|
Grex > Agora46 > #121: California's Governor Gray Davis facing recall election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 264 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 131 of 264:
|
Aug 17 22:03 UTC 2003 |
I think it would have been better to keep the 'conventional'
alphabetical order, but randomly stick a start point for each district
and treat the list as circular. That way you would randomize the person
at the top of the ballot without completely scrambling this list, and
names would be easier to find.
That's just a band-aid, though. The root of the problem is that it's
completely ridiculous to have 135 candidates on the ballot for a single
position.
|
gull
|
|
response 132 of 264:
|
Aug 17 22:04 UTC 2003 |
s/stick/pick/
|
pvn
|
|
response 133 of 264:
|
Aug 17 22:09 UTC 2003 |
stick was better.
|
russ
|
|
response 134 of 264:
|
Aug 18 03:16 UTC 2003 |
I heard on the news that the Lt. Gov. essentially made a
plea for voters to oust Davis and elect him. This marks
the onset of "every man for himself" among the Democrats.
"Et tu, Cruz?" -- Gray Davis
|
gull
|
|
response 135 of 264:
|
Aug 18 12:52 UTC 2003 |
His message all along has been "vote no, but vote for me," so he's been
talking out of both sides of his mouth for a while now.
|
slynne
|
|
response 136 of 264:
|
Aug 18 15:01 UTC 2003 |
Not really. I mean he might want all the folks who vote no to the
recall to vote for him just in case the recall passes. What is he
supposed to say "vote no but vote for Arnold?"
|
klg
|
|
response 137 of 264:
|
Aug 18 21:30 UTC 2003 |
Yes. Go, Ah-nuld.
|
richard
|
|
response 138 of 264:
|
Aug 18 22:59 UTC 2003 |
#135..the lt. governor is a democrat and is pushing the democrats
current strategy. He is encouraging everyone to vote no on the recall,
but on the recall ballot to vote for him JUST IN CASE. He's in a no
lose situation because he'll either end up governor or will
dramatically increase his name recognition/exposure in advance of the
next regular election for governor, when he'd presumably be the leading
candidate or one of them.
There are now polls showing this vote no/vote yes strategy might work,
schwarzenegger's numbers are slipping and I guess the lt. governor is
well known enough that he's seen as a safe alternative in the event the
recall goes through.
I predict here and now that the recall will fail, because voters will
realize that the only way to discourage the possibility of another
recall vote next year and the year after and every year going forward,
is to nip this one in the bud. This recall petition effort was
succesful because one candidate, Issa, is a multi millionaire and
pumped several million of his own money into heavy advertising. Which
was more than enough to get most of the people who voted AGAINST Davis
last time to sign petitions. I mean they'd have to figure why not,
they didn't vote for him in the first place. So now that the formula
for a succesful petition drive is in place, it'll happen again and
again. Unless voters express their solid preferance at the polls for
having elections every four years.
This special recall election will cost this state, in an economic
crisis, $60-75 million to put on. Surely voters will realize that no
matter how much they dislike Davis now, it isn't worth setting the
precedent and spending the money, not just this year but in years to
come. And make no mistake, if Davis is recalled, and replaced by a
Republican, there will be Democrats more than willing to spend millions
of dollars on another massive recall petition next year. Because
turnabout is fair play. The only sensible move is to stop this now.
|
russ
|
|
response 139 of 264:
|
Aug 19 11:28 UTC 2003 |
Ah-nold is pro-choice and otherwise socially liberal. His election
in California would all but certainly spell the end of the radical
right's lock on the party there. One wonders why klg is rooting for
him, when he'd be such a disaster for much of klg's agenda.
Re #138: $70 million is less than 1% of California's projected deficit.
It's idiocy to quibble about it without addressing the big-ticket
items, and that's one thing that hasn't been done under Gray Davis.
|
scott
|
|
response 140 of 264:
|
Aug 19 13:17 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, the hard right is starting to back away from Ahnold in California.
|
klg
|
|
response 141 of 264:
|
Aug 19 16:11 UTC 2003 |
We think that practically any electable Republican is preferable to a
Democrat. Ah-nuld seems to realize the key to putting the state back
on its feet is to improve the business climate by reducing tax and
regulatory burdens.
How can the state government pursue that policy without reducing
government give-aways?
|
scott
|
|
response 142 of 264:
|
Aug 19 18:49 UTC 2003 |
The current federal govt. seems to have no philosophical problem with
give-aways.
Oh, you mean give-aways to non-rich people! How silly of me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 143 of 264:
|
Aug 19 19:52 UTC 2003 |
...and give-aways to industry. I don't think klg is opposed to those. I
wonder why, though: is he an industral magnate?
I think that any electable Democrat is preferable to any Republican. Then
there would be more attention to human and enviromental issues, and less to
enriching a few industrialists.
|
gull
|
|
response 144 of 264:
|
Aug 19 20:31 UTC 2003 |
I think it's amusing to see the same people endorsing Arnold who
complain when other celebrities involve themselves in politics.
|
richard
|
|
response 145 of 264:
|
Aug 19 20:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 146 of 264:
|
Aug 19 20:42 UTC 2003 |
re: #141..klg, this idea that ANY republican is preferable to any
democrat is contrary to the complexity of american politics. Here in
New York City, our current mayor Mike Bloomberg, and former Mayor Rudy
Guiliani were both lifelong Democrats who only switched parties when
they ran for Mayor because it allowed them to sidestep the Democratic
party machine. They are flaming moderates. Pro choice,
environmentalists. Bloomberg is actually pretty liberal, he supports
legalizing gay marriages among other things. Pataki, our governor, is a
pro choice moderate. There are also Democrats in office who are more
conservative than them (New Jersey Governor McGreevey for instance) In
fact both parties are populated with
people who are centerists, and when that happens the differences
aren't that great. The party IDs become just labels. When Nixon ran
against JFK in 1960, a lot of people complained that there really
wasn't much of a choice because they AGREED on most things. Nixon was
a moderate, and so was JFK.
Arnold appears to be, as Nixon was, the kind of politician that the
right wing of the GOP hates even more than Democrats-- A Rockefeller
Republican. Arnold doesn't appear to be a Republican because of deeply
held religious beliefs or political ideology, but because he supports
big business and is fiscally conservative. But he is also socially
liberal or appears to be. That means he could easily have run as a
Democrat. But then, even if he was the same man with the same views,
you wouldn't find him acceptable?
Remember too that if Arnold gets elected, he has a wife who is an
outspoken liberal Democrat from a family of political junkies, Maria
Shriver, and she says she'll be a hands on first lady. You know that
Arnold's wife and his cousin, the senior Senator from Massachusetts,
will have his ear if he gets elected. They'll keep Arnold in line :)
|
klg
|
|
response 147 of 264:
|
Aug 20 02:46 UTC 2003 |
We think that Mr. richard needs to go back and read #141 before
lecturing us on the complexity of American politics based on what he
thinks #141 says.
|
scg
|
|
response 148 of 264:
|
Aug 20 04:41 UTC 2003 |
In Richard's last paragraph, is he saying that Ted Kennedy is Arnold's cousin,
or that Arnold's wife is a he? (anyhow, Ted Kennedy is Maria Shriver's uncle,
not cousin).
Isn't Richard also the same person who has repeatedly lectured us in the past
about the importance of voting for Democrats, since you're electing not just
a person but a party? Given the amount of appointments the governor gets to
make, that's probably pretty accurate in this case.
When Al Gore ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a lot of people complained
that there wasn't much of a choice because they agreed on most things. Wow,
did that turn out to be wrong.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 149 of 264:
|
Aug 20 07:17 UTC 2003 |
resp:143 "I think that any electable Democrat is preferable to any
Republican. Then there would be more attention to human and
enviromental issues, and less to enriching a few industrialists."
I was *so* waiting for a gem like this. More bipartisan CRAP. On the
one side, you have claims of pumping money into big business. On the
other side, you have claims of pumping money into big government.
Maybe both extremes are wasting money. You insult an Independent like
me, Spock. I'll vote any damn party I please because I'm sorry, I'm
not going to stoop to such broad, sweeping generalizations. I don't
vote platform, I vote individual-- when I do vote. Unfortunately, the
country is so likely divided that most politicans doubletalk
everything just to get their votes and then do whatever business they
were doing as usual.
Sheesh...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 150 of 264:
|
Aug 20 15:31 UTC 2003 |
You missed that my #143 gem was mocking klg's #141.
|
klg
|
|
response 151 of 264:
|
Aug 20 16:12 UTC 2003 |
(Or perhaps not.)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 152 of 264:
|
Aug 21 01:43 UTC 2003 |
Oh was it THAT biting? Oh, now I'm so depressed... it's not fair... I
gotta pick on both sides somehow; extreme lefties don't come up often
enough ;) Oh well. Will you just chalk it up to a straw man that I
had fun burning? Because I had SO much fun. Moderates *should* have
balls.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 153 of 264:
|
Aug 21 01:44 UTC 2003 |
not to mention centrists.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 154 of 264:
|
Aug 21 01:44 UTC 2003 |
just call me Dr. McCoy, Spock ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 155 of 264:
|
Aug 21 13:38 UTC 2003 |
It's hard to find moderates who are capable of getting worked up about
it. :>
|