Why are conservatives supporting Ahnold?

[peptoabysmal]

Why shouldn't they support Arnold? If he wins the election, they'll be able to boss him any way they want. The man has no political experience; he seems to think that all he has to do is to hire the right people to do the job. That ain't how politics works in this country. Doesn't matter how left of center he is. If he wants anything done, he's going to have to "pay the piper".

I just don't buy the political experience argument anymore. There are some very experienced politicians making a very fine mess of things.

I think Arnold will have the celebrity clout to be able to bring together the divided state legislature in a way that any of the other candidates could not. It is going to take a bi-partisan effort to get California out of the hole that Davis dug it into.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first.

So I see. Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it.
Mecha as in the movie A.I.?

 

[Kodiak]

Because he is to the right of the rest of the left-coasters running.

 

[Kodiak]

Well, that and the fact that the national party has an immense amount of political capital tied up in this coup-attempt-disguised-as-a-recall.

Who ever said liberals love constitutional government??

"The will of the people be damned if it lawfully deposes an incompetent liberal Democrat", right guys?

No wonder the dems have an ass for a mascot...

 

[Silicon]

Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first.

Is that all the opposition can do to insult democratic candidates?

"Gore is a robot."
"Davis is a robot."
"Bustamante is a robot"


You know, someone should really wack the republican robot who writes this stuff, as his speech synthisizer is stuck.

 

[Silicon]

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it.
Mecha as in the movie A.I.?

The word Mecha existed long before that crummy movie.

(Think: Japan)

 

[SRW]

Is that all the opposition can do to insult democratic candidates?

"Gore is a robot."
"Davis is a robot."
"Bustamante is a robot"


You know, someone should really wack the republican robot who writes this stuff, as his speech synthisizer is stuck.

Well that is rich the republicans insulting the democrats. All I have heard for the democratic side is how bad the republicans are. I have not heard anyone defending Davis. Even Finstien cannot bring her self to say that Davis has done a good job. All she says is the republicans are tring to steal the election. Never mind that it's being done according to law and is entirely proper.

My favorite one is blaming Bush for the California energy chrisis. Davis was in charge and was supposed to be looking out for my interests. He blew it. It does not matter who Enroned him he was not doing his job.

 

[Silicon]

Who ever said liberals love constitutional government??

"The will of the people be damned if it lawfully deposes an incompetent liberal Democrat", right guys?

Yes, the will of the 897,158 people required by the law to recall the Governor. To be safe, Issa & crew got 300,000 or so extras.

So yes, the will of about 15% of the voters has been served. We'll see what the majority has to say on election day.


And yes, we whine about this.

Just like the right is whining and wailing about the 9th Circuit's ruling.

Who said the Right loves constitutional government?




Oh yeah, nobody.

 

[Silicon]

He blew it. It does not matter who Enroned him he was not doing his job.

Yeah, amazing how he made weekly appeals to the FERC to investigate allegations of price fixing, and impose caps and weekly they turned down the State of California's request. Finally, a year later, the FERC DID apply a cap, and the price-gouging subsided.


Here's an article from the Washington Post:


Davis Lacked Legal Ability to Solve Energy Crisis

When power shortages began in the summer of 2000 and wholesale power prices tripled, Davis
immediately accused generators of gouging electricity customers. State regulators cited indications of
price manipulation and deliberate withholding of power supplies by generators. In response, the
governor demanded that FERC impose price ceilings on generators' prices.

His pleas went unanswered for more than a year.



.....It took another year before Davis could say "I told you so" about the energy companies. The
disclosure of Enron Corp.'s "Death Star" memos in May 2001 exposed strategies that Enron and
others used to manipulate power prices and reap profits from the crisis. "The price gouging abounded,"
FERC Commissioner William L. Massey concluded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37482-2003Aug23.html

 

[SRW]

Yeah, amazing how he made weekly appeals to the FERC to investigate allegations of price fixing, and impose caps and weekly they turned down the State of California's request. Finally, a year later, the FERC DID apply a cap, and the price-gouging subsided.


Here's an article from the Washington Post:


Davis Lacked Legal Ability to Solve Energy Crisis




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37482-2003Aug23.html

From the article you posted

______________________________

But Davis was the state's leader with the ultimate political responsibility for handling the crisis.

______________________________



Davis did not lead he reacted and reacted poorly.

 

[Kodiak]

Yes, the will of the 897,158 people required by the law to recall the Governor. To be safe, Issa & crew got 300,000 or so extras.

So yes, the will of about 15% of the voters has been served. We'll see what the majority has to say on election day.

And yes, we whine about this.

Just like the right is whining and wailing about the 9th Circuit's ruling.

No, the will of the State of California as represented by its legislature and voting citizenry when they added the recall stipulation to the California Constitution.

The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Courts ruling to block the recall. The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

 

[Silicon]

From the article you posted

______________________________

But Davis was the state's leader with the ultimate political responsibility for handling the crisis.

______________________________

Quoted out of context. And that's not a representative quote the way you're using it.

You completely skewed the meaning of the quote above. That quote when put in context doesn't say he was to blame for the crisis, but rather he IS BEING blamed for the crisis.


In fact, the REAL meaning of the quote when read in context is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you make it to be.

Do you really have to be that intellectually dishonest to make your point?


The article states that David did EVERYTHING he was legally empowered to do. It says there was no way for him to have averted the crisis. It further says that he was right all along about price gouging, and that the FERC finally did what he was pleading with them to do, and THAT'S what stopped the crisis.

But your point of view is what, exactly? That he's a demmycrat, and when a demmycrat is in power during the crisis, he's out?

Oh, and if so, why didn't the voters think so in the general election?

 

[Silicon]

The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Courts ruling to block the recall.

BZZZTT... Let's at least be honest in the terms here. The 9th Circuit isn't blocking the recall, they're postponing the election. You're a better arguer than that.

The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

And how would you have decided this, in light of Common Cause v. Jones? Don't you see the coming train wreck when the margin of error on punch cards is likely to be larger than the margin of victory?

Isn't it very very very likely that whoever loses this election will seek to have it decertified exactly BECAUSE of Common Cause v. Jones?

How do you get around the equal protection arguments in this case? How is this not a violation of Equal Protection as decided in Bush v. Gore?

What, it's a violation of equal protection when a Republican stands to lose a recount, but not when a simple postponement would ensure that the standards adjudicated in Common Cause v. Jones are met?

 

[SRW]

Quoted out of context. And that's not a representative quote the way you're using it.

You completely skewed the meaning of the quote above. That quote when put in context doesn't say he was to blame for the crisis, but rather he IS BEING blamed for the crisis.


In fact, the REAL meaning of the quote when read in context is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you make it to be.

Do you really have to be that intellectually dishonest to make your point?


The article states that David did EVERYTHING he was legally empowered to do. It says there was no way for him to have averted the crisis. It further says that he was right all along about price gouging, and that the FERC finally did what he was pleading with them to do, and THAT'S what stopped the crisis.

But your point of view is what, exactly? That he's a demmycrat, and when a demmycrat is in power during the crisis, he's out?

Oh, and if so, why didn't the voters think so in the general election?

Yes it said he did what he could could legally do but the bottom line is he was politically responsible. He is a Governor of this state
or does the buck always stop some where else when a democrat is in power. If instead of his ineffectual pleading with the FERC, why didn't he go to the person who appointed them?

So like I said find someone else to blame or criticize the republicans but still no reasons why Davis should be Governor

 

[Silicon]

If instead of his ineffectual pleading with the FERC, why didn't he go to the person who appointed them?

You mean Clinton? He wasn't in office!


But when Bush appointed a new head, HE installed the cap.


(See, I can be forthright when Bush does something good.)

 

[Kodiak]

BZZZTT... Let's at least be honest in the terms here. The 9th Circuit isn't blocking the recall, they're postponing the election. You're a better arguer than that.

And how would you have decided this, in light of Common Cause v. Jones? Don't you see the coming train wreck when the margin of error on punch cards is likely to be larger than the margin of victory?

Isn't it very very very likely that whoever loses this election will seek to have it decertified exactly BECAUSE of Common Cause v. Jones?

How do you get around the equal protection arguments in this case? How is this not a violation of Equal Protection as decided in Bush v. Gore?

What, it's a violation of equal protection when a Republican stands to lose a recount, but not when a simple postponement would ensure that the standards adjudicated in Common Cause v. Jones are met?

Sure, fine. "Postponing the election" - in violation of state law.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 13. Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.

SEC. 14. (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to file signed petitions.

(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by
electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the
office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
(c) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of
the signatures certified to that office.

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall election.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

SEC. 16. The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and
certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall
election.

SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is
initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the
Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively.

SEC. 18. A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by
the State for the officer's recall election expenses legally and
personally incurred. Another recall may not be initiated against the officer until six months after the election.

SEC. 19. The Legislature shall provide for recall of local
officers. This section does not affect counties and cities whose
charters provide for recall.

California has had since the 2000 election to change the voting methods of those districts still using punch cards, but obviously didn't consider it a problem.

 

[SRW]

You mean Clinton? He wasn't in office!


But when Bush appointed a new head, HE installed the cap.


(See, I can be forthright when Bush does something good.)

Clinton was in office in the summer of 2000, and no I do not blame Clinton for this mess.

 

[Silicon]

Sure, fine. "Postponing the election" - in violation of state law.

And the 9th Circuit ruled that holding it in October would be in violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection.

That trumps the ol California state law any day of the week!

 

[Silicon]

Clinton was in office in the summer of 2000, and no I do not blame Clinton for this mess.

So what would you have done in summer 2000, were you Governor? What steps would you have taken?

Blame Clinton? Yell and scream louder to the FERC?

Now we can see in hindsight that Davis was right, and the market WAS being manipulated, but how much evidence did he have of that in Summer 2000?

What would you have done differently? Don't say "be a better leader". Give us actual things you would have done, and remember, you have to find a way to do it within the scope of the powers of the Office of the Governor.

 

[Silicon]

California has had since the 2000 election to change the voting methods of those districts still using punch cards, but obviously didn't consider it a problem.

What do you mean? Yes, it was considered a problem. That problem was addressed in Common Cause v. Jones. They were required to retire their machines by next March.


http://www.commoncause.org/states/california/archives/punchcard.html

The ruling was made February 12, 2002 in Los Angeles by United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Common Cause vs. Jones. This is the first post-Bush v. Gore ruling to require that obsolete voting systems be retired in time for
the 2004 election.

Subsequent to that ruling, Californians passed the Voting Modernaization Bond Act of 2002, which allocated $200 million to upgrade voting systems, and established a Voting Modernization Board to carry out this task.


You say Californians obviously didn't consider this a problem. I can't see how you can say that. I think the facts show that we DID consider it a problem.




The counties involved couldn't throw out old voting machines and buy new ones in absense of an election. The budgets for these changes are allocated to line up with the presidential primaries in 2004. The FUNDING AND BONDS have to line up. They have to train thousands of volunteers in the new systems, this kind of thing can't be suddenly done within 80 days.

Can they even get the tens of thousands of machines on that short of notice? They have a hard enough time getting all the materials ready for this crazy huge ballot as it is, the biggest ballot in California history.

We're not even going to have the normal number of polling places for this special election, because they can't even get that together in time.