Gray Davis might be recalled in California

[Imran Siddiqui]

remember Gennifer Flowers?

Please don't remind me .

It was Clinton's fault for being so arrogant and inept as to give his political enemies the opportunity.

You know, I always thought that time he went on TV, if he had apologized and been much more humble, he never would have been impeached. His speech where he said he was sorry but seemed like he didn't mean it and was spouting venom, I think tipped the House over its edge.

Even so, though, he never should have been impeached for that... though definetly disbarred.

[JohnT]

"Impeachment as defined by a myriad of legal documents is when the president abuses his power, to not do his duty as sworn during the swearing in ceremony, or commits high treason. To unzip your fly is not to do any of that. That is why it makes the procedure a misues of power."

Correct. But the lying about unzipping your fly during legal proceedings is "high treason" for the official in charge of "preserving, protecting, and defending" the laws of the US. In short: it's the perjury, not the sex.

But I have a feeling that:

1. You've been told that already and don't care.
2. Jack_www doesn't want his thread hijacked.

So I'm going to drop it.

[Shi Huangdi]

MtG: Your school's name is not something very important in the long run.

[Cyclotron]

Well, back on topic...

Davis isn't going anywhere. Does anyone know the history of gubernatorial recall attempts in California? If you do, you'll know what I mean.

I do think, however, that he's going to have some serious trouble come the next election. Of course, if he's pitted against Arnold, then he may have another chance.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
MtG: Your school's name is not something very important in the long run.

In the long run, no, accumulated experience far outweighs school name or GPA. Getting better first jobs out of school, though, is getting a lot tougher because there are more graduates than entry level professional jobs for them, and the trend is worsening.

In fields where you need graduate education (law, med, etc.) it goes from a moderately important factor (that can be offset by GPA and other stuff) to almost deterministic. Law is the worst, because of the glut of applicants to slots, and the glut of graduates to jobs.

In fields where professional registration is more important (engineering, CPAs, etc.), what school you go to is almost meaningless. Across the whole professional spectrum though, a better school is probably worth between 5-10,000 a year out of the gate, when you have no experience and no performance history to offset.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, back on topic...

Davis isn't going anywhere. Does anyone know the history of gubernatorial recall attempts in California? If you do, you'll know what I mean.

I do think, however, that he's going to have some serious trouble come the next election. Of course, if he's pitted against Arnold, then he may have another chance.

Naah, Davis would lose to the elephant next time. Recalls are very tough, but Davis is doing spectacularly both in having abysmal approval ratings, and in alienating just about every constituency in the state. Even if it doesn't get off the ground now, he has plenty more opportunities to dig himself clear to China between non and 2006.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Naah, Davis would lose to the elephant next time.

Well, I agree, I'm just saying that if the Republicans really do go with Schwarzenegger (which seems unlikely, I don't think he'd win the primary), he might have a fighting chance. I don't put much faith in muscle-governers, even after Jesse Ventura.

Recalls are very tough, but Davis is doing spectacularly both in having abysmal approval ratings, and in alienating just about every constituency in the state.

Yes, but Darrell Issa is a big no-name, and people aren't going to be likely to throw him out without somebody recognizable in the field to replace him.

Even if it doesn't get off the ground now, he has plenty more opportunities to dig himself clear to China between non and 2006.

But that's another matter entirely.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Issa is a joke, but Riordan?

Especially on a bipartisan (at least for spin purposes) campaign for cleaning up a financial mess and imposing fiscal responsibility?

Democrats would be morons not to hang Davis out in the breeze, otherwise, they're going to be wearing his political carcass like an albatross for a long time.

[Shi Huangdi]

MtG: Is this "alienating every constituency in the state" thing a possible reason why he has recently bragged California as the most pro-choice state in the nation(trying to shore up this constituency), thus prompting the Bishop of Sacramento to ask him to stop taking Communion?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'd guess so. Davis at least knows the inclination of the state Republican Party leadership is to only support social conservatives for statewide office, so trying to indirectly play the abortion rights card is most likely a desperate grasp at that constituency.

Since the legislature won't change radically, I'm not sure how much it'll work, given the state's financial condition and economy and Davis' shafting that constituency in other areas.

If the state Republican Party leaders were smart, they'd realize they're never going to get a social conservative Republican majority in either house of the legislature, and they'd support electable candidates for governor. Their motivation is primarily to prevent moderate Republicans from using a successful Cali governorship as a springboard to the White House, but IMO, that's silly. If the national party is dominated by it's social conservatives, and they have national alternative candidates who are social conservatives, then it's really not an issue if you have a successful moderate Republican governor in California. Certainly not enough to undermine the state by keeping the most electable and agenda-competitive candidates out of the gubernatorial races.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What Republicans "caused all the problems?"

Well, let's count them:

1) Governor Ronald Reagan, cut taxes and "balanced the budget" by transferring expensive programs down to the county level. The counties' only major source of income was property taxes, so these soared.

2) Howard Jarvis who, because of the soaring property taxes and the resulting loss of homes, was able to lead a successful tax revolt. His Proposition 13: (a) rolled back and then froze the level of property taxes and (b) permit tax increases only if 2/3 of both houses of the legislature votes for them.

3 & 4) Governors Duekmajian and Wilson rolled back spending until California was 49th in the nation in per capita spending on all programs and 49th in the nation in education.

5) Republican legislative leadership during the Clinton boom years, who permitted increases in public spending only if match dollar-for-dollar with additional tax cuts. With this trade-off, California crawled almost up to the mid-point in spending per capita...but the stage was set for the current financial disaster.

6) The economic tanks under Bush. The dot.com bubble bursts; Enron and other corporate shell games collapse, etc. The California economy tanks, pulling down tax revenues.

7) The out-of-power Republicans conspire to shut down California government. Republicans, who hold just slightly more than 1/3 in each house thwart the will of the majority of Californias and use the supermajority requirement of Prop 13 to block any tax increases. Hospitals close. Courts close. Teacher go without pay. CHP officers are laid off. Prisoners are let go.

Now, after 1/3 of a century of fiscal irresposiblity and untold human suffering, the Republicans' reaction: Blame Grey Davis.

[Du_Chateau]

I think that the recall is just a waste of the California taxpayer's money. Elections do cost money and this money can be used to do other things then a recall election. If the recall does go through the ones who organizes this might be the target of negative ads of taxpayer groups. I do not like the policies of President George W. Bush but I would not support a recall because he has not done much of anything illegal. I will wait until next year to vote against him. For those of you who support a recall wait until 2006. Grey Davis will not be running then because IIRC California Governors have a 2 term limit and that this is Grey Davis' second term.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I loathe Davis, but normal political games aren't enough justification to recall an elected politician. It should be reserved for something Clintonian or Nixonian in nature. Even if the signatures are gathered, it's not likely to succeed, and the legislature won't give a rat's ass. Their future isn't in elected office, it's in the payola they get from their sponsors after they get out, and Repubs in the legislature (or governor's office) haven't proven to be much more useful than the Dems.

The best thing that could happen to California would be if about 10 million people were motivated to move back where they came from.

The last poll I heard that they ran on this issue, 51% of voters support recalling Gray Davis. Also I doubt that Davis can solve the buget crisis. Look at what he did with the energy crisis. Now we are stuck paying higher rates because of him.

I think they will get the needed signitures.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Du_Chateau
I think that the recall is just a waste of the California taxpayer's money. Elections do cost money and this money can be used to do other things then a recall election. If the recall does go through the ones who organizes this might be the target of negative ads of taxpayer groups. I do not like the policies of President George W. Bush but I would not support a recall because he has not done much of anything illegal. I will wait until next year to vote against him. For those of you who support a recall wait until 2006. Grey Davis will not be running then because IIRC California Governors have a 2 term limit and that this is Grey Davis' second term.

The figure I heard was that it would cost 60 million dollars to do the recall. California has 100 Billion dollar buget. So it is nothing if you compared it to the rest of the buget.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, we have at least one Davis fanboy in the house. And of course, the Democratic Party is just looking out for the little people and would never contribute to the mess...

1) Where was the legislature when Reagan was governor? Or was he sole dictator? And if you have a transfer of both spending obligations and taxing power from one level to another, without unfunded mandates, the net effect is revenue neutral at worst, and saves some at best by allowing more responsive local units of government to allocate funding more appropriately to their needs, without an additional layer of state bureaucracy.

2) I'm not a fan of Jarvis himself at all, but the voters of the state overwhelmingly approved Prop. 13. If you want to blame the electorate, fine, but to blame the Republican Party itself for a grassroots response to a Democrat dominated regime is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Especially in a state which for decades has had the highest aggregate tax levels on both individuals and businesses.

3 and 4) I didn't know Republican governors set budgets all by themselves. What happened to those Democrat majority legislatures?

5) California at the time still led (and still leads) in having the highest aggregate tax levels on individuals and businesses in the 50 states. When you have the highest levels of taxes, and among the worst levels of delivery of services, something tells me the problems run a little deeper than one political party or the other.

6) Of course, that's the Republicans fault, as is the Cali energy disaster and the mismanagement of DWR and Davis' office, not to mention the Jerry Brown created California Energy Commission. The regulatory laxness that allowed for the Enron, WorldCom and dotcom, et al, bubbles existed back in the days when the Democrats ran the US Congress, and the fun and games started when Clinton was still in the White House. In fact, a lot of that "economic boom" ideological Democrats like to credit to the Clinton years is that exact same bubble on the upside, before it burst. You can't blame the inevitable bursting of bubble economies on the guy who happens to be in office when the bubble bursts - the structural faults that make it a bubble are there from the beginning, but the Dems play the standard political games of trying to have their cake and eat it too.

7) The Dem legislative response to the crisis (exacerbated by DWR's ****ups on long term energy purchases) is to tax the hell out of everything that isn't already taxed to hell. The notion of taxing business and jobs out of the state (which is already non-competitive in terms of all other costs of doing business) doesn't occur to these collective Einsteins in the California Democratic Party. Again, the gap between level of taxation and quality of delivered services is ignored. The Republican actions were somewhat irresponsible, but so has been the legacy of government inefficiency and overtaxation imposed by the Dems.

"Untold human suffering" This is California, not Bosnia, or even that other Dem stronghold, West Virginia. If there's so much "untold human suffering" imposed by those Evil Republicans^TM who've been a minority of state government for decades. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of good ol' outdated, repudiated, "tax and spend" rhetoric.