Flynt for gov?

[Troll]

kerfer tried to put words in my mouth. You asked me about that, not about the special election issue, in your first post on this thread. That is what irks me; not the political issue, but kerfer's lack of manners in assigning his opinion to me. If you continue to try to confuse the two issues, I will assume your are living up to your user name.

Fine.

Now will you answer my question as to what you meant exactly with the " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans." comment so that we can discuss the actual subject?

 

[RC]

I won't deny that I feel that what you suggested is the higher road to take. But a recall is allowed and apparently enough people thought it a good idea. Do we listen to the people or do we play prop 187 all over again? I was a Californian that went for 187. I was a pissed off Californian when it got overturned

Troll, I'm not arguing that the recall should be thrown out by the courts. You are correct that it is allowed. I think the rules are f**ed, but I respect that they are the rules. So, I will vote NO on the recall out of principle and hope that others do the same.

I disagree with you that "enough" people thought it was a good idea. I need to do some research, but I do think the number of people who signed the petition is a pretty small percentage of registered voters. I think we need some reform on the recall rules in CA.

 

[Troll]

Troll, I'm not arguing that the recall should be thrown out by the courts. You are correct that it is allowed. I think the rules are f**ed, but I respect that they are the rules. So, I will vote NO on the recall out of principle and hope that others do the same.

I disagree with you that "enough" people thought it was a good idea. I need to do some research, but I do think the number of people who signed the petition is a pretty small percentage of registered voters. I think we need some reform on the recall rules in CA.

Again I will agree with ya. Just like prop 187 being tossed out because of a very small number of people. My point wasn't numbers by way of sheer numbers, but that of enough people as prescribed by law. Perhaps it would be a good start to increase that number to force the issue of recall?

 

[kerfer]

If you want to control both sides of the conversation, go into your bathroom and talk to the mirror. Otherwise don't try to put words in my mouth.

Control both sides?

Attempt to put words in your mouth?

I did no such thing in either case.

I was merely pointing out that this recall wasn't some "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (tm HRC)", which was my inferrence from what you said, but rather, a grass-roots campaign, following the Constitution of the State of California, to rid the state of an incompetant governor.

Unless you intend to imply that everyone who downloaded a petition off the internet, and had their friends who agreed with it sign it (or sign one that a friend downloaded) is "the Repbulicans", but that's not what I inferred from your comment.

Perhaps your coarse manners and why no one will speak to you and you do not hear alternate points of view.

I notice that you'd rather fling ad hominems than answer the point.

I also note that several others have asked you to answer to this point, and you have refused.

If you wish to apologize for the name calling you've done in this thread, and attempt to discuss this issue like adults, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. You may have a point that I'm missing. However, if you'd rather just stick to name calling, I have better things to do.

 

[Random]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the Lieutenant Governor take over as governor of California if they vote to recall Davis? I don't know why the ballot is even bringing up the issue of these (200+???) nutballs.

Then again, what do I know? I'm on the other end of the country...

 

[kerfer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the Lieutenant Governor take over as governor of California if they vote to recall Davis? I don't know why the ballot is even bringing up the issue of these (200+???) nutballs.

Then again, what do I know? I'm on the other end of the country...

Here's an article that addresses that question...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92615,00.html
the gist of it is that

According to the state Constitution, once the recall qualifies, the lieutenant governor calls for a replacement election, and "if appropriate," a vote to elect a successor. Some say that gives Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante wiggle room to decide that if Davis is ousted, a replacement vote is not appropriate and he could keep the job for himself.
...
Recall organizers say such a move would be a serious abuse of power, and clearly violates the will of more than 1.6 million Californians who have signed the recall petition (search).
...
Both sides agree it would be a bold move on Bustamante's part. But even if the lieutenant governor doesn't act, other Democrats could still turn the issue into a protracted courtroom battle, arguing that if Davis is recalled, by law, Bustamante should be governor.

Even Democratic analysts call it a risky move.

"Gray Davis' argument against the recall right now is that it's all a Republican plot to take over the state. Well, if the Democratic lieutenant governor announces that he's the successor, if the recall succeeds, then it can't be a Republican plot to take over the state," (political consultant Susan) Estrich said.

I hope this article answers your questions...it seems to me, though, that even though the recall seems to be a done deal, there is still much passing of the football to be attempted by the current governor and his henchmen.

 

[Random]

So the only reason California is going through this is because Bustamante doesn’t have the guts to say, “If you vote Gray out, I get the job”? What a crock! Are we really expected to believe that this electoral farce is better than a clearly defined order of succession?

I mean come on! The more I learn about the ballot initiative, the less I like it. If forty percent of the voters say that Davis should stay, he is booted from office. If after that, twenty-five percent say Issa should take over, and he has the most votes, Issa takes over even though more people wanted to keep Davis than vote Issa into office. That is to say nothing of the candidacies of multiple Gray Davises, the Terminator, Michael Jackson, Bill Murray, Larry Flynt, two Huffingtons, and a porn star.

Bustamante could have avoided most of this by saying he would take over in the event of a successful recall as soon as Issa started to spend his cash. Issa doesn’t want Davis out, he wants to take over himself, and Davis is in the way. Issa would realize that he was wasting his time, and pack up and go home. If he didn’t, Bustamante would get a promotion.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Control both sides?

Attempt to put words in your mouth?

I did no such thing in either case.

I was merely pointing out that this recall wasn't some "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (tm HRC)", which was my inferrence from what you said, but rather, a grass-roots campaign, following the Constitution of the State of California, to rid the state of an incompetant governor.

Unless you intend to imply that everyone who downloaded a petition off the internet, and had their friends who agreed with it sign it (or sign one that a friend downloaded) is "the Repbulicans", but that's not what I inferred from your comment.



I notice that you'd rather fling ad hominems than answer the point.

I also note that several others have asked you to answer to this point, and you have refused.

If you wish to apologize for the name calling you've done in this thread, and attempt to discuss this issue like adults, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. You may have a point that I'm missing. However, if you'd rather just stick to name calling, I have better things to do.

Telling me what I "meant to say" is not putting words in my mouth? Telling me what I "meant to say" is not attempting to control both sides of the conversation? If you have things that you "mean to say", by all means say them, but it is improper and rude for you to claim that I would have or should have said them.

Please point out where I 'flung an ad hominem'. I never used your lack of manners to invalidate your position. Perhaps you do not understand what an ad hominem is.

 

[Agammamon]

Well, if Italy can survive a porn star in their parliament, I think CA can survive a porn magnate as govenor. And to say that Flynt is unqualified, well he does run a fairly large business which is pretty much all the qualification Davis brought to the table.

 

[Crossbow]

Larry Flynt running for governor is just a publicity stunt.

Does anyone remember when Howard Stern ran for governor? So what, these guys get to show up at a press conference, act outlandish, and get to see themselves on the news.

 

[kerfer]

Well, if Italy can survive a porn star in their parliament, I think CA can survive a porn magnate as govenor.

Hehehehe.

Not that that's gunna happen. The people of the state of California are smarter ( I hope ) than for him to get about 100 votes, most of which will be protest/novelty votes.

And to say that Flynt is unqualified, well he does run a fairly large business which is pretty much all the qualification Davis brought to the table.

Really? I'm unaware of Davis' life before he became a politician...what kinda business did he run successfully? What do you know about that?

(I'm not sure if your point is in support or opposition to Flynt here... )

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They aren't remotely qualified for the job...

Just out of curiosity, what are the qualifications to be governor of CA or any other state, and why aren't "they" qualified?

 

[Agammamon]

Actually, I made a mistake. I was thinking of Bloomberg, the rather unpopular mayor of NYC.

Davis has a career in "public service" meaning that basically he's been a politician since he returned to the civilian sector.

While I'm not for or against Flynt, it seems to me that a guy who can build a pretty successful business from nothing is actually more qualified than Davis, who is partly responsible for the mess he inherited as govenor.

Govenor Gray Davis Committe

 

[kerfer]

Actually, I made a mistake. I was thinking of Bloomberg, the rather unpopular mayor of NYC.

Davis has a career in "public service" meaning that basically he's been a politician since he returned to the civilian sector.

That's what I thought, and why I asked you for more info.

While I'm not for or against Flynt, it seems to me that a guy who can build a pretty successful business from nothing is actually more qualified than Davis, who is partly responsible for the mess he inherited as govenor.

Govenor Gray Davis Committe

I'm suspecting that there are a lot fo folks more qualified to be guvnah than Doofus. I just hope we end up electing a good one.

I was kinda hoping Riordan was gunn run, but that's probably not likely now that Arnie has announced...we'll hafta see what he has to say...McClintock may be a good choice, too.

I'm terribly surprised that Willie Brown isn't running. Somebody got pix on him, ya spose?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just out of curiosity, what are the qualifications to be governor of CA or any other state, and why aren't "they" qualified?

Well???

 

[crackmonkey]

Penguin - I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote
"Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans".

 

[Suddenly]

Larry Flynt running for governor is just a publicity stunt.

Does anyone remember when Howard Stern ran for governor? So what, these guys get to show up at a press conference, act outlandish, and get to see themselves on the news.

There's a little of that here to be sure, but given recent estimates are that there could be 300 names on the ballot, with no runoff provision, one of the "fringe" candidates has a much larger chance than usual of winning. Flynt's chances against one "normal" candidate would be almost nil. His chances in a chaotic mess with 300 candidates, a short campaign, and most likely no debates may still be in the 100 to 1 range, but that is way, way better than zero.

I think Flynt understands this and is just taking a shot. Plus, unlike Howard Stern, Flynt has in his loony way been involved in politics, like his recent "Bill O'Reilly Prayer Day."

If you ignore the fact his buisness is porn and gambling, he's just a successful buisnessman with a liberal bent. I'd suspect he's one of the more qualified people on the ballot when it comes down to the ability to manage a large operation.

 

[Agammamon]

Arnie is going to cause the Republicans all sorts of headaches if he gets elected.

Even though he's officially a Rep, his (stated at least) positions on the key platform of the Rep party are pretty libertarian or liberal. Quite at odds with the official stance of the Republicans.

 

[davefoc]

RC said:

So, I will vote NO on the recall out of principle and hope that others do the same.

Actually RC, even though I generally vote Republican, I felt the same way when I first heard about the recall. Recalls are to remove corrupt officials and as far as I could see Davis was an incompetent governor but not a corrupt one.

The more I thought about the situation though, the more I felt that the near complete failure of the Davis administration to successfully run CA was so severe that with or without actual corruption I was ready to vote for the recall.

CA is facing at least a triple threat of serious problems:

1. Massive deficits
2. Worker's comp insurance rates that is devastating business in CA forcing shutdowns, layoffs, movement out of the state and a rise in the black market economy.
3. A power crisis which was driven almost entirely by the incompetent or even possibly corrupt actions of the governor's office.

Even if somehow Davis found the skill and backbone to run the state at this point his, failures have left him so bereft of power that there's nothing he could do about the problems anyway.

Davis engaged in some of the dirtiest political scheming that I have seen to win the governorship the second time.

Perhaps you might consider that when you are making this principled stand to support the guy.

 

[Troll]

Penguin - I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote
"Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans".

So was I and at least one other. I guess the world may never know