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...

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. 

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.

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?

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. 

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.

response 77 of 264:

Aug 9 19:55 UTC 2003

Re 74: A recent interview with Coleman had him admitting that he was the least
qualified. Sometimes honesty is cool. As I recall, I also remember he said
that he was going to vote for the other Arnold in the election. 

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!