|
Grex > Agora46 > #121: California's Governor Gray Davis facing recall election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 264 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 52 of 264:
|
Aug 7 20:44 UTC 2003 |
Go, Ah-nuld.
If they could get another 540 million or so people on the ballot @ $65
each, then they'd wipe our the state's entire deficit. Diabolical.
|
albaugh
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 54 of 264:
|
Aug 7 22:36 UTC 2003 |
There is no evidence that "Governor Davis has lost that confidence" (of
his constituents). Only a tiny fraction of the electorate signed recall
petitions, and polls are uncertain indicators.
|
bru
|
|
response 55 of 264:
|
Aug 7 23:11 UTC 2003 |
every recall is based on a statistical belief that while x number signed the
recall, that means that x times y actually believe it is necessary.
|
klg
|
|
response 56 of 264:
|
Aug 8 02:24 UTC 2003 |
We see "evidence" aplenty. For example, this morning's Washington
Journal on C-SPAN. The fact that Ah-nuld (go, Ah-nuld!) has,
probably based on the counsel of well-connected politcal advisors,
has decided to enter the replacement race. Also, the beginning stampede
of California's other elected Democratic officials to get on the recall
ballot.
|
i
|
|
response 57 of 264:
|
Aug 8 02:42 UTC 2003 |
Re: #57
Short of every possible voter in California swearing before witnesses &
video cameras that he'd utterly lost confidence in Davis, is there anything
that would qualify as evidence in your mind?
|
scg
|
|
response 58 of 264:
|
Aug 8 06:35 UTC 2003 |
I think I'm with the conservatives on this one. The goal of requiring
petition signatures to get something on the ballot is to establish that
there's a reasonable likelyhood that something being put on the ballot might
come close to passing. You don't need to require signatures from a majority
of the voters, but from enough to see that a significant number of voters want
something.
My first thought on this was that the signature threshold has obviously been
set too low, but ignoring whether recalling Davis is a good idea and looking
only at Davis's approval ratings, perhaps the threshold was set correctly.
So, as far as I can tell, the best known candidates on the replacement ballot
are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman, and Arianna Huffington.
given that choice, I suppose I'd vote for Arianna. I don't think she's
remotely qualified, but I think she's cool, and that's more than I can say
for the others.
That doesn't mean I'm happy about having to choose between those four.
|
bru
|
|
response 59 of 264:
|
Aug 8 13:25 UTC 2003 |
Gallagher is reportedly running as well. Just what they need, a hop head
governor for a hop head state.
|
klg
|
|
response 60 of 264:
|
Aug 8 14:51 UTC 2003 |
Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. - Cal Sup Ct shoots down all
5 challenges against the recall.
CBS News reports that Davis has a job approval rating of 23%.
LA Times reporter tells NPR that Davis "doesn't have a friend in the
state" and that he's seen as a "money grubbing" politican.
Go Ah-nuld.
|
scg
|
|
response 61 of 264:
|
Aug 8 17:53 UTC 2003 |
Oh, now the leutenant governor is defying Davis and running. I don't know
anything about him, but I suppose he's the logical choice.
|
klg
|
|
response 62 of 264:
|
Aug 8 18:06 UTC 2003 |
And we heard a report that Nancy Pelosi is reconsidering.
Go, Ah-nuld.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 264:
|
Aug 8 19:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 64 of 264:
|
Aug 8 20:03 UTC 2003 |
(If I recall correctly, one of the five suits alleged that the recall should
result in a vacancy filled in the usual manner rather than a vacancy to be
filled by a concurrent special election. If that suit had proceeded and been
decided for the plaintiff, the LtGov would have become Gov upon the successful
recall of Gov Davis. Since the suit was dismissed, 'tis not so surprising
that the LtGov decided to run.)
|
richard
|
|
response 65 of 264:
|
Aug 8 20:52 UTC 2003 |
re: #51
gelinas, I think, and its only my opinion, that it would be wrong to recall
Davis. Of course constituents have the right to remove someone from office
if they have lost confidence in them. That is why there are regular
elections, and the governor must be re-elected to stay in office after four
years. This is about respecting traditions and respecting the process that
has been set up. Elections are not held every single year for a high office
like governor FOR A REASON. That reason is that the founding fathers did not
want these government institutions overly politicized. There is a term of
office so that people who get elected have a chance to serve before judgement
is again passed on them. Gray Davis was elected again last year. He has the
right to serve out his term, in my opinion, unless he's committed a crime.
Voters losing confidence isn't good enough, you are frustrated with an elected
official, you wait until the next scheduled election and you vote against him.
So it would be wrong, IMO, to recall Davis. If this goes through every state
in the country might end up having recall elections again and again. Fewer
and fewer statesmen might be able to govern anymore without having to be
constantly deal with politics and people trying to throw him out.
Gelinas you can't possibly think recalling Davis is a good thing. You can't
possibly think that unless he warrants being impeached, that he doesn't have
the right to serve out his term...
|
jep
|
|
response 66 of 264:
|
Aug 8 22:00 UTC 2003 |
While I disagree with richard about gelinas's potential thoughts, I
agree with him that Gray Davis shouldn't be recalled. In particular, I
hope he's not recalled under the extremely poorly thought out recall
method being used in California. I can't imagine an improvement
resulting from Davis being replaced by a pretty-face actor.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 67 of 264:
|
Aug 9 01:23 UTC 2003 |
You mean Gary Coleman?
Arnold was quite amusing on the morning news shows today. When he
wasn't talking around a question ("I'll be studying dat issue in depth,
but remember dat de key to goot governing is having Vision."), he was
pretending he was having trouble with the audio feed (as when asked
whether he'd release his tax returns for the last few years).
Good Luck, California.
|
russ
|
|
response 68 of 264:
|
Aug 9 01:55 UTC 2003 |
Can we stipulate that Richard is a pure Democratic partisan and just
go on from here rather than trying to argue with him?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 69 of 264:
|
Aug 9 03:51 UTC 2003 |
I've no opinion at all on whether Governor Davis should be recalled. I _do_
have an opinion on recall elections: They are part of the process. New York
may not have them, and if it does, Richard may prefer they never be used.
Other states do have, and use, recall elections. Welcome to the real world,
Richard.
|
russ
|
|
response 70 of 264:
|
Aug 9 13:10 UTC 2003 |
Re #66: Even if California's recall statute is badly thought out,
Gray Davis is probably the ideal test case for it. If his political
demise creates a movement to repeal it, GREAT! Two birds, one stone.
|
janc
|
|
response 71 of 264:
|
Aug 9 15:54 UTC 2003 |
I'm all for it. It's the funniest thing in the news for months. Gary Coleman
and Arnold Schwarenegger neck in neck for the governorship of California!
Does it get any better than this?
|
dcat
|
|
response 72 of 264:
|
Aug 9 16:27 UTC 2003 |
Don't forget Larry Flynt.
|
novomit
|
|
response 73 of 264:
|
Aug 9 16:58 UTC 2003 |
Anyone see the naked picture of A.S. just posted at rotten.com yet?
Personally, if I were from California, I'd vote for Coleman, he sounds more
honest than the others.
|
bru
|
|
response 74 of 264:
|
Aug 9 18:06 UTC 2003 |
haven't been followinfg gary's career very close lately, eh?
|
scg
|
|
response 75 of 264:
|
Aug 9 18:26 UTC 2003 |
I want to have fun with the circus. I want to see the campaign between
Schwarzenegger, Coleman, Huffington, and Flynt. I want to vote for Arianna
Huffington, since I think that would be fun.
But I think I have to vote for the leutenant governor, because he's an actual
government official with actual experience, and governor doesn't strike me
as an entry level job.
I'm left wishing we had a system somewhat like that of the UK, with a
cerimonial head of state (in their case, the queen), and somebody really in
charge of the government (in their case the prime minister). I think it would
be fun to have one of those celebrities in some important but entirely
cerimonial role.
|