaulted them. Whats the message? democrats held to higher moral standards than republicans>?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
And there was a report of Davis "manhandling" a 60+ year old staffer of his. Recall AS over this? The people had the chance to do that by not voting for him. Get a grip, richard.
If a recall Arnold effort is put into motion, who do the Democrats have to put up against him? Davis and Bustamente won't be viable.
This response has been erased.
The Dems could always run the California-Kennedy, Maria Schriver.
This response has been erased.
What vote totals I could find: Davis out 4,400,000 votes Davis in 3,600,000 votes 1 Schwarzeneger 3,700,000 votes 2 Bustamante 2,400,000 votes 3 McClintock 1,000,000 votes 4 Camejo 210,000 votes (green party) 5 Huffington 40,000 votes (dropped out a week ago) 6 Ueberroth 20,000 votes (dropped out a month ago) 7 Flynt 14,000 votes (Hustler publisher) 8 Coleman 12,000 votes (child star) 10 Carey 9,300 votes (porn star) 16 Gallagher 4,800 votes (comic)
Re #86: I guess voting for a candidate that has no positions on issues is one way to avoid being lied to.
Richard, you (in my personal opinion) are exhibiting your excellent command of knee-jerk PC responses. Illegal aliens are lawbreakers, and should not get off more lightly than people who go 10 MPH over the speed limit. And for your information, the vast majority of the country is nothing like NYC (and thank goodness); someone who can get along in an enclave in NYC would be just another hapless tourist in the vast majority of the nation. They wouldn't be able to be part of much because they couldn't *communicate*. (Incidentally, you're deficient there too.) Because I knew there would be someone piping up with a POV like Richard's, I saved this little gem from today's Houston Chronicle. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2143275 Immigrate legally or pay price [Regarding the Oct. 6 Viewpoints letter from Carlos Sanchez, "Hispanics truly exploited":] If Hispanics are exploited in this nation as a labor force, it is because they allow it. It is said that Hispanic immigrants will do all the jobs other Americans won't do. That's not exactly the case, but they are willing to take menial jobs for low pay. If they'd take the time to learn the language and assimilate the culture, they'd find themselves not so limited in the opportunities that are available to them. Moreover, if they'd take the front door into the nation and immigrate legally, they'd be availing themselves of the same set of systems as [can be utilized by] any citizen. I know successful Hispanic businessmen who employ only English-speaking, documented workers. It's in the best interest of their businesses to do so. And it's not a few "fat businessmen" who prosper from this system: Cheap labor benefits us all to some extent. That is why we continue to allow it. The price of illegal entry into and refusal to fully participate in a nation does and should result in a reduction to legal protection. Berry Muhl, Houston
Re 89. I see you omitted the 9th-place finisher, who got more than 10,000 votes. He was the highest-ranking candidate among the "unknowns" who got no media attention. He finished ahead of the porn star. Hmmm, so in the absence of any news coverge or other free media, why was the #9 candidate so much stronger than any of the other "unknowns"? Great TV commercials? An inspiring stump speech? A local base of support? Nope. His name was Schwartzman. And I bet most of his votes came from precincts where he was listed ahead of Schwarzenegger on the ballot.
simon finished farther down than the porn quean. must suck t be simon. btw, being 'exploited' in america is WAYFARBETTER tahn being respected i mexico - think about it for a couple seconds.
I hadn't known about Schwartzman. I had to dig the vote counts out several different articles, and I had to round them off to make them agree.
(while listening to the BBC last night, I heard someone suggest that Schwarznegger's gubernatorial run was a warm-up for a possible run at the White House. if you don't know what's wrong with that assessment, don't raise your hand; I don't want to know who you are.)
Was it Dan Rather asking Arnold that some Senators were suggesting legislation to change that? He replied that he had no aspiration to high office.
He could run for First Gentleman (First Husband?)
Heard on the radio that this was the 31st recall "election" in California, and only the first one to "succeed".
Yeah, I've been hearing things like "the first recall in a hundred years" or "first governor to be recalled in a hundred years." I've not cared enough to hunt up the facts.
I think the story was that this was California's second time a governor had ever faced a recall election, and this one was the first one to succeed. The other previous recall elections have been for local offices, and there've been several of those. There was apparrently a Berkeley city council member who was recalled a couple decades ago, so at least one local recall election has succeeded.
How many registered voters does CA have?
Re #96: It would take more than just legislation. There has been some talk of a Constitutional amendment to change that rule, though; the current proposal would allow anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for 35 years to run. I saw Pat Buchanan frothing about this on MSNBC the other night.
(He can run; he just can't take office.)
For once, klg is right about something.
(You are too kind, Mr. polygon. We shall keep trying to meet such lofty standards.)
re: "#80 (richard): . . . arnold's image was really tarnished by all those sexual harrassment charges." We are catching up on past reading, Mr. richard. How do you feel about the following information in the Monday, 1/6 opinionjournal.com?? " . . . the L.A. Daily News . . .published an op-ed by Jill Stewart, who asks why the Times hasn't subjected the governor to a similar investigation: 'Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an 'office batterer' who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.' Stewart recounts her own reporting on Davis, which appeared in 1997 in the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles: Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office. He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. . . She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him. . . . Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs. . . Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and 'shook me until my teeth rattled.' Stewart writes that while she was researching the New Times story she 'crossed paths' with L.A. Times reporters looking into the same allegations. But the Old Times never published the story. 'When I spoke to a reporter involved,' Stewart recounts, 'he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources. Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.'. . ."
This response has been erased.
Jon Stewart on the "Daily Show" reported that Schwarzenegger was "devastated" by winning the election. "It was an ego trip that went horribly wrong," the pseudo-reporter said. "He tried to stop it -- where do you think all those groping allegations came from? He even said he admired Adolf Hitler. But that train had already left the station. Now he has to move to Sacramento and live in the [bleep]-hole of a governor's mansion."
I love The Daily Show
It wasn't Jon Stewart, though, it was one of the other people on the show. I forget who. Hilarious piece, though.
Swarzenegger's accusers weren't anonymous, so if that were really the Times's whole reasoning, they weren't being inconsistent. I suspect a lot of the editorial decision involved deeper questions of credibility. Given that it's presumably pretty easy to find out who Davis's loyal 62 year old secretary was at a given point, it's very likely she wasn't the anonymous source.
what's gong to be most intersting is what the report of teh OUTSIDE AUDITORS happens to be. putting a state on teh model of a capitalistic enterprise is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyb longoverdue.
Given the way some high-profile "capitalistic enterprises" have been run, I don't think running the government should be done the same way.
Heh, no kidding. I can imagine the headlines: 'California forced to restate third-quarter earnings.' ;>
Actually, there are a lot of problems with government accounting, which is why they came up with GASB 34. (That's "gazz-bee-thir-tee-four", for those of you who aren't accounting geeks or readers of local government budget documents.) GASB 34 is a colossal shift of government accounting standards toward private sector accounting standards, and it is about time. Governments have been getting away with all kinds of accounting crap that no business would be allowed to do. For example, state and local governments are being required for the first time to account for their assets, their buildings and roads and bridges and so forth. Instead of being free money, deferred maintenance will show up in financial statements as diminished value of capital. Also, each governmental unit is required under GASB 34 to do consolidated statements, instead of hiding lots of stuff in a cryptic maze of "special funds". It will be possible for the first time to actually compare financial statements across different local and state governments. (Maybe that's why some folks hate GASB 34.) Even better, governments will no longer be allowed to offer up all kinds of financial bizarreness with only a shrug. GASB 34 requires an explicit statement clearly explaining changes in financial position. The goal here is to make government budgets and financial reports more complete and less cryptic. Next time you hear some bureaucrat bellyaching about all the work to implement GASB 34, remind them of this!
Hmmm. Don't attempts to audit the books of large government entities often return "FATAL ERROR - too many accounting records were never kept, are in error, or are missing; audit unable to figure out what they have, what they owe, or where the money's been going."?
Yeah. They neglect to pay someone to make up the numbers like large corporations do.
How large, Walter? The Army has its own audit agency, to check up on its commands and units.
Re: #118 I've no idea whether the Army has accounting problems, but they are far above the minimum for "large". Enron probably had a large staff of auditors, too...the devil is in the details.
This response has been erased.
Re 116. No, a governmental unit which couldn't get an auditor's letter would be unable to borrow money. That would be disastrous. I have not heard about any large government units being unauditable, at least, not in recent years.
This response has been erased.
What's DISA?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
/tpryan catches up on reading
I thought that everyone learning English was once the liberal,
society changing thing to do.
I think it came from the labor movement of the late 19th
Century, particularly the mining unions. The idea was that the
union could not have solidarity if they could not talk to each
other. Germans, French, Welsh, English and other nationalities
learned that now they could act as a unit, instead of suspision
of those of other languages. 'The Man' would have loved to deal
with each group, each less than half the workforce, by themselves.
Interesting. Apparently times and circumstances have changed somewhat.
The west branch library in Ann Arbor has an interesting pumpkin with a picture of Schwarzenegger and some comments.
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=whore&sa= N&t ab=wi&meta= Very few of those pictures are of real whores, but the ones taht are are gems.
DON"T VIEW THAT AT WORK
You have several choices: