response 31 of 264:

Jul 30 21:34 UTC 2003

There is actually some sentiment, from some of the stuff I've read, 
from Democrats to recall Davis.  Not that they signed the petition or 
in general support the idea of recalling someone who just got elected 
and hasn't committed a crime.  But face facts, next year is a 
Presidential election year.  If Gray Davis continues to be as unpopular 
next year, the GOP will hang Davis around the neck of whoever the 
Democratic party nominee is.  "A vote for Kerry is a vote for Gray 
Davis...end the Davis/Kerry regime" .etc  Thats what might end up 
happening and the Democrats can't afford to lose California in the 
Presidential race, or even have it be so close that they have to pour 
millions into that race that they could be spending in Florida or 
Michigan.  

So there will be some Democrats who will think it better to swallow the 
bad medicine now and go ahead and recall Davis.  Thats why one report I 
read today said Senator Dianne Feinstein and SF Mayor Willie Brown have 
been approached about running.

It puts the California Democratic Party in a bind to be sure.  If they 
are convinced Davis will lose the recall vote, maybe they go to him and 
ask him to resign first or something...

response 33 of 264:

Aug 1 07:17 UTC 2003

Re 31.  If there is a serious chance of GWB carrying California in 2004,
then the Democratic nominee might as well hang it up anyway.

From the standpoint of a state party, how the state votes for president
is interesting but not directly relevant.  Holding the governorship is
critical by comparison.

response 35 of 264:

Aug 1 17:58 UTC 2003

o really?

(wysskers) sent me a thing from vh1's news website saying that some punk
singer (pre-Dead Kennedys punk) is going to run, but I can't remember either
the man's name nor that of his band.

response 37 of 264:

Aug 1 19:30 UTC 2003

That (#35) would likely be Jello Biafra.

response 39 of 264:

Aug 2 23:34 UTC 2003

apparently to run for governor on the recall ballot, all you need is
$3,500 and sixty signatures.  Which means just about anyone who lives
there could run.  There could be two hundred candidates on the recall
ballot and the winner might become governor with less than 10%

Larry Flynt could win as well as anyone else, he's going to more more well
known than most other names.  Unless Arnold runs, which it doesn't look
like he will.

Heck, SCG maybe you oughta run.   You could get sixty signatures just
standing out on a street cornerin san francisco one afternoon, and with
that and $3,500, you could boast for the rest of your life that one time
you did in fact run for Governor of California.  Your name would be on the
ballot, and you could get your own framed copy for posterity!  :)

response 41 of 264:

Aug 3 20:28 UTC 2003

He'd have to die first, no?

response 43 of 264:

Aug 4 23:58 UTC 2003

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/04/davis.recall/index.html

this story gets even more confusing.  now according to above story,
California Governor Gray Davis has filed suit, asking for the right to
be on the recall ballot himself.  So if Davis gets recalled, he could win
the recall vote and be voted back in for another term.  He'd become a four
term governor.

Davis's argument seems logical, that it isn't fair that he has to get more
than 50% of the recall question to stay in office, but anyone on the
recall ballot if he doesn't get over 50%, can then get elected governor
with just a plurality, even less than 10%.  Meaning that Davis could have
more support than anyone else by a wide margin and still lose.  He could
get 49.9% support on the yes/no recall question, and lose, while somebody
else could get elected with 10% or less.  So he wants to be able to have
his name on the recall ballot.  So he could in theory replace himself as
governor.  Its convoluted, but he's got a valid argument in my opinion.  

Davis is also asking for the recall election to be postponed until next
March, when 


March when it could be held at the same time as the presidential primary. 
That would save the state from having to pay for an extra election, and would
benefit Davis since the Democrats will have a heavily contested presidential
primary and the Republicans won't (Bush running unopposed obviously)  

response 45 of 264:

Aug 5 00:30 UTC 2003

whoops, my mistake, Davis is in his second term, not his third.  But if he
loses the recall vote, and is officially recalled, his second term legally
ends.  So if he were to lose the recall question, but then also appeared 
on the recall ballot and won, then he'd have been recalled and then
voted back in.

It would thus probably be considered a new term, not a continuance of the
old one (unless of course he wins the recall question itself)  Davis would
probably have to get sworn back in again and everything.

I expect that the GOP will oppose Davis being allowed to run as a
potential replacement for himself, since there will be some voters who
will think that voting to recall Davis is a sufficient venting of their
anger at him, and they would then be willing to vote him back in rather
than having anybody else coming in to serve out an incomplete term

response 47 of 264:

Aug 5 02:14 UTC 2003

re:  "#43 (richard): . . . Its convoluted, but he's got a valid argument 
in my opinion. . . ."

Unfortuantely for Mr. richard, doesn't a pesky little detail such as the 
recall statute get in the way??

response 49 of 264:

Aug 7 18:56 UTC 2003

Not only has Arnold Schwarzenegger declared his candidacy for governor 
of California, but so has former child star Gary Coleman, and Hustler 
publisher Larry Flynt.

One report says there might be upwards of 500 people on the ballot.  Of 
course there might not be a recall, as there are numerous challenges to 
its legality that have been filed in court by Gray Davis, and by 
advocacy groups (the aclu for one I think)  

Arnold might be an interesting candidate, but he should run in 2006, 
thats when there's supposed to be another election.  Recalling Davis 
when he has committed no crime, and is perfectly capable of serving out 
the term to which he was legally and rightfully elected by the people, 
would be wrong.  

response 51 of 264:

Aug 7 20:22 UTC 2003

Several times, you've said something like, "Recalling Davis when he has
committed no crime, and is perfectly capable of serving out the term
to which he was legally and rightfully elected by the people, would
be wrong."  Bluntly, you are _wrong_.  Impeachment is the method of
removing an incuimbent who has comitted a crime.  Recall is the method
of removing an incumbent who has lost the confidence of his constitutents.

Apparently, Governor Davis has lost that confidence.  An election is the
right way to test that loss.

response 53 of 264:

Aug 7 21:35 UTC 2003

Also heard on the radio news this morning that the Lt. Governor is now
planning to run for guv as part of this would-be replacement vote.