PDA

View Full Version : Arnold is running!


Pages : [1] 2

taeclee99
Aug 6, 2003, 07:40 PM
Despite rumors to the contrary, Arnold Schwarzenegger said on the Tonight Show that he intends to run in the special election against Gray Davis. I sincerely hope that the "Total Recall" succeeds so that Arnold will be the next gubernator.

Maybe he can prevent Skynet for becoming self aware as governor.

MrMacMan
Aug 6, 2003, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by taeclee99
Despite rumors to the contrary, Arnold Schwarzenegger said on the Tonight Show that he intends to run in the special election against Gray Davis. I sincerely hope that the "Total Recall" succeeds so that Arnold will be the next gubernator.

Maybe he can prevent Skynet for becoming self aware as governor.

Your kidding...

What are even his view?

Is he pro giving himself a tax cut?

What about the energy crisis?

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 08:14 PM
following in the footsteps of reagan, eh?

i like this quote from Sen Feinstein: the election is "more and more like a carnival every day."

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 08:36 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93985,00.html

Personally, I love the guy. Would be great to see him win. I just wish he could run for President. :(

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 08:38 PM
what do you like about him?

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
what do you like about him?

I like his stance on most political issues. Just wait. You will really like his person, and his policy.

Well, maybe not his policy.
;)

Mr. Anderson
Aug 6, 2003, 08:41 PM
But if you've been following the news you'd see that there are quite a few people running for this election.

Although I'd have to say he's probably the biggest name I've seen yet.

And he's always wanted to get into politics.

Good for him, but the election is going to be nuts.

D

jbomber
Aug 6, 2003, 08:44 PM
bring on the frogs and locusts.....

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 08:48 PM
i posted this quote in the other thread about this, but sen feinstein nailed it when she called the election more like a carnival every day...

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I like his stance on most political issues.

any in particular? aside from supporting youth programs, i have no idea what his political views are.

MrMacMan
Aug 6, 2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I like his stance on most political issues. Just wait. You will really like his person, and his policy.

Well, maybe not his policy.
;)

Yeah I have no idea, I have no idea what ideas he likes...

What is arnold gonna do if he wins?
'I will prepare for a massive robot invasion'

Hehe.:p

Durandal7
Aug 6, 2003, 09:18 PM
I like him because of the fact that he has not been a politician his whole life.

That's a huge plus in my book and instantly makes him a better candidate in my eyes.

Hey, the guy does have a degree in International Marketting and Business Administration.

SPG
Aug 6, 2003, 09:24 PM
The thing that still bugs me about this whole recall business is that if 49% vote for Davis and the other 51% gets split between all the other candidates the next governor could be brought in with a mandate of as little as 5% of the electorate. Think about that, 49% gets beat by 5%, but then again the current bush administration took power with a minority of the vote.

meta-ghost
Aug 6, 2003, 09:24 PM
As the LA Times has already noted - who better than someone who can explain Bush's policies on civil liberties in their original German.....

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by meta-ghost
As the LA Times has already noted - who better than someone who can explain Bush's policies on civil liberties in their original German.....

yes, that was bill maher.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher24jul24,1,2626362.story


Here's why the economy turned: The dot-com bubble burst. (Obviously on the orders of Gray Davis.) The airline industry collapsed. (Just as Gray Davis planned.) We fought two wars. (Playing right into Gray Davis' hands.) And Dick Cheney's friends at Enron "gamed" the energy market and ripped off the state for billions.

So you can see the problem: Gray Davis.

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by SPG
The thing that still bugs me about this whole recall business is that if 49% vote for Davis and the other 51% gets split between all the other candidates the next governor could be brought in with a mandate of as little as 5% of the electorate. Think about that, 49% gets beat by 5%, but then again the current bush administration took power with a minority of the vote.


Yes, but remember, a minority vote can win the Electoral college ;)

jbomber
Aug 6, 2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Think about that, 49% gets beat by 5%, but then again the current bush administration took power with a minority of the vote.

funny how that works. :mad:

"sorry, these votes don't count because, well, they're not for me."

Backtothemac
Aug 6, 2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by jbomber
funny how that works. :mad:

"sorry, these votes don't count because, well, they're not for me."

No, if in any election every, votes mattered more in 2000 than in any other election nationally that I can think of.

pseudobrit
Aug 6, 2003, 10:53 PM
Between a hardcore pornographer, a car thief and a Viennese weightlifter running, I think Californians may be seeing Davis as not so bad afterall.

tpjunkie
Aug 6, 2003, 11:36 PM
I personally wouldn't like to see arnold win the election, but the only real reason for that is so that he can make terminator 4 instead :p

zimv20
Aug 6, 2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by tpjunkie

-When I have the map, I will be free, and the world will be different, because I have understanding.
--Understanding of what, master?
-Digital watches. And soon I will have understanding of videocassette recorders and car telephones. And when I have understanding of them, I shall have understanding of computers. And when I have understanding of computers, I shall be the Supreme Being! God isn't interested in technology. He knows nothing of the potential of the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time: forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!
--Slugs.
-Slugs! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate machinery. If I were creating the world, I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would've started with lasers, eight o'clock, day one.

1 million brownie points to whoever knows the movie thats from


time bandits. i'd like to trade my 1 million brownie points for an actual brownie, please. w/ pecans.

tpjunkie
Aug 7, 2003, 12:11 AM
Wowee that was fast! Zimv20! You're the winner...you may want to check out the thread I posted in the community discussion forum. Anyway, I came here to add that arnold's not the only celebrity running in Cali...the list includes Gary Coleman, D.L. Hughley, Gallagher (y'know, the guy with the mallet and the melons?) and Larry Flint...its getting out of hand

MrMacMan
Aug 7, 2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by tpjunkie
Wowee that was fast! Zimv20! You're the winner...you may want to check out the thread I posted in the community discussion forum.

you know... when you did that you could have updated your profile... as you were posting the thread...


a
r
g

voicegy
Aug 7, 2003, 12:57 AM
"Schwarzenegger, 56, announced his decision during a taping of ''The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,'' calling it the toughest he's made since deciding to get a bikini wax in 1978."

God help us.

We've got a pornographer, an actor with an MBA, and Angelyne, who is famous for nothing but having billboards all over Hollywood for years with her puckered mug and puckered breasts begging to be hired as an actress/whatever.

Will my home state finally fall into the Pacific Ocean? This is an embarrassing circus, and would certainly seem unstable and out of control to the rest of the country...and the world. Now the French have something to make fun of US for.

Then again, due to lies, deciet and backdoor shenanigans, we experienced record high electric bills and rolling brownouts a few summers ago that nearly brought our state to its knees. That's the shame of it...we'll never know the actual truth of Politics...it is, indeed, its own animal, and has more and more become the dog being wagged by the tail of corruption and corporate greed, greased by the promise of campaign contributions, favors, and power play.

So, screw it, why not? I think if the frozen head of Walt Disney were to be put on the ballot, it would get votes. *sigh*

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 01:15 AM
since he drives a hummer, should we assume schwarzenegger will lose the environmental vote?

Durandal7
Aug 7, 2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by voicegy
Will my home state finally fall into the Pacific Ocean? This is an embarrassing circus, and would certainly seem unstable and out of control to the rest of the country...and the world. Now the French have something to make fun of US for.

Don't be so harsh. California seemed unstable and out of control to the rest of the country long before this started. :p

voicegy
Aug 7, 2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Durandal7
Don't be so harsh. California seemed unstable and out of control to the rest of the country long before this started. :p

hahahahaha! Touche. And "Huzzah!" for the best avatar I've seen here yet...VERY timely!

SPG
Aug 7, 2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yes, but remember, a minority vote can win the Electoral college ;)

Let's not get back into the whole election fraud of 2000 issue, but if that's what we have to look forward to in this country...winning power by whatever means neccessary, than God help us.
It doesn't bother you that the minority can win over the majority? Let alone that the man was fairly elected not even a year ago? Not to mention that the Enron created energy crisis is now being blamed on Davis while Cheney and the republicans were in bed the whole time?
Shameful.

Billicus
Aug 7, 2003, 09:24 AM
He'll make a good governor of California, and he will become governor of California if the poeple of California has enough sense to elect the corrent candidate (him).

e-coli
Aug 7, 2003, 09:28 AM
In related news, Clifford the Big Red Dog has anounced that he, too, will be running for Governor of California.

:rolleyes:

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 10:04 AM
Feinstein out, Schwartzenneger in. Hmmm... I guess that made his decision easier. I wish Leon Panneta would run, but I think he's got too much class to jump into the "circus". Probably the same reason Feinstein didn't want to run, plus she's already got a cushy job-for-life in the senate. I can just imagine the debate between Schwartzennegger and Ariana Huffington. Two of the most heavily accented polititians (well, political wannabees) in recent memory!:D

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 7, 2003, 10:09 AM
originally posted by mactastic
I can just imagine the debate between Schwartzennegger and Ariana Huffington.

it'll be like an old episode of politically incorrect! ;)

wdlove
Aug 7, 2003, 10:10 AM
I was very pleased to hear that Arnold Schwarzenegger is running for governor of California. They may just underestimate him just like many others. Now they can have a Kennedy as the First Lady of California.

bobindashadows
Aug 7, 2003, 10:25 AM
As far as I understand the situation, the recall ballot looks like this (less colloquial, but this:)

Recall Davis? o Yes o No

Who should be the next governor, should the recall pass?
o Arnold o Bob The Invisible Snowman o A Dead Chipmunk I found in my garage o Anybody but Davis

And if God loves us, those will be circles you fill in with a no. 2 pencil and NOT chads.

As far as I know the recall has to pass with a majority for a new governor to be selected. However, the person under the "next governor" does not have to have a majority.

Also - if the recall passes, then it's possible Davis won't get the majority of the vote. Remember, nobody cares about the issues, they just vote their party line, and if Davis is the only Dem on there, then he may not get recalled from all the Democratic votes. However, if there are 2, count 'em, 2 marshma.. err.. Democratic candidates, then chances are Democrats will vote to recall him and try to elect the other Democratic candidate.

*breathes deeply* there ya go. I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Oh, and as for the whole idea that actors shouldn't be government officials - first of all, Arnold is a very intelligent man - he's learned and also follows politics. Someone mentioned that they liked him because he'd never been in politics - also a good point, because he will probably be less corrupt than every other politician out there. Also, I'm sure you all know about Ronald Reagan - who continually appears in polls to be held as the best President this country has ever seen. I'm not talking about Fox News polls, which everybody knows are only answered by conservatives, I mean like Zogby polls. If anyone is interested, Reagan actually intended to balance the budget. People say "BU HE CUT TAXES AND ROSE MILTARY SPENING!!!11@21!! OMG WTF LOL", well for one: we were in the middle of the Cold War and Reagan actually intended to win it, unlike his predecessors, and two: he proposed a LOT of budget cuts that involved cutting useless spending, and the Democrats refused to cut the budget. The budget would've been a LOT more balanced had the Democrats passed the budget cuts. I think we need another Small-Government Republican in office, just because there's so much bloat in the gov't today.

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I like his stance on most political issues. Just wait. You will really like his person, and his policy.

Well, maybe not his policy.
;)

You mean the one about suing a car dealer for $10 million for using his face in a newspaper advertisement? What's not to like?

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You mean the one about suing a car dealer for $10 million for using his face in a newspaper advertisement? What's not to like?

Well, if I were him, I would have done the same.

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, if I were him, I would have done the same.

So he'll get the greed vote. That's a substantial part of the electorate these days.

bobindashadows
Aug 7, 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, if I were him, I would have done the same.

Yeah, first of all, I know if you (IJ Reilly) could get 10 million dollars for the same thing, you'd sue. Think of all the G5s you could buy, and 30 GB iPods! Also, if Arnold doesn't want people putting his face on stuff, then that's his wish and people should respect that.

Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't his decision anyway, but actually one of his agents or something. But if I'm wrong, please correct me.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
As far as I understand the situation, the recall ballot looks like this (less colloquial, but this:)

Recall Davis? o Yes o No

Who should be the next governor, should the recall pass?
o Arnold o Bob The Invisible Snowman o A Dead Chipmunk I found in my garage o Anybody but Davis

And if God loves us, those will be circles you fill in with a no. 2 pencil and NOT chads.

As far as I know the recall has to pass with a majority for a new governor to be selected. However, the person under the "next governor" does not have to have a majority.


Ok so far so good...



Also - if the recall passes, then it's possible Davis won't get the majority of the vote. Remember, nobody cares about the issues, they just vote their party line, and if Davis is the only Dem on there, then he may not get recalled from all the Democratic votes. However, if there are 2, count 'em, 2 marshma.. err.. Democratic candidates, then chances are Democrats will vote to recall him and try to elect the other Democratic candidate.

*breathes deeply* there ya go. I'm pretty sure that's how it works.



Close. If the recall passes, then that means Davis didn't get the majority of the vote. He is currently not allowed to have his name on the second part of the ballot. I'll leave the marshmallow crack alone.


Oh, and as for the whole idea that actors shouldn't be government officials - first of all, Arnold is a very intelligent man - he's learned and also follows politics. Someone mentioned that they liked him because he'd never been in politics - also a good point, because he will probably be less corrupt than every other politician out there. Also, I'm sure you all know about Ronald Reagan - who continually appears in polls to be held as the best President this country has ever seen. I'm not talking about Fox News polls, which everybody knows are only answered by conservatives, I mean like Zogby polls. If anyone is interested, Reagan actually intended to balance the budget. People say "BU HE CUT TAXES AND ROSE MILTARY SPENING!!!11@21!! OMG WTF LOL", well for one: we were in the middle of the Cold War and Reagan actually intended to win it, unlike his predecessors, and two: he proposed a LOT of budget cuts that involved cutting useless spending, and the Democrats refused to cut the budget. The budget would've been a LOT more balanced had the Democrats passed the budget cuts. I think we need another Small-Government Republican in office, just because there's so much bloat in the gov't today.

HAHA... thats funny. Have you seen the pork in the farming bills that sailed through the republican controlled senate lately? Neither party has a claim to fiscal discipline IMHO.

sturm375
Aug 7, 2003, 10:40 AM
The only thing that would make this more entertaining, would be if Jesse "the Body" Ventura were to step into the ring as an independent running for Cali. Gov.:D

Then, maybe we could have a wrestling match to determine the next gov.:D

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So he'll get the greed vote. That's a substantial part of the electorate these days.

Oh, so now you are saying that the people that will vote for Arnold are the Greed vote. :rolleyes:

This forum gets funnier every day! I cannot wait to see what the democrats are going to throw at him. If the best thing that you guys have is that he sued a car dealer for 10 million for using his picture in an advertisement, then I hate to say it. He will get a lot more of the vote than 50%. More like 60% or so.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, so now you are saying that the people that will vote for Arnold are the Greed vote. :rolleyes:

This forum gets funnier every day! I cannot wait to see what the democrats are going to throw at him. If the best thing that you guys have is that he sued a car dealer for 10 million for using his picture in an advertisement, then I hate to say it. He will get a lot more of the vote than 50%. More like 60% or so.

Arnold won't get 60% of the vote. He may be elected govenor, but it will be with far less than 60% of the vote. Frankly, I'll be surprised if anyone gets more than 25% on part 2 of the ballot.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Arnold won't get 60% of the vote. He may be elected govenor, but it will be with far less than 60% of the vote. Frankly, I'll be surprised if anyone gets more than 25% on part 2 of the ballot.

Have you seen the early polling numbers? What I am saying is if the best dirt the dems have is that he sued a guy. They are going to loose this election badly.

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, so now you are saying that the people that will vote for Arnold are the Greed vote.

No, actually you did, by making excuses for it.

BTW, please get a new line of attack. I'm not a Democrat, and didn't vote for Davis in the last election.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, actually you did, by making excuses for it.

BTW, please get a new line of attack. I'm not a Democrat, and didn't vote for Davis in the last election.

"So he'll get the greed vote. That's a substantial part of the electorate these days."

I think it was you that said that. I wasn't making excuses for anything. All I said was that I would have sued the guy for using my likeness in an ad if I were him.

And, I wasn't attacking you, I was speaking of dems in a general term.

bobindashadows
Aug 7, 2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by mactastic



HAHA... thats funny. Have you seen the pork in the farming bills that sailed through the republican controlled senate lately? Neither party has a claim to fiscal discipline IMHO.

Reagan is a far different Republican than Bush. Reagan is a small-government Republican. He believes that the federal government has a few, distinct roles such as protecting the people and maintaining economic stability. George W. Bush is a big government Republican. He believes in a big-ass government, with more than just those two example roles. And Democrats are obviously big-ass government.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Have you seen the early polling numbers? What I am saying is if the best dirt the dems have is that he sued a guy. They are going to loose this election badly.

Since when have early poll numbers been a good indicator of the outcome? I'm not arguing that Arnold won't win, I just can't see him getting that much of the vote.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Reagan is a far different Republican than Bush. Reagan is a small-government Republican. He believes that the federal government has a few, distinct roles such as protecting the people and maintaining economic stability. George W. Bush is a big government Republican. He believes in a big-ass government, with more than just those two example roles. And Democrats are obviously big-ass government.

But Bush cites Reagan as his biggest political hero, second only to Jesus.

SPG
Aug 7, 2003, 11:16 AM
It all may be a moot point...

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003705.html#003705

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Since when have early poll numbers been a good indicator of the outcome? I'm not arguing that Arnold won't win, I just can't see him getting that much of the vote.

I agree with you 100%. I just think this may be one of the strangest elections in history.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 11:17 AM
Arnold's qualification for office seems to be his name recognition for all of those quality movies he has made. He has never stood for office before or been responsible for his decision's effect on anyone. Guess that makes him qualified!

I was happy to see that the Lt. Governor, Cruz Bustamante, has decided to put his name on the ballot. He is the person who would replace Davis in any other eventuality and has stood for statewide election (and won a majority vote to hold his office.) Hopefully, he will be the only Democrat among the major candidates.

I, for one, will vote against the recall and for Bustamante on the second part of the ballot.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I agree with you 100%. I just think this may be one of the strangest elections in history.

Damn straight! I just keep looking out my door to see if there are any locusts there. I'll keep you posted if I spot any!

Frohickey
Aug 7, 2003, 11:26 AM
Schwartzenegger running is good, though I do not know much about his political stances. Hope that these come out in the next 60 days. If he's for cutting the state income tax to a flat 6%, I'd vote for him. :D

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 11:35 AM
Oh, and don't count out Davis yet either. He may look like a stiff, but he is a ruthless campaigner and will glady go the the mat to destroy anyone he sees as a threat. His fund raising machinery is legendary, remember he was considered seriously as a presidential candidate before the energy crisis erupted and swallowed him up. He ruined Riordan's chances for election because he knew he would fare better against Simon.

This is not an endorsement for Davis, personally I wouldn't mind seeing him go, but don't be so quick to count him out. He may yet prevail in court and have the election held during the state's primary in march, which will dramatically change the political landscape. He might be able to get his name put on part 2 of the ballot as well, which would allow people who vote against the recall to also choose him as the replacement should he lose on part 1.

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
"So he'll get the greed vote. That's a substantial part of the electorate these days."

I think it was you that said that. I wasn't making excuses for anything. All I said was that I would have sued the guy for using my likeness in an ad if I were him.

And, I wasn't attacking you, I was speaking of dems in a general term.

I didn't mean to imply that you were attacking me personally (a poor choice if words perhaps), but you certainly were directing the terms "Democrats" and "you guys" at me -- which seemed to me to be a specious effort to associate me with a party line. I don't know what the Democratic party line will be on Swartzenegger, and frankly I don't care, since I'm not a member of the party and am perfectly content to come to my own conclusions.

We know about as much about this guy's character as we do about his politics, which isn't much. I'm simply pointing out one of the few things we do know about him. When this lawsuit was filed a few months ago it made quite a bit of local press if only because using a cannon to kill a gnat seemed like an overreaction (a cease and desist order being the usual way of dealing with transgressions of this kind). The commentary suggested that this approach was in keeping with Swartzenegger's personality. Greedy? Vindictive? Self-serving?

Good qualities in a governor? I think not.

Meanwhile, I have to pause again to note the level of interest people who don't even live in California are taking in this election, especially now. On behalf of this Californian, I appreciate your concern. You can all butt out now, thank you.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Meanwhile, I have to pause again to note the level of interest people who don't even live in California are taking in this election, especially now. On behalf of this Californian, I appreciate your concern. You can all butt out now, thank you.

But don't forget to come leave your tourist dollars here first!

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly


Meanwhile, I have to pause again to note the level of interest people who don't even live in California are taking in this election, especially now. On behalf of this Californian, I appreciate your concern. You can all butt out now, thank you.

Oh, but everyone wanted to Butt into Florida politics in 2000. What is good for the goose is good for the gander right ;)

zimv20
Aug 7, 2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Democrats are obviously big-ass government.

errr.... didn't clinton reduce the number of federal employees?

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, but everyone wanted to Butt into Florida politics in 2000. What is good for the goose is good for the gander right ;)

Ah, but Florida had national implications. Not that I care, everyone can jump in and offer their $.02 about us, since I guess you can make an argument that anything that happens here has national implications. It really is like a circus here. Besides, the whole country was intent on Louisiana when Mary Landreu (sp?) was in the middle of her runoff for the senate.

sturm375
Aug 7, 2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly

Meanwhile, I have to pause again to note the level of interest people who don't even live in California are taking in this election, especially now. On behalf of this Californian, I appreciate your concern. You can all butt out now, thank you.

I will be moving to Bakersfield, CA in Sept. So it does concern me.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
I will be moving to Bakersfield, CA in Sept. So it does concern me.

You poor thing... Have you seen Bakersfield yet?:p

bobindashadows
Aug 7, 2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Arnold's qualification for office seems to be his name recognition for all of those quality movies he has made. He has never stood for office before or been responsible for his decision's effect on anyone. Guess that makes him qualified!

I, for one, will vote against the recall and for Bustamante on the second part of the ballot.
Ronald Reagan had no political experience before he was governor of California. All he had done was make speeches.

For the guy that said Reagan was Bush's #2 political icon, that may be true, but Bush hasn't done a good job of following in Reagan's footsteps :rolleyes:

If you vote against the recall, then you are giving Bustamante a smaller chance of getting elected in Davis' place. A recall doesn't mean a Democrat can't get elected, it means Davis can't get his job back. So, you are essentially voting that Davis should stay... but in case he doesn't stay, then Bustamante should take his place? Is that your intent? I wasn't sure.

sturm375
Aug 7, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
You poor thing... Have you seen Bakersfield yet?:p
Nope, I haven't seen it yet, except for pictures. Hopefully it will only be a tempory move until I can find a good job around SF.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows

For the guy that said Reagan was Bush's #2 political icon, that may be true, but Bush hasn't done a good job of following in Reagan's footsteps :rolleyes:



Nor his #1 choice if you ask me.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
Nope, I haven't seen it yet, except for pictures. Hopefully it will only be a tempory move until I can find a good job around SF.

Well if you like it really hot in the summer and cold in the winter with fog thick enough to cut with a knife, you'll be fine. You will actually be reasonably close to me here in Morro Bay though. This is where all the tourists from Bakersfield come when it hits 100 degrees in the valley. At least you can afford to buy a house in Bakersfield though. Here the median price is over $350,000.

KCK
Aug 7, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Schwartzenegger running is good, though I do not know much about his political stances. Hope that these come out in the next 60 days. If he's for cutting the state income tax to a flat 6%, I'd vote for him. :D

According to a story on the SF Chronicle

"Arnold describes himself as a fiscal conservative, but he supports abortion rights, "reasonable" gun control, gay rights and immigrant rights"

bobindashadows
Aug 7, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by KCK
According to a story on the SF Chronicle

"Arnold describes himself as a fiscal conservative, but he supports abortion rights, "reasonable" gun control, gay rights and immigrant rights"
Oh, really? Wow. He just lost my theoretical vote. I'm pro-life. And I think we need to clean up the sanctuary cities.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Ronald Reagan had no political experience before he was governor of California. All he had done was make speeches.

For the guy that said Reagan was Bush's #2 political icon, that may be true, but Bush hasn't done a good job of following in Reagan's footsteps :rolleyes:

If you vote against the recall, then you are giving Bustamante a smaller chance of getting elected in Davis' place. A recall doesn't mean a Democrat can't get elected, it means Davis can't get his job back. So, you are essentially voting that Davis should stay... but in case he doesn't stay, then Bustamante should take his place? Is that your intent? I wasn't sure.

Now, I could be petty and say Reagan proves the point, but nooo I wouldn't say that!;)

Yes, that is my intention. I dislike Davis, but I think people shouldn't be recalled from office for anything other than crimes in office. This is a lot like the attempt at redistricting in Texas. There they seized on a new balance of power in the legislatute to try and redo the districts in their favor; here the republicans saw low poll ratings and bankrolled the recall. It's all a power grab. They are both new lows in the political wars.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Oh, really? Wow. He just lost my theoretical vote. I'm pro-life. And I think we need to clean up the sanctuary cities.

See, this is the problem we will have here, with so much fragmentation of the field of candidates, it will be hard for any one person to get enough votes to claim any kind of mandate to govern. And if you are elected with less than 25% of the vote, how long do you think you can govern without facing a recall of your own... I'm sure gonna want one if Angelyne gets elected. Sigh.... California's 1900's era progressive reforms have come around to bite us in the collective ass in many ways I'm afraid. The ideas are good, but the implementation is flawed.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 12:42 PM
So someone is going to be cast out because of one issue. Notice that he is for gay rights, gun control, and other issues. Don't cast someone out because they are pro-choice.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Well if you like it really hot in the summer and cold in the winter with fog thick enough to cut with a knife, you'll be fine. You will actually be reasonably close to me here in Morro Bay though. This is where all the tourists from Bakersfield come when it hits 100 degrees in the valley. At least you can afford to buy a house in Bakersfield though. Here the median price is over $350,000.

Don't forget the oil rigs and the flat landscape. Bakersfield is the "Texas panhandle" of California. Good thing is you're not too far from some nice country; you're just not in it.

peterjhill
Aug 7, 2003, 12:51 PM
Hum, the state is practically bankrupt. Arnold's experience with Planet Hollywood will be helpful in running a money losing enterprise.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 12:55 PM
I can't wait to see how many people actually end up on the ballot... I'm guessing it will be at least 75, but it could be much, much higher. Who's gonna vote for Gary Coleman?:D

Mr. Anderson
Aug 7, 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I can't wait to see how many people actually end up on the ballot... I'm guessing it will be at least 75, but it could be much, much higher. Who's gonna vote for Gary Coleman?:D

CNN quoted Coleman - I think its hysterical he's running - as saying he's going to vote for Arnold ;)

I would be very surprised if he doesn't win. If Clint Eastwood can be Sheriff, um Mayor, Ronald Reagan Gov. before him, how can he not make it.

And look at who's gov. of Minnesota....:D

D

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by peterjhill
Hum, the state is practically bankrupt. Arnold's experience with Planet Hollywood will be helpful in running a money losing enterprise.

Last weekend Harry Shearer suggested that everybody run for governor. If enough people submitted their $3,500.00 filing fees, the budget deficit would be erased and whoever won with 0.1% of the vote could enjoy the state's newfound prosperity. Finally, a plan we can live with!

Incidentally, assuming anyone is interested, my plan at the moment is to vote "no" on the recall, and for Arianna Huffington. For my money, she wins the battle of the foreign accents, hands down. Of course among the 500 or so other candidates, a few of them are bound to have appealing foreign accents. If a Swede enters the race I might just have to reconsider.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 01:35 PM
Schwartzenegger is definetly the horse to beat now, so to speak. He is the overnight frontrunner, but now he has to put forth a platform and start to take a stand on issues. It won't be enough to say "I will go to Sacremento and clean house." for very long. October is a long way away, and Davis may very well get the recall vote postphoned until next March which would put A.S in a much longer campaign situation which probably will not be to his benefit with Davis' war machine hammering away at him.

Meanwhile, Cruz Bustamante (who was the one who scheduled the election as early as he could) wants the job now too, and feels that an early election would help him for the same reason - no one wants to face the Davis attacks for any longer than they have to. If Californians find CB to be trustworthy they are more likely to support him on part 2 of the ballot than AS. We are the left coast after all. AS is polling better right now, but that is only because CB is largely unknown to the people (sadly most Californians can't name their lt. gov.) It will probably come down to who can unify their party's base better. If is comes down to a mostly 3 way race between AS, CB and Ariana Huffington then the Democrats are in trouble because the liberal vote will be split. Who knows what will happen. What a circus it is too.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
If is comes down to a mostly 3 way race between AS, CB and Ariana Huffington then the Democrats are in trouble because the liberal vote will be split. Who knows what will happen. What a circus it is too.

My hope is the republicans will not have the discipline to not split the vote. Issa is definitely running and Simon and others have made moves as well. Let all the right-wingers run away from Arnold's moderate social views and if the recall is successful then Bustamante wins.

And IJReilly, if we are voting on the basis of different accents don't you think it's about time California had a governor with a Spanish one?;)

iJon
Aug 7, 2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
since he drives a hummer, should we assume schwarzenegger will lose the environmental vote?
but honestly, could you see arnold in a enviro friendly civic :)

iJon

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
My hope is the republicans will not have the discipline to not split the vote. Issa is definitely running and Simon and others have made moves as well. Let all the right-wingers run away from Arnold's moderate social views and if the recall is successful then Bustamante wins.

And IJReilly, if we are voting on the basis of different accents don't you think it's about time California had a governor with a Spanish one?;)

I'm with you in hoping the conservative vote is split, but here's the problem I see: Issa is dead already, virtually no one wants him to be governor, and when Simon had his chance Californians decided he was an even worse choice than Davis. It's not likely he will generate any support outside the extreme right which is not a large or effective voting block statewide. Riordan will likely not run now that his friend Schwartzenegger is in. The national level Republican operatives will be trying to dry up all other conservative opponents and promote him relentlessly.

And with both Bustamante and Huffington in the race the left wing will have to decide between traditional Democrat and Progressive whatever-the-hell-party Huffington will run from. I don't think she even needs to run outside the democratic party platform, the ballot set-up means it's open season. Liberals will have to decide between liberal and liberaler.:D

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I'm with you in hoping the conservative vote is split, but here's the problem I see: Issa is dead already, virtually no one wants him to be governor, and when Simon had his chance Californians decided he was an even worse choice than Davis. It's not likely he will generate any support outside the extreme right which is not a large or effective voting block statewide. Riordan will likely not run now that his friend Schwartzenegger is in. The national level Republican operatives will be trying to dry up all other conservative opponents and promote him relentlessly.

And with both Bustamante and Huffington in the race the left wing will have to decide between traditional Democrat and Progressive whatever-the-hell-party Huffington will run from. I don't think she even needs to run outside the democratic party platform, the ballot set-up means it's open season. Liberals will have to decide between liberal and liberaler.:D

Huffington's association with the republicans will still drive off many democrats who don't trust her. Your concern that it may be the dems who split the vote is valid. I just saw the news where Insurance commissioner Garamendi has announced he is running. He won't get much in the way of votes, but it might be enough to tip the election.
Bustamante's announcement featured the call for a no vote on the recall and a vote for him on the second ballot. It's a good stance, but we will see if it will be successful.

Now, what was that old quote by Will Rodgers - "I don't belong to any organized political party; I'm a Democrat." Couldn't be more appropriate for this mess.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 02:27 PM
Holy crap, did Issa just drop out of the race? CNN was running a clip from a press conference that showed Issa crying and saying something about not endorsing another candidate at this time. If that's true, the Republican heirarchy did some serious overnight armtwisting on Issa. That wouldn't even be a subtle strong-arm maneuver.

CNN now confirming Arnold has "terminated" his first opponent, Darryl Issa has withdrawn from the race.

Backtothemac
Aug 7, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Holy crap, did Issa just drop out of the race? CNN was running a clip from a press conference that showed Issa crying and saying something about not endorsing another candidate at this time. If that's true, the Republican heirarchy did some serious overnight armtwisting on Issa. That wouldn't even be a subtle strong-arm maneuver.

CNN now confirming Arnold has "terminated" his first opponent, Darryl Issa has withdrawn from the race.

Yep, they are trying to make it so that he will get a massive amount of votes. Even Arianna's x is endorsing the guy. Man, that has to piss her off.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Holy crap, did Issa just drop out of the race? CNN was running a clip from a press conference that showed Issa crying and saying something about not endorsing another candidate at this time. If that's true, the Republican heirarchy did some serious overnight armtwisting on Issa. That wouldn't even be a subtle strong-arm maneuver.

CNN now confirming Arnold has "terminated" his first opponent, Darryl Issa has withdrawn from the race.

Now what was that about the national Republicans staying out of this race? Democrats better get their act together or we will have Arnold as Governor campaigning for Bush in 2004.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yep, they are trying to make it so that he will get a massive amount of votes. Even Arianna's x is endorsing the guy. Man, that has to piss her off.

I have a feeling Michael is a little peeved that his ex wife is considered a top tier candidate as well.:D

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
And IJReilly, if we are voting on the basis of different accents don't you think it's about time California had a governor with a Spanish one?;)

Heck nu, iff ve're-a gueeng tu hefe-a a Germun und a Greek, ve-a elsu need a Svede-a!

3rdpath
Aug 7, 2003, 03:26 PM
great, now dimunitive ex-child actor gary coleman is in the race...

it just gets better and better...or sadder and sadder depending on your type of humor.

i feel like plopping down $3500.00 just to be part of the action. i would love to have a souvenir ballot with my name included with these wackjobs.

guess that says something about me....:eek:

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Heck nu, iff ve're-a gueeng tu hefe-a a Germun und a Greek, ve-a elsu need a Svede-a!

LOL, now IJReilly I would have thought you were an Irishman like meself!

pivo6
Aug 7, 2003, 04:44 PM
I just heard on the radio that there are nearly 400 people who are in the running for governor. Is that nuts or what?

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by pivo6
I just heard on the radio that there are nearly 400 people who are in the running for governor. Is that nuts or what?

That's nuts -- no "what" about it. The filing period doesn't even close for two more days. We could get to 600, easily. And who do we have to thank for this?

pivo6
Aug 7, 2003, 05:01 PM
I just read where it takes signatures from 65 registered voters and $3500 to run for governor. If that's all it takes, then who knows how many people will run.

The same link says by late Wednesday (Aug 6, they had 511 take out papers to join the race.


link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/07/MN109521.DTL)

vniow
Aug 7, 2003, 05:32 PM
How come presidential elections can't be this interesting?

I love this state.

pivo6
Aug 7, 2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by vniow
How come presidential elections can't be this interesting?

I love this state.

Wait until 2016!

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by pivo6
Wait until 2016!

OK, I'll bite - what's with 2016?

vniow
Aug 7, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
OK, I'll bite - what's with 2016?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23053

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 07:06 PM
Now I see the importance of 2016! My head is swimming from the possibilities. :cool:

note: double entendre intended

jelloshotsrule
Aug 7, 2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
OK, I'll bite - what's with 2016?

the better question.... what ISN'T with 2016? or , 2k16 as i call it, as well as one of my major proponents, snoop dizzle dizzle

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 08:39 PM
It's getting more entertaining by the minute... now the CA supreme court has ruled that the election can proceed in October as scheduled, a major blow for Davis. I can't wait to see what happens next!

MrMacMan
Aug 7, 2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by e-coli
In related news, Clifford the Big Red Dog has anounced that he, too, will be running for Governor of California.

:rolleyes:

you know what, even though I live in New York

Even though I never have lived in California

Even though I really don't care who Calif. next Governor Is



I will be throwing my name into the governors race.

:kisses baby:


On other related news a Mechanical robot called TX has entered the race and only goal is to 'Destoy Arnold'.

After the robots new confrence it blew up the surronding 10 blocks.

Back to you Tom.





Originally posted by mactastic
But Bush cites Reagan as his biggest political hero, second only to Jesus.

Since when was Jesus a political hero?


Originally posted by mactastic
CNN now confirming Arnold has "terminated" his first opponent, Darryl Issa has withdrawn from the race.
'This is not the first'

I can imagine many more will be 'Terminated' by Arnold.

Originally posted by mactastic
It's getting more entertaining by the minute... now the CA supreme court has ruled that the election can proceed in October as scheduled, a major blow for Davis. I can't wait to see what happens next!
Um... David is blown to tiny bits by an unknown Arnold Fan?


Yeah I can imagine...

:rolleyes:

*sigh*
Arnold is Consertive on the ecomony but on social issues he is liberal.

He, like all the Cali. Gover's in the past are going for the middle votes.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman

Since when was Jesus a political hero?


Sorry, I shouldn't have said political hero before. Bush cited Christ as his favorite philosopher, and Reagan as his favorite president.

jefhatfield
Aug 7, 2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
following in the footsteps of reagan, eh?

i like this quote from Sen Feinstein: the election is "more and more like a carnival every day."

actually, reagan had some qualifications and had a record of public service and was once an active democrat...arnold is going straight from actor to governor in his 50s...it really is a fascinating news story for those of us in california...of course, minnesota caught the attention first of normal, non politician becoming governor right off the bat

if arnold wins, maybe one day anybody famous without political experience can become governor here or senator right off the bat...california is a large and powerful state and california governors and senators have run for the presidency

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
the better question.... what ISN'T with 2016? or , 2k16 as i call it, as well as one of my major proponents, snoop dizzle dizzle

I finally understand your avatar! OK, let me know when the campaign is launched because we may have valuble experiences here in the recall that will apply to 2016. Have you looked into Larry Flynt's campaign for helpful tidbits? ;)

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
if arnold wins, maybe one day anybody famous without political experience can become governor here or senator right off the bat...california is a large and powerful state and california governors and senators have run for the presidency

Famous and wealthy, you'd better make that. Every "serious" candidate in this "election" (both words to use advisedly in this case) are either backed by big party money or have plenty of their own to spend. How's that for a trend?

pseudobrit
Aug 8, 2003, 12:16 AM
Anyone else waiting in anticipation for the inevitable sound bite of:

"Hasta la vista, Davie."

{audience cheers}

voicegy
Aug 8, 2003, 12:22 AM
That does it...a muscle builder actor, a wannabe actress, a washed up "mini" actor...I give up. I'm puttin' up the money and entering Walt Disney's frozen head.:rolleyes:

mactastic
Aug 8, 2003, 08:03 AM
Arnold can't be pres though... he was born is Austria.

Desertrat
Aug 8, 2003, 09:17 AM
zimv20 cited Maher:

"Here's why the economy turned: The dot-com bubble burst. (Obviously on the orders of Gray Davis.) The airline industry collapsed. (Just as Gray Davis planned.) We fought two wars. (Playing right into Gray Davis' hands.) And Dick Cheney's friends at Enron "gamed" the energy market and ripped off the state for billions.

So you can see the problem: Gray Davis."

Davis--and, of course,others--is the problem in that he assumed that the Good Times would roll forever. In this, they resemble the bankers in the 1970s, who believed that oil prices would forever continue upwards--so they happily loaned bushels of money to such as Mexico. Then came 1985.

But the dot-com bubble bustshould have been obvious to Davis et al before he was elected. The airline problems were obvious before he was elected. The energy problem was well on its way long before he was elected.

This sort of thing usually leads to one being known as a "Slow Learner".

Quien sabe? Maybe an MBA might have a wee modicum of understanding of economics...

:), 'Rat

KCK
Aug 8, 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat

But the dot-com bubble bustshould have been obvious to Davis et al before he was elected. The airline problems were obvious before he was elected. The energy problem was well on its way long before he was elected.

This sort of thing usually leads to one being known as a "Slow Learner".

Quien sabe? Maybe an MBA might have a wee modicum of understanding of economics...

:), 'Rat

One thing that anyone with any kind of understanding about how economies work should know is that every bubble will burst in the end. you can't offer big pay raises to all the different state workers based on the inflated revenues collected during a bubble. When the bubble bursts you end up in the situation CA is in now

zimv20
Aug 8, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat

Davis--and, of course,others--is the problem in that he assumed that the Good Times would roll forever.

so goes california goes the rest of america.

remember the great surpluses on which bush based his tax cuts?

KCK
Aug 8, 2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
so goes california goes the rest of america.

remember the great surpluses on which bush based his tax cuts?

Of course based on past history when the Federal tax rate is cut the federal government has realized an increased amount of revenue

wowoah
Aug 8, 2003, 10:30 AM
Sorry, I haven't totally been reading the whole thread, but it seems that Arnold really has no stand on anything. He's a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal." What exactly does that mean?

I saw his interview on the Today show. Asked about how he would correct Davis' fiscal policies, he said, "A governor needs to be one who unites people, not divides them. I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Asked about whether he would repeal the state's mandatory paid family leave law which has been antagonizing state businesses, he said, "I'll have to look into that, but I'm very much committed to families. I believe every dollar in the treasury should go to children first."

Then, at a press conference, he was repeatedly confronted with questions on the environment, to which he responded, "I will fight for the environment. Don't worry."

edit: He's also made no stand on the really touchy issues, like gay marriage or school vouchers, although to his credit he has spoken out as being pro-life and pro-public education, reinforcing his "social liberal" epithet.

I'm very much a liberal Democrat, but in the wake of that disaster of a governor Davis and no viable liberal alternative (Feinstein!! WHY??), I'm seriously considering throwing my vote at Schwarzenegger, the self-proclaimed Moderate Republican. I just wish he'd have an intellectual, detailed stance on something. His vagueness just reinforces the conception that he's a meathead.

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 10:43 AM
It should be obvious now that Swartzenegger will be running on pure celebrity, taking as few political position as possible, and quoting as many of his famous movie lines as modesty will allow -- and since modesty isn't a word in Arnie's vocabulary, expect to hear a lot of "asta la vistas."

Desertrat
Aug 8, 2003, 11:11 AM
"He's a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal." What exactly does that mean?"

Generally, a fiscal conservative is someone who wants efficiency in programs, with a minimum of waste. It includes the attitude that if a program isn't working, "More money!" isn't necessarily the answer. Changing or ending the program is of greater benefit to the overall society.

A social liberal often is one who thinks government oughta stay out of bedrooms and doctors' offices. There are multitudes of variations on this theme, of course, but a positive view on civil rights is part of the deal.

You can find quite a few non-rabid Libertarians in this camp, moreso than either strong neo-conservatives or dedicated liberals. (Generalization, obviously.)

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 11:22 AM
At this point, Swartzenegger doesn't have a "camp," unless you call the Tonight Show with Jay Leno a "camp." He's yet to take a single, meaningful political position. I know a lot of people confuse celebrity with seriousness of purpose, but let's not have that here, shall we?

jefhatfield
Aug 8, 2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by wowoah
Sorry, I haven't totally been reading the whole thread, but it seems that Arnold really has no stand on anything. He's a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal." What exactly does that mean?



blue dog democrat, baby!:p

hatman definition: this means that reagan shamed us democrats into being appalled at big government spending so people like clinton would re-invent the democratic party to carry the big, vast middle of the road voters reagan got in the 80s...and clinton got in the 90s...and bush took back in 2000...but will lose if he doesn't watch the economy;)

Backtothemac
Aug 8, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
"He's a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal." What exactly does that mean?"

'Rat


HA! I have always said that I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
;)

Desertrat
Aug 8, 2003, 11:37 AM
Well, one thing for sure: There ain't a danged thing the Administration can do for the economy. Greenspan's been trying for a "soft landing" since around 1997 or so and has been largely successful, but that doesn't mean a landing isn't yet to come.

I'm guessing we're in for several years of ongoing Yuck! until we as a nation figure out what our post-industrial self is gonna be.

But that's a whole 'nother thread or six...

'Rat

Backtothemac
Aug 8, 2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Well, one thing for sure: There ain't a danged thing the Administration can do for the economy. Greenspan's been trying for a "soft landing" since around 1997 or so and has been largely successful, but that doesn't mean a landing isn't yet to come.

I'm guessing we're in for several years of ongoing Yuck! until we as a nation figure out what our post-industrial self is gonna be.

But that's a whole 'nother thread or six...

'Rat

Agreed. I just hate it when people blame Bush soley for the economy. It is several administrations fault, the nature of business, and a growing population.

meta-ghost
Aug 8, 2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I just hate it when people blame Bush soley for the economy.
When he cuts taxes on the weathly and sends $400 dollar checks to a few others and says it will fix the economy, he is taking responsibility.

wowoah
Aug 8, 2003, 12:06 PM
"He's a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal." What exactly does that mean?"

Generally, a fiscal conservative is someone who wants efficiency in programs, with a minimum of waste. It includes the attitude that if a program isn't working, "More money!" isn't necessarily the answer. Changing or ending the program is of greater benefit to the overall society.

A social liberal often is one who thinks government oughta stay out of bedrooms and doctors' offices. There are multitudes of variations on this theme, of course, but a positive view on civil rights is part of the deal.

You can find quite a few non-rabid Libertarians in this camp, moreso than either strong neo-conservatives or dedicated liberals. (Generalization, obviously.)


Hahaha, I know what being "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal" means; what I meant was that by saying that he is really saying nothing. It's about as vague as saying, "I'm for the people" or "I support the environment." Are you for the people getting tax cuts and supporting the economy through consumerism, or are you for the people receiving federal subsidized aid and healthcare? Do you support the environment unconditionally or do you support them only if doing so doesn't cost American jobs?

What I'm saying is that I'm frustrated with Arnold (and politicians in general) trying to get votes by using lame sound-bytes and empty rhetoric. Substance, people! Sure, Davis sucks, but really, what are you going to do about it?

wowoah
Aug 8, 2003, 12:12 PM
Agreed. I just hate it when people blame Bush soley for the economy. It is several administrations fault, the nature of business, and a growing population.

Sure, no man is powerful enough to singlehandedly destroy the entire economy, but a $2B/month Iraqi occupation coupled with massive across-the-board tax cuts and slashing of capital-gains taxes and inheritance taxes (which of course, don't benefit the poor at all and benefit the immensely rich immensely) during an unprecedent federal budget deficit really isn't helping at all. I'm not saying Bush pushed the boulder off the cliff, I'm just saying he seems to like kicking it along.

Sooner or later (hopefully), this administration's going to have to face up to the fact that it has absolutely no economic plan other than "tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts." It's really just a cheap way of getting votes--the average American will feel all happy with his $400 rebate check and go and buy a new DVD player, when behind the scenes, social security and medicare are falling into shambles.

mactastic
Aug 8, 2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Agreed. I just hate it when people blame Bush soley for the economy. It is several administrations fault, the nature of business, and a growing population.

And I hate it when someone comes in claiming tax cuts are need because there's a surplus, then that tax cuts are needed to stimulate an economy running record deficits. If Republicans are willing to try to hang Davis for his budget problems, they shouldn't act hurt when Democrats attack Bush for the very same thing.

edit: Actually I'm with you on this one, presidents (and governors) are not largely responsible for either the successes or failures of an economy that has a cyclical nature. That's the reason I really can't support the whole recall thing. Davis is getting hammered for what was largely handed to him by a previous Republican administration. Not really fair, but it's how the game is played. Poor Issa got rolled for a sucker by the GOP top brass though for sure.

Backtothemac
Aug 8, 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by wowoah
Hahaha, I know what being "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal" means; what I meant was that by saying that he is really saying nothing. It's about as vague as saying, "I'm for the people" or "I support the environment." Are you for the people getting tax cuts and supporting the economy through consumerism, or are you for the people receiving federal subsidized aid and healthcare? Do you support the environment unconditionally or do you support them only if doing so doesn't cost American jobs?

What I'm saying is that I'm frustrated with Arnold (and politicians in general) trying to get votes by using lame sound-bytes and empty rhetoric. Substance, people! Sure, Davis sucks, but really, what are you going to do about it?

No what it means is that you are for a smaller government, that taxes the people less, but you support abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control.

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by wowoah
Sure, no man is powerful enough to singlehandedly destroy the entire economy, but a $2B/month Iraqi occupation coupled with massive across-the-board tax cuts and slashing of capital-gains taxes and inheritance taxes (which of course, don't benefit the poor at all and benefit the immensely rich immensely) during an unprecedent federal budget deficit really isn't helping at all. I'm not saying Bush pushed the boulder off the cliff, I'm just saying he seems to like kicking it along.

Sooner or later (hopefully), this administration's going to have to face up to the fact that it has absolutely no economic plan other than "tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts." It's really just a cheap way of getting votes--the average American will feel all happy with his $400 rebate check and go and buy a new DVD player, when behind the scenes, social security and medicare are falling into shambles.

The Iraq cost is $4 billion a month.

We can't honestly say that a president's economic policies don't matter to the economy. One of the features of the Clinton administration is what amounted to a back-room deal between Clinton and Greenspan to eliminate deficit spending and lower interest rates, allowing the economy to grow rapidly. Presently, the fed has lowered bank rates effectively to nil, but long-term interest rates are actually rising, and quite sharply. Why? A small matter of the federal government jumping into the credit markets to finance $450 billion in federal deficits, and the prospect of even more to come. These things really do matter, and they are a matter of policy, not inevitability.

mactastic
Aug 8, 2003, 12:35 PM
On a related note, my local paper has a front page story this morning about Davis' limo hurtling through our county here on his way from Monterey to LA. Apparently something went wrong with his plane and he had to drive, but when he went through our area at over 90mph the CHP tried to pull his car over, but were waved off by the officers driving the limo. Locals are upset because that section of road is known a "blood alley" because of the 29 people who have died in accidents there in the last 5 years. Davis' spokesperson wouldn't comment and referred all questions to the CHP who are in charge of drinving state officials around. More bad press that can't really help Davis.

Desertrat
Aug 8, 2003, 02:19 PM
IJ, veering off: I had to laugh, recently, at some old folks griping about Bush, since the low interest rates meant they get little return on their CDs.

Yeah, interest rates are going up due to the Fed's borrowing. However, a true economic recovery doesn't really start until the corporations and entrepreneurs start borrowing investment capital, and that's just not happening. Overall, governmental deficit or surplus doesn't really affect industrial/commercial production nor customer's buying...

An economic problem in California is that a certain amount of high-paying jobs are declining and high-paid firms/people are leaving. The newer people and jobs are relatively low-pay by comparison. No matter what efforts are made to economize, there will be a long-term shortfall of tax monies vs. mandated program expenditures. I first saw evidence of this change in the first years after the Rodney King thing, talking to new residents in places like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and along the I-25 corridor. The demographic/economic shift of the last five or so years has been commented upon in various economic analyses...

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, veering off: I had to laugh, recently, at some old folks griping about Bush, since the low interest rates meant they get little return on their CDs.

My retired Dad complains about the low interest rates. He used to be able to live off the income on his CDs -- now he has to dip into principal to make ends meet. So I sympathize with this gripe, but the fact remains that the fed is lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy. If the federal government then jumps in and gobbles up the credit markets, the impact of lowering the bank rate will be effectively neutralized. That wouldn't matter very much if the fed hadn't pretty much run out of lowering room, with the economy still not responding. This sounds a lot like our version of the Japanese economy, and that's just a little scary.

But once again, this isn't an accident, it's a product of policy. Clinton's policy was to lower the deficit and interest rates, and make the economy grow -- and it sems to have worked. Bush's policy appears to be lowering taxes, spending like crazy, and assuming it will all turn out great in the end. I think we're seeing the results of those policies too.

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Agreed. I just hate it when people blame Bush soley for the economy.

i blame him for the deficits.

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Iraq cost is $4 billion a month.


david hackworth thinks it's 6.

How long do you think U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq?

God only knows, the way things are going. At least 30 years. Tommy Franks [recently retired commander of U.S. troops in Iraq] said four to 10 years. Based on Cyprus and other commitments in this kind of warfare, it is going to be a long time -- unless the price gets too heavy. We say it is costing the U.S. $4 billion a month; I bet it is costing $6 billion a month. Where the hell is that money going to come from?


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0805-09.htm

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 09:32 AM
Clinton's tax policies coupled with Greenspan's control of interest rates worked well, mostly because of the dot-com bubble. Trouble is, that bubble burst at the same time we've been losing higher-paid jobs to the "catch-up" countries. That is, we have pretty much lost industrial production to countries which have been developing, playing catch-up, for these last fifty years.

A normal cyclical downturn in the overall economy, coupled with fewer high-pay jobs and far more lower-pay service jobs means less income at all levels of government. The next shoe to drop will be the bubble-bust in the housing market, and then it's "Katie, bar the door!" Long-term interest rates are already going up, and refis are already down--it's estimated another 70,000 jobs are going away due to the reduced need for people in lending institutions.

So not only is California in money trouble, now, but it's gonna get worse over the next couple or so years. California's not alone, of course...

I hope y'all are debt-free and driving fuel-efficient cars.

:), 'Rat

Backtothemac
Aug 9, 2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i blame him for the deficits.


I blame 9/11 and two wars ;)

pivo6
Aug 9, 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I blame 9/11 and two wars ;)

Some will argue that GWB started those two wars. ;) . So it looks like you two agree on something. :D :D :D

Backtothemac
Aug 9, 2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by pivo6
Some will argue that GWB started those two wars. ;) . So it looks like you two agree on something. :D :D :D

Yea, but some would argue that there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon too. ;)

IJ Reilly
Aug 9, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Clinton's tax policies coupled with Greenspan's control of interest rates worked well, mostly because of the dot-com bubble. Trouble is, that bubble burst at the same time we've been losing higher-paid jobs to the "catch-up" countries. That is, we have pretty much lost industrial production to countries which have been developing, playing catch-up, for these last fifty years.

A normal cyclical downturn in the overall economy, coupled with fewer high-pay jobs and far more lower-pay service jobs means less income at all levels of government. The next shoe to drop will be the bubble-bust in the housing market, and then it's "Katie, bar the door!" Long-term interest rates are already going up, and refis are already down--it's estimated another 70,000 jobs are going away due to the reduced need for people in lending institutions.

I don't entirely buy either one of these arguments. Certainly the good times in the '90s were fueled in part by the dot-com boom, but that wasn't the only thing going on at the time. Had it been the policy to do so, the revenue surplus could have been completely squandered in the Clinton budgets, but it wasn't. Enough of the surplus was being dedicated to deficit reduction, that talk had turned to what the economic effects of eliminating the federal deficit entirely might be. That was obviously premature and wishful thinking, but it only goes to show how completely the situation has changed in only three years. We're not simply seeing the effects of a "normal cyclical downturn" here -- the administration is setting deficit spending records because that is their policy. Long-term interest rates are going up because of that policy, and little else. The Bush administration had choices, and these are the choices they made, and we are living with the consequences of those choices.

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I blame 9/11 and two wars ;)

9/11 did negatively affect the economy. the tax cuts are causing deficits this year and next, i hope you'll agree. we'll probably disagree on their longterm effects.

i hold the iraq war as entirely unnecessary, there's $4-6 billion / month.

even if the iraq war was necessary, could it not have been possible to get other countries to fund it, like gwh bush did?

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
the revenue surplus could have been completely squandered in the Clinton budgets, but it wasn't. Enough of the surplus was being dedicated to deficit reduction

anyone have figures on what the deficit was when bush took office and what it is now?

IJ Reilly
Aug 9, 2003, 12:01 PM
From today's LA Times:
But on the third day of his campaign, the novice Republican candidate drew his first sustained attack from Democrats, who pounced on his refusal to answer some questions during a round of morning interviews on national television news shows.

Asked on ABC's "Good Morning America" about gay marriage, he replied: "I don't want to get into that right now."

Asked about a news report quoting aides saying he was open to tax increases, Schwarzenegger said: "I can't imagine anyone on my team said that." He said that his solution was not raising taxes or cutting programs, but to "bring businesses back to California." But Schwarzenegger offered no strategy for attracting business. In fact, he has argued for reversing an increase in the car tax — which would cost the state treasury billions — even as he has advocated for more spending on school buildings and teacher hiring.

Financial experts who rate the state bonds have said that cuts in services or higher taxes or both are necessary to close the state's budget gap.

Schwarzenegger declined requests to explain how he would manage all of this.

On NBC's "Today Show," interviewer Matt Lauer pressed him. "You talk about the budget deficit. You talk about the energy crisis, the slumping economy, people leaving California. Give me some specifics, Arnold. How are you going to turn it around?"

Schwarzenegger offered no details, focusing his answer on the governor:

"Well, I think the first and most important thing is to know that it takes leadership, because Gray Davis is saying he has the experience and all of those things. We have seen now what happens. He has sold himself as the man that has experience you cannot buy. What happened with all his experience? Look at the situation we're in right now."

Asked later in the same interview whether he would disclose his tax returns, as candidates for high office typically do, Schwarzenegger fiddled with his earpiece and said he could not hear the question. (In an appearance in Bellflower later Friday, Schwarzenegger said he would make disclosure but did not say when. "Absolutely. I have nothing to hide," he said.)

Democrats quickly seized on the TV appearances. The state Democratic Party put out a statement saying: "Pretending they can't hear the questions might work in Hollywood, but it doesn't cut it for the voters of California."

Garry South, who led Davis' two successful campaigns for governor, went further. "Clearly what he has decided to do is to try to shelter himself from the mainstream political press and hide under the skirts of the entertainment press," South said. He added that he thinks Schwarzenegger is gambling that the recall election season is so short and "there will be so many candidates, there will be so much hysteria, that he slides through this entire process without ever having to stand and deliver."

South said that media outlets needed to apply more scrutiny to Schwarzenegger and mentioned in particular the actor's record of voting. (A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder said Friday that Schwarzenegger had voted in only two of the last eight statewide elections).

Even some Republicans questioned the TV appearances. "Does anyone ever get a direct answer from him?" asked Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg. "They asked him specific, direct easy questions. He's just now answering."

Pressed about his lack of detailed positions in Bellflower, Schwarzenegger said: "With the campaign, everything is under control. I'm having a great time in this campaign. I have so much energy. I have so much fire. I will be going from home to home to talk to the people of California."

Complete story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold9aug09001422,1,967980.story?
)

What really struck me was the guy's record as a voter. He wants to govern, but he couldn't be bother to show up at more then two out of the last eight elections. Remarkable.

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
"Look at the situation we're in right now."

that strikes me as pretty hollow, coming from a guy who's worth tens of millions of dollars.

so i guess his campaign strategy is: "i care, and i'm not governor davis."

mactastic
Aug 9, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
that strikes me as pretty hollow, coming from a guy who's worth tens of millions of dollars.

so i guess his campaign strategy is: "i care, and i'm not governor davis."

Don't forget, he's also "a uniter, not a divider." Creepy deja vu.

IJ Reilly
Aug 9, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
that strikes me as pretty hollow, coming from a guy who's worth tens of millions of dollars.

Hollow, as in, "Hollow, my name is Arnold Swartzenegger"?

Must... try... to... resist...

Sayhey
Aug 9, 2003, 02:05 PM
If Arnold thinks he is going to get a free pass from the press, he is in for a rude awakening. Just take a look at MSN Slate Magazine's view of Arnold's "Nazi" past at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2086742/

This campaign is going to get down and dirty fast, and not all of the dirt is going to get thrown in Davis' direction.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 9, 2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Don't forget, he's also "a uniter, not a divider." Creepy deja vu.

well the voters bought that last time it was used! i mean, less than half of them did. ;)

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 9, 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
If Arnold thinks he is going to get a free pass from the press, he is in for a rude awakening. Just take a look at MSN Slate Magazine's view of Arnold's "Nazi" past

like the article said, arnold didn't denouce waldheim in case he didn't run in cali but in austria. now that he is going for cali, he might decide now is the time to (publicly) denounce him.

Sayhey
Aug 9, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
like the article said, arnold didn't denouce waldheim in case he didn't run in cali but in austria. now that he is going for cali, he might decide now is the time to (publicly) denounce him.

Sure, I don't think this is the way to take him on. I only wanted to show how tough the questioning will get. I think the Terminator should be nailed down to answer the specifics of a program to get us out of this economic mess. Vague generalities of his "leadership" skills are the antithesis of leadership. For Arnold it's time to get real - California ain't a movie set.

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 03:12 PM
IJ said, "the administration is setting deficit spending records because that is their policy." Well, the deficit results from their policies. I doubt anybody awoke one morning and said, "Gee. Let's create a deficit." (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

More to the point, isn't the same deal--the California deficit--a result of the policy decisions of Davis and the Cali Lege? As well as policies applauded by past voters' decisions?

What would any of you Californios on this board suggest to any winning candidate, Arnold or whomever?

'Rat

3rdpath
Aug 9, 2003, 11:21 PM
as a californicater...here's my opinion.

1st. whoever gets into office after this freak show has a built-in scapegoat...everyone already believes davis is to blame...they can easily skate on that for a full term.

2nd. whoever gets elected doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of making cali's economy better...the reality is cali is going thru a cyclical downturn that won't bottom out for some time. the business climate here is horrible and many many people have left the state for greener pastures. we're getting closer to the peak that was established in 1989...history will repeat itself. housing prices and the affordability index are good precursers to the downturn.

3rd. cali often sets the trends for the rest of the nation...watch for recalls in other states.

my gut instinct is davis will resign and let bustamante( sp?) serve the remainder of his term. this will take the steam out of the hastily organized election efforts. feinstein will then run and win after bustamante's term. arnold will remember and cherish his time in the political spotlight ( and secretly thank the higher powers that he never had to actually come up with a plan of action). he'll go back to flexing his biceps instead of his ego...issa will hold teary news conferences and sue the state to somehow recoup his misspent millions...gary coleman will still be a security guard...angelyne will still be famous for nothing...larry flynt will still give everyone the creeps...and pete u. will go back to doing whatever a commish does...the fact that he has a high profile job with no clear job description does make him an ideal governer but alas it's not meant to be.

if i'm wrong and this does come down to an election...huffington will wipe the floor with the other candidates in a debate. and she might just win it. if people from other states could vote arnold would win...but hey, this is cali and we see stars all the time...we're hard to impress.

then again, we elected a man who's best films starred a monkey...

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
What would any of you Californios on this board suggest to any winning candidate, Arnold or whomever?

Duck!

Really. The situation isn't going to get much if any better in a year. So if a recall is a valid exercise in democracy in 2003 following an election in 2002, then who's to say a recall in 2004 isn't a valid exercise in democracy following a recall in 2003?

(A point of order: "Californio" is an historically specific term referring to Mexican and Spanish land grant holders in Alta California during the pre-statehood period. Okay, so nobody cares. Carry on.)

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 07:41 AM
I like what Gray Davis had to say about the idea of a recall.

If the voters do it this time, and see that it works, they can keep on doing it and they'll be a new governor every few months. Of course not much will get done seeing as how each Guv gets such a short term...

but they'll be popular for a few weeks, anyway, and that's what everyone wants out of their elected officials.

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 10:22 AM
"If the voters do it this time, and see that it works, they can keep on doing it and they'll be a new governor every few months."

Now there's as good an example of opposition to self-rule and democracy as I've run across in a long, long time. A wonderful example of one's opinion of the great unwashed voter. Sorta like the Texas legislator, commenting on the issue of referendum and recall, "First thing you know, people will think they can govern themselves."

Yeah, pseudobrit, what we need is a ruling oligarchy of truly elite, who appoint themselves as rulers for life.

:), 'Rat

meta-ghost
Aug 10, 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by 3rdpath

my gut instinct is davis will resign and let bustamante( sp?) serve the remainder of his term. this will take the steam out of the hastily organized election efforts. feinstein will then run and win after bustamante's term.

the sacramento bee had some interesting legal analysis of what would happen if davis resigned. it goes something as follows:

"What happens if Gray resigns?"

Although nobody in California politics -- including me -- expects Gray Davis to resign, the reading public is fixated on this question, and I continue to be deluged with emails asking what will happen if he does. Does Cruz become governor? Does the election go forward? Is it possible that Cruz could become governor to fill the vacancy, lose the election and be completely out of a job in the span of a few days? This is an especially delicious question now that Cruz has filed to run and Gray might have reason to take the lite-gov down with him.

Election law blogger Rick Hasen discusses the subject here and links us to a debate among other election law experts here. To this I add the perspective of the Secretary of State Shelley's communications director, Terri Carbaugh, in an interview with your blogger Friday afternoon.

First, though, I should say that it's been widely assumed that if Davis resigns, Bustamante becomes governor and the election goes forward. This is based on section 11302 of the Elections Code. But two questions arise:

1) What happens if voters reject the recall? and

2) What happens to Bustamante if the voters approve the recall and then select someone else to be governor? Is he out of a job altogether? Or does he go back to being lieutenant governor?

This news won't surprise you: the codes are all screwed up. Here is the section in question:

11302. If a vacancy occurs in an office after a recall petition is filed against the vacating officer, the recall election shall nevertheless proceed. The vacancy shall be filled as provided by law, but any person appointed to fill the vacancy shall hold office only until a successor is selected in accordance with Article 4 commencing with Section 11360) or Article 5 (commencing with Section 11380), and the successor qualifies for that office.

That's great, except that neither Section 11360 nor Section 11380 exist any longer. They were dropped from the code in one of those infamous "clean-ups" (which increasingly remind me of the way my kids "clean up" their rooms, by shoving stuff under the bed and into the closet.)

The SOS was kind enough to supply me with the wording of the now-missing sections. Section 11360 referred to the recall of city officers. Section 11380 referred to everyone else. The provisions are those that spell out the methods for holding the replacement election, and most of them have survived and live on under different section numbers.

According to Carbaugh, Shelley's conclusion is that if Gray resigns, Cruz becomes "acting governor" until the election. Then, if the voters reject the recall, Cruz remains governor and assumes the office until the next regularly scheduled election. If the voters approve the recall, and someone other than Cruz wins the replacement election, that person becomes governor and Cruz returns to his post as lieutenant governor.

Problem: nothing in the statutes says Cruz becomes acting governor rather than governor if a vacancy occurs due to resignation. In fact, Article V of the constitution says this:

The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.

It doesn't say acting governor. It says governor.

I also find nothing in the statutes or constitution that says how the Secretary of State should treat the recall question if Gray resigns. It says only that the lieutenant governor becomes governor and the election goes forward, with the winner becoming governor. The law ignores the question of what do do with the recall election itself at that point.

"This certainly is one of those legal issues that is far from crystal clear," Carbaugh said. Yup.

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
"If the voters do it this time, and see that it works, they can keep on doing it and they'll be a new governor every few months."

Now there's as good an example of opposition to self-rule and democracy as I've run across in a long, long time. A wonderful example of one's opinion of the great unwashed voter. Sorta like the Texas legislator, commenting on the issue of referendum and recall, "First thing you know, people will think they can govern themselves."

Yeah, pseudobrit, what we need is a ruling oligarchy of truly elite, who appoint themselves as rulers for life.

:), 'Rat

I have no problem with the principle of recalls. This law in question is ripe for the kind of abuse we are now experiencing. It takes a relatively small percentage of the electorate to kick start the process and most important there is no run off procedure for a replacement. We might replace a Governor who was elected in a general election (much higher turnout than what's likely for the recall), who was elected with a majority vote with a candidate chosen by a small plurality of the voters who bother to vote. Doesn't sound like very democratic to me.

I don't think elected officals should be replaced just because their popularity drops between elections. Recalls should be about how voters can remove people directly for malfeasance in office. It's an important democratic mechanism that is being abused in this circumstance.

California leads the nation in direct democracy with our endless series of initiatives. All that is to the good, but it doesn't mean we don't have some cleaning up of the electoral laws to do to prevent this mess from happening again. That's not longing for some Oligarchy.

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
California leads the nation in direct democracy with our endless series of initiatives. All that is to the good, but it doesn't mean we don't have some cleaning up of the electoral laws to do to prevent this mess from happening again. That's not longing for some Oligarchy.

I'm unconvinced that it's "all to the good." Having suffered through far too many California ballots including two dozen or more very complex initiatives, many sponsored by monied special interests, I'd have to say this system is broken, but good. In fact it might now very well be doing just the opposite of what its conceivers had in mind. One year I was so frustrated by a ballot stuffed with mind-boggling initiatives and referenda, I made up a sign for the back of my car that read, Vote No on Everything - Make the Legislature Work for a Living. And that's pretty much how I see the situation today. This recall quite probably would never have made the ballot if one man hadn't been willing to spend nearly $3 million of his own money to bankroll an army of signature collectors. This is hardly what I would describe as democracy at work.

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm unconvinced that it's "all to the good." Having suffered through far too many California ballots including two dozen or more very complex initiatives, many sponsored by monied special interests, I'd have to say this system is broken, but good. In fact it might now very well be doing just the opposite of what its conceivers had in mind. One year I was so frustrated by a ballot stuffed with mind-boggling initiatives and referenda, I made up a sign for the back of my car that read, Vote No on Everything - Make the Legislature Work for a Living. And that's pretty much how I see the situation today. This recall quite probably would never have made the ballot if one man hadn't been willing to spend nearly $3 million of his own money to bankroll an army of signature collectors. This is hardly what I would describe as democracy at work.

IJ Reilly,
Guess my tongue wasn't planted firmly enough in my cheek. I agree it is a broken system and behind it all is the power of large amounts of money to manipulate the system. How to deal with that question is the true test of making democracy work. Initiatives are an important tool for direct democracy, but as long as folks with huge amounts of cash can just buy their way onto the ballot then something is seriously flawed.

Hey, I see you moved! Bedlam any better than limbo? ;)

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Hey, I see you moved! Bedlam any better than limbo? ;)

No, I didn't move. While I wasn't looking, Bedlam moved here.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 10, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Initiatives are an important tool for direct democracy, but as long as folks with huge amounts of cash can just buy their way onto the ballot then something is seriously flawed.

look at where so much election coverage focuses - how much of a war chest candidate x has. i hear about that probably more than i ever hear about the candidate's platform.

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 02:22 PM
Unfortunately, the size of one's "war chest" often determines the outcome of the election. The theme of Robert Redford's movie "The Candidate" has come back to haunt us in spades. Whoever has the most funds to sell their side usally wins.

I know somebody will cry "socialism" but I think the only real way out of this sh** is public financing of elections. Take the private money out of it all together. How folks get "socialism" out of that I'll never know, but I think it would be the best public money ever spent.

Make candidates or initiatives backers organize enough support to qualify for the funding and limit the time in which campaigning can be done. With initiatives we should outlaw hiring of "mercenaries" to collect signitures - if you don't believe in something strong enough to donate some of your time to pass a petition then it doesn't need to be on the ballot.

Oh, and IJ Reilly, as to -

No, I didn't move. While I wasn't looking, Bedlam moved here.

I know the feeling.

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 03:24 PM
This morning when I was perusing the list of people who'd filed their papers for the recall election, I stumbled across a woman with the last name of Toth. This made me think of Lazlo Toth, who it occurred to me would be the perfect candidate in this election. So I wondered, is Don Novello running? I kept reading. Sure enough, he is! So the question is, will he run as Lazlo Toth or Father Guido Sarducci?

(Those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about must put their hands on a copy of the "The Lazlo Letters," one of the most hilarious books I've ever read.)

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
"If the voters do it this time, and see that it works, they can keep on doing it and they'll be a new governor every few months."

Now there's as good an example of opposition to self-rule and democracy as I've run across in a long, long time. A wonderful example of one's opinion of the great unwashed voter. Sorta like the Texas legislator, commenting on the issue of referendum and recall, "First thing you know, people will think they can govern themselves."

Yeah, pseudobrit, what we need is a ruling oligarchy of truly elite, who appoint themselves as rulers for life.

:), 'Rat

WTF? That's not what I'm saying at all. You just completely blew my statement out of proportion.

There are terms for elected officials for a reason. These terms are set so that they don't have to campaign every day while in office and can do their jobs without distraction.

If an official has to campaign all the time because he can be expelled from office at any time, what time does he have left to do his job?

Hey, let's get rid of Bush when his approval ratings dip another 4 percent -- 'cause that'd be self-rule and democracy, right?

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 05:23 PM
Sorry, pseudobrit. But remember something which is more important on Internet postings than in conversation: "It is not your duty to understand me. It is my duty to make myself understood." That's a two-way street that sometimes bites all of us. No facial expressions or body language to help clarify meanings...

:), 'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
(Those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about must put their hands on a copy of the "The Lazlo Letters," one of the most hilarious books I've ever read.)

Had forgotten about his book - late '70s or early '80s publishing date? Very funny stuff. All about phony letters to corporations trying to see how outrageous he could be and still get standard bureaucratic answers. It been a long time - glad to see a little intentional humor in this race.

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Sorry, pseudobrit. But remember something which is more important on Internet postings than in conversation: "It is not your duty to understand me. It is my duty to make myself understood." That's a two-way street that sometimes bites all of us. No facial expressions or body language to help clarify meanings...

:), 'Rat

Whatever.
You extracted something from my statement I didn't imply. It's not the first time you've done it.

It's my fault if you misunderstand what I've said.
It's your fault if you extrapolate something from what I've said and it's totally off base.

That's why one of my favorite debating tactics is to turn people's own words around on them. It's hard to argue with your own logic, and most people can't.
It's much more effective than guessing their positions and citing your estimates as the reason they're wrong, which is what you did.

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 11:11 PM
Well, pseudobrit, after re-reading the whole deal, your statement means to me that you're against the voters voting for recall. It seems to mean that you believe voters would regularly use recall. And, they would use it merely because of a lack of popularity on the part of a governor, rather than because a governor was generally perceived to have caused problems.

If you meant something entirely different, okay. I didn't, and don't, understand.

'Rat

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 11:35 PM
I meant that governors are elected (that's the democracy right there -- Davis was elected democratically in a regular election) to a term (that's the republic right there -- he's not subject to the whim of the people on every issue. What's right isn't always what's popular).

Now, what is anti-democratic in my thinking and what is your problem with the republican system of government that I defended?

Backtothemac
Aug 11, 2003, 09:08 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/11/calif.recall/index.html

WOW! Only a few days into it and look at these numbers! If he can present a viable platform to run on, then you are looking at the next governor of California!

IJ Reilly
Aug 11, 2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/11/calif.recall/index.html

WOW! Only a few days into it and look at these numbers! If he can present a viable platform to run on, then you are looking at the next governor of California!

Yes, I know the rest of the country is already guffawing over the prospect of California electing a Govenator, but please hold your horses. He's running on pure name recognition at this point and nothing more, and is just now coming under attack, mainly from members of his own party. He has a lot more to prove over the next two months then whether he can put together a "viable platform."

meta-ghost
Aug 11, 2003, 12:14 PM
Arnold has nowhere to go but down.
From the Drudgereport (no i don't read it):
Elsewhere, opponents of Schwarzenegger have launched a scorched search for at least one video which purports to show the star openly fondling a reporter's breast while he was on a promotional tour in England or the movie 6TH DAY.

TV reporter Anna Richardson branded Arnold as "totally unprofessional" after he pawed her breast and patted her bottom during an interview. Millions watched as he repeatedly squeezed her on live morning TV, according to press reports.

In a 2002 interview with the WEEKLY STANDARD, Schwarzenegger said it was all lies. "No one that has been around me would believe that a woman would be complaining about me holding her," he cracked.

Desertrat
Aug 11, 2003, 03:44 PM
well, pseudobrit, wyinell dint ya say so? :D

But to get totally OT: The law provides for recall, and was passed via the democratic republic method. The law requires a certain amount of signatures for it to come about. Is that part not democratic? So, now there is to be an election, with the voters saying yea or nea to the recall. Is that not democratic?

It seems that recall is a form of impeachment, but by the voting public rather than the state legislature. It would make more sense to me if the same standards for a recall were applied as in an impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors"

Ah, well. It's a mess.

'Rat

voicegy
Aug 11, 2003, 08:44 PM
My Prediction:

Californians will (are) be so put off on this mess that they'll vote not to recall.

End of story. End of recall effort. End of every tom, dick and Arnold running for a seriously important seat in my states' government.

I'm not voting to recall, and I think most sane folks will do the same. I don't listen, watch or read "polls"...they're all hogwash and plus or minus varying degress of "accuracy" anyway.

I lay 20 bucks on it. 50 even.;)

voicegy
Aug 11, 2003, 08:50 PM
...and if I WERE going to vote to recall (which I'm not,) Gallagher would be the only "candidate" I'd go for:

http://gallaghersmash.com/

Desertrat
Aug 12, 2003, 08:33 AM
I rather doubt Gallagher's hammer is quite apropos as a debating tool. Now, were George Carlin entered, I'd pay to watch him debate his opposition...

:D, 'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 12, 2003, 11:25 AM
Of course voting "no" by itself is not good enough. One of the many peculiarities of this process is that even if you're opposed to the recall, you really need to cast a vote for someone from the (now) nearly 250 candidates, or risk having no voice in the selection of a governor should the recall succeed. Good luck finding your man or woman in that deck of cards they hand you, though -- they'll be listed in random order!

Not all democratic processes are created equally. This one sure isn't.

Frohickey
Aug 12, 2003, 02:51 PM
To crush Davis in the recall...
To see him driven out of office...
And to hear the lamentations of the Democrats!
:D :D :D

Frohickey
Aug 12, 2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly I'm unconvinced that it's "all to the good." Having suffered through far too many California ballots including two dozen or more very complex initiatives, many sponsored by monied special interests, I'd have to say this system is broken, but good.

I actually like the Proposition system that California has. It allows for laws/policies that are popular with the voters but are political suicide for the politicians because of the various special interest groups out there.

Case in point was Proposition 187, which was to prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits or public services from the state of California. Immigrant groups would have thrown politicians out of office if they could, if it were submitted in the legislature, yet, it passed by 59% of the popular vote. Besides, what are immigrant groups trying to say by opposing it, that their members are illegal aliens and are breaking the law?

Of course, there are crazy ones too, like barring horse meat from being sold commercially in supermarkets and restaurants. Seems that if people want to eat SeaBiscuit/BlackBeauty, why not? :p

Sayhey
Aug 12, 2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
To crush Davis in the recall...
To see him driven out of office...
And to hear the lamentations of the Democrats!
:D :D :D

If Arnold wins I'm going to start passing a initiative petition demanding he refund all our dollars spent in seeing his bad movies! I can't believe I actually saw that horrible Conan sequel at the theater. Proof that he doesn't believe in the constitutional prohibition around cruel and unusal punishment.

IJ Reilly
Aug 12, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
I actually like the Proposition system that California has. It allows for laws/policies that are popular with the voters but are political suicide for the politicians because of the various special interest groups out there.

Case in point was Proposition 187, which was to prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits or public services from the state of California. Immigrant groups would have thrown politicians out of office if they could, if it were submitted in the legislature, yet, it passed by 59% of the popular vote. Besides, what are immigrant groups trying to say by opposing it, that their members are illegal aliens and are breaking the law?

Of course, there are crazy ones too, like barring horse meat from being sold commercially in supermarkets and restaurants. Seems that if people want to eat SeaBiscuit/BlackBeauty, why not? :p

Funny you should use as an example a proposition that was passed by the voters and later declared unconstitutional by the courts. Another one of those was a proposition approved by the voters of California during the 1960s reinstating racially restrictive covenants in deeds. The courts had to strike that one down too. So sometimes you find something out about the electorate that you'd rather not know. Of course now that the system is almost strictly pay for play, it's mainly about special interests buying favorable laws that even a special interest saturated legislature won't pass.

Initiatives and referenda were about progressive political reform when they were created 100 years ago. It's time we revisited this system and reformed the reforms.

Frohickey
Aug 12, 2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly Funny you should use as an example a proposition that was passed by the voters and later declared unconstitutional by the courts.

It was found unconstitutional because it flies in the face of the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. It claims that the proposition denies equal protection of the law for immigrants.

Why couldn't the law also apply for the immigrants as well. At least for the illegal immigrants, doesn't matter where they are from.

If the immigrants were legal, then this proposition wouldn't have even been needed. Or if the illegal immigrants were not receiving benefits or public assistance... same thing.

Whatever happened to the good ol' American spirit of self-reliance?

IJ Reilly
Aug 12, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Whatever happened to the good ol' American spirit of self-reliance?

It probably went along with the good ol' American spirit of respect for the Constitution.

Sayhey
Aug 12, 2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
It was found unconstitutional because it flies in the face of the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. It claims that the proposition denies equal protection of the law for immigrants.

Why couldn't the law also apply for the immigrants as well. At least for the illegal immigrants, doesn't matter where they are from.

If the immigrants were legal, then this proposition wouldn't have even been needed. Or if the illegal immigrants were not receiving benefits or public assistance... same thing.

Whatever happened to the good ol' American spirit of self-reliance?

Prop 187 was Gov. Wilson's use of racism and fear to appeal to the lowest common denominator of California voters. And it worked, the "genius" who brought us the deregulation of the energy industry was reelected. Which was what it was about in the first place. It was Wilson's answer to the Daddy Bush's Willie Horton ads. Oh, by the way, he is now co-chair of Arnold's campaign.

voicegy
Aug 12, 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Of course voting "no" by itself is not good enough. One of the many peculiarities of this process is that even if you're opposed to the recall, you really need to cast a vote for someone from the (now) nearly 250 candidates, or risk having no voice in the selection of a governor should the recall succeed.

That's the rub. One doesn't "have" to vote for a candidate if one is opposed to the recall, but if one doesn't and the recall is successful, then you blew your chance in having a say in the selection. Damn, this is annoying...it's like gambling! If a majority of voters oppose the recall, Davis will remain in office. If the majority chooses to oust Davis, the second portion of the ballot will come into play. Whoever wins the largest number of votes here wins the recall election.

On another interesting note, this ballot will also contain two propositions, Nos. 53 and 54. (Unless, of course, yet another court case succeeds in keeping them off the ballot.) Proposition 53 is a financial proposal intended to set aside state funds for infrastructure development. Prop 54 is much more controversial: The anti-affirmative-action bill would forbid the state from "using race, ethnicity, color or national origin" to classify workers or students.

Frohickey
Aug 12, 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Prop 187 was Gov. Wilson's use of racism and fear to appeal to the lowest common denominator of California voters. And it worked, the "genius" who brought us the deregulation of the energy industry was reelected

What Pete Wilson and the democrat-controlled legislature (John Burton) did was not deregulate the energy industry, it was a reregulation. When you say that energy delivery providers are not allowed to have their own energy generation facilities, that is regulation, not deregulation.

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't see Prop 187 as racist since what it does is say illegal aliens should not receive benefits or public assistance. Maybe what it should have said is that only citizens can receive benefits or public assistance. Me, I would have just said that no one should receive public assistance. Then no one could argue about who is more deserving of entitlements.

Frohickey
Aug 12, 2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by voicegy
That's the rub. One doesn't "have" to vote for a candidate if one is opposed to the recall, but if one doesn't and the recall is successful, then you blew your chance in having a say in the selection.

Prop 54 is much more controversial: The anti-affirmative-action bill would forbid the state from "using race, ethnicity, color or national origin" to classify workers or students.

The governor recall is still a simple election. You either vote for Davis (voting no on recalling him), or you vote against Davis (voting yes on recalling him). As it is, he has a 50% chance, whilst the new candidates start out less than 50% (0.2% if there are indeed 250 candidates that qualified for the ballot).

As to Prop 54, what is wrong with that? Would be nice to have college admittance go to the person with the highest grades, tuition assistance to the one with the most need, state government contracts to go to the lowest bidder. It furthers the goal of a race-blind society.

Sayhey
Aug 13, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Frohickey
What Pete Wilson and the democrat-controlled legislature (John Burton) did was not deregulate the energy industry, it was a reregulation. When you say that energy delivery providers are not allowed to have their own energy generation facilities, that is regulation, not deregulation.

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't see Prop 187 as racist since what it does is say illegal aliens should not receive benefits or public assistance. Maybe what it should have said is that only citizens can receive benefits or public assistance. Me, I would have just said that no one should receive public assistance. Then no one could argue about who is more deserving of entitlements.

When Wilson was traveling the state campaigning for 187 he liked to talk about how "Pablo & Maria" were taking away all those precious state resources. Never used Irish surnames in his speeches, even though we have many illegal Irish immigrants in the State. Seemed like he made it pretty clear the racial focus of the proposition. The proposition would have tried to turn teachers and health personnel into immigration cops and who do you think they were supposed to watch out for? People with dark skin and "funny" accents. Best thing ever happened to the State was it being thrown out.

As to the energy deregulation (or regulation in your terms) would you agree that it was Wilson, not Davis that was Governor and signed into law the act that led to the whole crisis the State faced? Not the person I want advising a future Governor.

voicegy
Aug 13, 2003, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Frohickey
The governor recall is still a simple election.

Well, no doubt.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Frohickey
As to Prop 54, what is wrong with that? Would be nice to have college admittance go to the person with the highest grades, tuition assistance to the one with the most need, state government contracts to go to the lowest bidder. It furthers the goal of a race-blind society.

I have no opinion of it as yet...I simply stated its existance and possible controversial nature. Interestingly, I learned soon after I posted the information that our local Democratic Club chapter has already voted to oppose it. Proposition 54 may turn out to be just as interesting as the recall itself...

tazo
Aug 13, 2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I rather doubt Gallagher's hammer is quite apropos as a debating tool. Now, were George Carlin entered, I'd pay to watch him debate his opposition...

:D, 'Rat

Man I wish i could vote for carlin, now that would be goood :D heh, maybe an official state stance on 'people who should die'? :D :D

voicegy
Aug 13, 2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by tazo
[...] maybe an official state stance on 'people who should die'? :D :D

Thinking of a particular teacher, or school mates, perhaps?;)

Naw, I'd still rather see Gallagher than Carlin...Gallagher represents the carnival-like atmosphere more, and his insightful, light-hearted barbs can make us laugh at our own foolishness, and in so doing may produce actual change. Carlin, for all his undeniable genius, has, over time, become somewhat "hateful-Lite".

But, like I said before, the recall will fail at the polls so its all moot anyway. (The Great and Powerful Oz has Spoken)

tazo
Aug 13, 2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by voicegy
Thinking of a particular teacher, or school mates, perhaps?;)

heh it was more based on one of his bits about 'people who should die' which is my absolute fave :D ;)

zimv20
Aug 13, 2003, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by voicegy
the recall will fail at the polls so its all moot anyway. (The Great and Powerful Oz has Spoken)

cool! we have a bold claim. thank you for raising the stakes in this thread.

personally, i have no idea if you'll end up being right.

mactastic
Aug 13, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/11/calif.recall/index.html

WOW! Only a few days into it and look at these numbers! If he can present a viable platform to run on, then you are looking at the next governor of California!

And he'll have it only until his popularity drops and some well-heeled Democrat feels like dropping a couple million to get a recall going against Ahhnold. And the way California's situation is going, it won't take long before Arnold is facing the same flames Davis is.

wdlove
Aug 13, 2003, 07:19 PM
Laura's Weekly E-Blast
http://www.LauraIngraham.com

WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO?

After faking everyone out, including me, with his decision to run for the governorship of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger now needs to get down to business. Box-office flops may be embarrassing, but a political flop after such a build-up as he has engineered would be much worse. Theres no after-life in DVD rentals for failed candidates.

Navigating the Malibu-Brentwood-Bel Air social circuit is a snap. Holding forth on a press junket to promote the latest film is a no-brainer although those questions from Access Hollywood can be real mindbenders, Im sure. But navigating the sprawling, vexing labyrinth known as California politics is another matter altogether.

Even in California, man cannot get elected on celebrity alone. Mr. Schwarzenegger needs some basic guidelines to follow to avoid having his current sizzle turn into an election-day fizzle. So heres my memo to Mr. Schwarzenegger:

One: Think Reagan.

Be upbeat, sunny, and positive. Yes, the deficit is astronomical and hard choices are necessary, but you will get it done. Period. Gray Skies Davis will do what he always does in campaigns hell avoid taking personal responsibility and go negative. Let him. Flick him off like a piece of lint.

Californians need hope and optimism. Give it to them. Whenever youre in doubt, ask yourself, What would Reagan do? How would the Gipper respond?

Two: Tout your American success story.

You are an immigrant who worked hard, played by the rules, and achieved the American dream. Tell your story again and again. You are an entrepreneur and a risktaker who could never have found such success in any other country in the world. You now want to give something back by dedicating yourself as aggressively to leading California as you have to playing leading roles. When the Davis team tries to portray you as a hard-bodied know-nothing, respond by saying that the voters of California are tired of soft-bodied know-it-alls.

Three: Avoid the tug-of-war between GOP moderates and conservatives.

This will be tough but its important. The states ongoing feud between the Republican right and middle-of-the-roaders is fierce. Gray Skies exploited this rift when he attacked moderate Dick Riordan in the 2002 GOP primary.

The key here is to convince both camps that given all the political and economic carnage across the state, youre the only one who can bring both sides together. Give a united we win, divided we fall speech.

As for the explosive issues such as abortion, gun control, and immigration that fuel this raging intraparty struggle, you should not run away from them. State your beliefs but always first acknowledge that reasonable people disagree about these complicated matters. Remember, your strategy should be never vilify, always inspire.

Four: Dont be afraid to be politically incorrect.

Ignore the consultants and handlers who urge you to steer clear of the hot-button issues about which you feel strongly.The public will want to hear from you on illegal immigrants, affirmative action, and bilingual education. Offend no one and you motivate no one. Your answers to these questions should come from your gut, not from a focus group. Again, treat the opposition with respect, but tell the people what you believe and why. And if your language is sometimes not artful, dont worry. President Bush has managed just fine, and still cant pronounce nuclear.

Five: Dedicate this recall election to the people.

The campaign to recall Mr. Davis has been a grass-roots effort from Day 1. Back in February the political elites scoffed at the notion that some fledgling movement could ever disrupt Mr. Daviss hold on power. As usual, they were wrong and totally underestimated the peoples fury and frustration at a political leader who had abused their trust. On the Tonight Show, you seemed to have this point down pat when you said The people are working hard. The people are paying the taxes, the people are raising the families, but the politicians are not doing their job. The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing. The people, not the politicians, are what make California great; and the people deserve better.

Even if Mr. Schwarzenegger follows this five-point plan, he could still tank at the political box office. The political unknowns that lurk behind every corner could terminate even the Terminator. But Im betting on him because, unlike Mr. Davis, he doesnt need the political power. He already is powerful. Now he wants to do some good.

Mr. Schwarzenegger surprised the critics in Hollywood when he parlayed Mr. Olympia into Mr. Box Office. And this week he surprised many of us when he decided to try to parlay Mr. Box Office into Mr. Governor.The next one to be surprised may be Mr. Davis.

voicegy
Aug 13, 2003, 07:40 PM
In other words, just "act.":rolleyes:

Just like Reagan did.

abdul
Aug 14, 2003, 05:14 AM
Arnie forget about Kaalifornia and just make t4........common mate....dats it......you made the right choice.....just go and make t4

Frohickey
Aug 14, 2003, 01:04 PM
Schwartzenegger is not a Reagan.
And some here have fallen for the media blitz that Reagan was just an actor, and not responsible for the end of the Cold War.

I know of a few million Russians and ex-Soviets who love Reagan. :o

As far as the current media stories about Schwartzenegger's attitude towards women, why are they railing against that? Its not as if Clinton didn't act the same way. Oh, I get it. If you are a Democrat, you are expected to act that way. If you are a Republican, and you act like a Democrat, you get raked over the coals. :P

Frohickey
Aug 14, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by voicegy
In other words, just "act.":rolleyes:

Just like Reagan did.

Kinda like a double standard.

If you are a conservative actor aspiring to set policy, you are denigrated for being an actor.

If you are a liberal actor/actress (Martin Sheen aka Ramon Estevez, Susan Sarandon) aspiring to set policy, you are praised for your stances.

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Kinda like a double standard.

If you are a conservative actor aspiring to set policy, you are denigrated for being an actor.

If you are a liberal actor/actress (Martin Sheen aka Ramon Estevez, Susan Sarandon) aspiring to set policy, you are praised for your stances.

I don't mind Arnold trying to help set policy, but unlike the liberal actors you name he has decided to run for public office. That's a fairly substantial difference. Before I give over the keys to the governor's mansion I want someone to a least tell me more than, "I'm a good guy because you all know me from my movies." Successful actors have tremendous name recognition and right now that's what Arnold is all about. There is no progam and certainly no experience that tells me I should support him. There is also no double standard in that evaluation.

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Schwartzenegger is not a Reagan.
And some here have fallen for the media blitz that Reagan was just an actor, and not responsible for the end of the Cold War.

I know of a few million Russians and ex-Soviets who love Reagan. :o

As far as the current media stories about Schwartzenegger's attitude towards women, why are they railing against that? Its not as if Clinton didn't act the same way. Oh, I get it. If you are a Democrat, you are expected to act that way. If you are a Republican, and you act like a Democrat, you get raked over the coals. :P

Frohickey,

we obviously have different evaluations of Reagan's "accomplishments" as Governor and President. It won't do us much good to argue those opinions, but I would like to know when this media blitz took place because I missed it.

As to Swartzenegger's attitude toward women, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought during a campaign was the place to get out the information concerning a candidate's attitude concerning everything?

Sun Baked
Aug 14, 2003, 02:53 PM
Sort of an interesting turn of events...FX Takes Hero Out of Action (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fx14aug14,1,2736183.story?coll=la-headlines-business)
by Sallie Hofmeister , Times Staff Writer

FX is terminating the Terminator.

The cable network, owned by News Corp., said late Wednesday that it was pulling all movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger from its lineup because it was "the appropriate thing to do" while the actor makes his bid to be California's next governor.

FX spokesman John Solberg wouldn't elaborate on the cable channel's decision to cancel both "Eraser" and "Predator," which have been on the channel recently and were scheduled to air again several times over the coming days and weeks.

The decision apparently stems from ambiguities in the federal law governing the airtime given to political candidates, sources said. Under federal rules, candidates can demand equal time from broadcasters that air entertainment programs featuring a political rival...

Desertrat
Aug 14, 2003, 03:38 PM
Sun Baked, Pat Paulsen ran into the same sort of thing when he ran for President, and he entered more as a joke than anything else.

If Fox ran a two-hour Arnie flick, they don't want to have to give two hours to politicos. (Maybe they could get away with just putting it on east coast feeds. :) )

Funny about the "actor" thing about Arnold. He came here as a poor immigrant. Planned out a future. Made a rather objective and cold-blooded decision that he was no Oscar-type actor, and found a niche that made money for him--which indicates a notable amount of organized personality. Seems to me, overall, that the man has earned some degree of respect. And, isn't he involved in other business activities? And, in some charities?

Yeah, he's known because of his acting. Question: How many "professional politicians" nowadays have done much of anything before going into politics? Have really accomplished any public success, in the Iacocca sense?

Given the problems of California, which by and large were brought about by professional politicians, why would you want to choose a pro pol over somebody with true personal success?

So far, Davis has been no more specific than Arnie as to ideas for solutions.

Sitting outside, as an unaffected retiree, it looks to me as though the California government absolutely must reduce taxes and drastically reduce spending. I see no alternative. To increase the dollar volume of business, and thus tax income to the state, more jobs are needed. The only way you do that is to get corporations to move to Cali or expand what they now have. The only way to do that is to reduce corporate tax burdens and other aspects of government mandates--workman's comp costs are one problem, I've read.

If it's correct that prison guards make up to $100K a year, I'd think that the public payroll wages need to be brought in line with comparable private-sector pay, or comparable to other states (with cost of living factored in).

So: Who's more likely to get right with Jesus?

:), 'Rat

zimv20
Aug 14, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat

And, isn't he involved in other business activities?


there's probably others, but i know he bailed on planet hollywood right after their bankruptcy reorganization was approved...

IJ Reilly
Aug 14, 2003, 04:29 PM
D-rat,

To my mind, an actor isn't inherently any more or less qualified to be governor then anyone else in or out of politics. Yet, it seems to me that anyone who'd want to be governor of this or any other state should have shown more then a passing interest in state issues before he announced his candidacy. This guy couldn't even be bothered with casting a ballot in six out of the last eight statewide elections. This suggests to me that he's probably little more then a political dilettante looking for the ultimate ego gratification -- and that we most certainly do not need. And speaking of ego issues, Swartzenegger clearly has a few big ones, and that we also do not need.

Finally, it's worth at least considering whether Arnold Swartzenegger would have been more then a blip on anybody's political radar screen had he not been a big-screen celebrity. I think the answer to that question is a clear no-sir. I hope some of us can still tell the difference between celebrity and qualifications, or we're in deep, deep in trouble.

Desertrat
Aug 14, 2003, 04:57 PM
"..should have shown more then a passing interest in state issues before he announced his candidacy."

True.

Question: Of the remainder of the NON-politicians in the field, how many have had notable involvement in state issues?

"I hope some of us can still tell the difference between celebrity and qualifications, or we're in deep, deep in trouble."

Guess what? We're in deep, deep trouble.

Surveys have shown that a high percentage of the voters vote for the taller candidate, particularly if his hands are fairly large. I wish I were joking, but I'm not.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 14, 2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat

Surveys have shown that a high percentage of the voters vote for the taller candidate, particularly if his hands are fairly large.

don't suppose you've got a gender breakdown for that stat?

IJ Reilly
Aug 14, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Question: Of the remainder of the NON-politicians in the field, how many have had notable involvement in state issues?

Guess what? We're in deep, deep trouble.

Surveys have shown that a high percentage of the voters vote for the taller candidate, particularly if his hands are fairly large. I wish I were joking, but I'm not.

All the better to grub money with.

I haven't got the complete resumes of all 130 candidates in front of me right at the moment, but Arianna Huffington meets those qualifications. Still I don't think this is a good field of candidates to look for qualifications, unless you were starting a circus.

mactastic
Aug 14, 2003, 06:40 PM
As a California (it's not spelled Kalifornia for those of you who can't seem to get it right) resident, I'm not hearing much of anything I like yet from any candidate. Larry Flynt seems to be the only one with any real plans put forth, and I'm not real fond of them. No one is talking about how we deal with our deficit, nor the future of our water supply, population shift problems, stance on property tax revenue, and many other california issues.

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat So far, Davis has been no more specific than Arnie as to ideas for solutions.
:), 'Rat

Not true, 'Rat, in this year Davis presented two proposed State budgets that would have been balanced. It is certainly valid to criticize the way he did that, but it is not true that he has not had specific solutions. By the way both proposals were blocked by a republican minority that because of the two-thirds needed to pass a budget was able to block any tax increases, no matter how temporay, to close the deficit. One thing that is being talked about here is lowering the requirement to 55%.

zimv20
Aug 14, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
both proposals were blocked by a republican minority that because of the two-thirds needed to pass a budget was able to block any tax increases, no matter how temporay, to close the deficit.

but a budget has since been agreed on, yes? one that _does_ include some tax increases (and service cuts).

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
but a budget has since been agreed on, yes? one that _does_ include some tax increases (and service cuts).

A budget was finally passed, but it doesn't include any tax increases. There is a rather large fee increase for car registration but that comes from automatic fee increases from a law Wilson signed when he was governor. It does include many service cuts and creative bookkeeping that means deficits into the future.

Desertrat
Aug 14, 2003, 07:43 PM
Sorry, Sayhey; I should have been more clear: I was thinking of this recent period since the actuality of the recall election. Davis has been out and about, but just for photo ops. Apparently he's been working with union leaders in a get-out-the-vote campaign.

'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 08:02 PM
He's trying to look gubernatorial. Meeting with folks to show them things he has done as governor. Seems Clinton, Feinstein, and other Democratic heavyweights are giving him counsel on how to try and beat this recall. I don't like the man, but I do think he is being made a scapegoat for an awful lot of stuff he had no control over.

Frohickey
Aug 14, 2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey A budget was finally passed, but it doesn't include any tax increases. There is a rather large fee increase for car registration but that comes from automatic fee increases from a law Wilson signed when he was governor. It does include many service cuts and creative bookkeeping that means deficits into the future.

California may call it a vehicle license fee, but its a property tax, by any other name.

In federal form 1040, you can deduct the VLF portion of your vehicle registration fee as property taxes.

Last year, my VLF was $84. This year, its $217! Thats a 1.6x increase.

wdlove
Aug 14, 2003, 08:42 PM
Democrats Whine, Democracy Shines

By Laura Ingraham

"I think it insults democracy in this country. It's wrong."
--John Kerry, on the California recall.

"This is an attack on the institutions of our government. That's what Republicans do."
--Dick Gephardt, in the echo chamber.

Of course what John Kerry conveniently left out is that this "insult" to democracy is provided for by state law, and the one million plus Californians who signed the recall petition were pursuing their rights under that law. Ditto for the absurd "attack" on the government charge. What is "wrong" to an overwhelming majority of Californians is the fact that Gray "Skies" Davis has presided over a tanking of the state's economy, which has driven businesses out and pessimism in. Plus, why are senators and congressmen from other states suddenly authorities on the laws of California? Do Boxer and Pelosi make a point of lecturing Massachusetts on its local election law?

The "it's not fair!" complaint of the political, media, and legal elite lately relates to far more than just the recall. The Washington Post editorial page has similarly railed against the Texas state legislature's redistricting plan, and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is busy blasting the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as too restrictive. (Justice Kennedy apparently didn't think he had demonstrated sufficient legal "evolution" in the Court's sodomy case.)

All this hand-wringing and whining by the elites is undoubtedly related to their frustration that they haven't had such good luck at the polls lately. Their views on everything from bilingual education to the death penalty aren't being embraced by a majority of Americans, so they figure it's easier to just circumvent those pesky voters altogether. How? By looking to activist federal courts and international institutions for aid and comfort. Judges and UN delegates are not accountable to American voters who still-gasp!-reject the notion that the U.S. should become more progressive, more like France.

Back to California, the hysteria on the left is all too predictable. The Los Angeles Times warns that "the recall is an unpredictable ballot gamble, a hand that shouldn't be played." Powerful reasoning. Of course politics itself is unpredictable, as if that small matter known as life. Given Davis's pathetic poll numbers, it's safe to say that Californians think a much riskier "ballot gamble" was voting for Davis in the first place.

Contrary to what the Gray Skies supporters are alleging, California will survive the recall. Democracy is not being thwarted, it's being pursued. There may be freaky people among the 200 folks on the ballot, but the recall effort itself is not a freak show-it's a legislative remedy designed to give the beleaguered populace an escape valve. The voters are trying to take control back from a system that failed them. What is more American than individuals banding together to rise up against what they consider to be an abysmally bad leader?

The Democrats in the running for the presidency are injecting themselves into an intra-state matter because they know their chances at the White House are kaput if California goes GOP. (Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman also unloaded a verbal assault on the recall.) If Californians were truly repulsed by the 1911 statute authorizing recall elections, they had 90+ years to repeal it. They didn't. So elites like Kerry want to repeal if for them after the fact and outside the legislative process.

Laws and voters can be so inconvenient.

By bemoaning the recall, Dem-elites are digging themselves into the mother of all sand traps. Californians have a right to determine their own political destiny without pols from outside the state interfering. Republicans and Democrats should see by now that there is a significant percentage of voters out there who feel like no one is listening. Sooner or later, as we saw in California, the people will stand up and say-no more. There is nothing more democratic than that.

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
California may call it a vehicle license fee, but its a property tax, by any other name.

Frohickey, for the republicans in the state legislature the difference in name is everything considering their pledge to pass no budget with new taxes. Now, Davis is talking about repealing the increase in license fees and replacing it with an income tax on the wealthy. Very smart move on his part, and it will hold the republicans feet to the fire. What do think Arnold's position will be?

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Democrats Whine, Democracy Shines

What is more American than individuals banding together to rise up against what they consider to be an abysmally bad leader?
... If Californians were truly repulsed by the 1911 statute authorizing recall elections, they had 90+ years to repeal it. They didn't. So elites like Kerry want to repeal if for them after the fact and outside the legislative process.

Laws and voters can be so inconvenient.

...Sooner or later, as we saw in California, the people will stand up and say-no more. There is nothing more democratic than that.

Ingraham, obviously hasn't a clue about the many concerns of Californians about the undemocratic nature of this recall. If a candidate wins this race with anywhere from 15% - 30% of the vote because there is no runoff provision in the recall mechanism, it is a profoundly undemocratic act to so replace a Governor elected by a majority in a general election. The reason we didn't change the law in the last 90+ years is that we have never used it in that time.

themadchemist
Aug 14, 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Your kidding...

What are even his view?

Is he pro giving himself a tax cut?

What about the energy crisis?

1. His people are putting views together for him.
2. He is for the "people of the State of California." Of COURSE he doesn't want to give himself a tax cut. ;)

Interesting to note that Schwarzneggar has retained Warren Buffett (second richest man in the world), as his economic adviser. Mr. Buffett is a democrat. Maybe I should ask Howie, his grandson, about it...You meet the darndest people in college. :D

3. But as for the most important question, he'll use the extreme energy of the eraser gun as a source of power for California's beleaugered grid.

"Hasta la vista, energy crisis!"

Sun Baked
Aug 15, 2003, 05:02 AM
>Desertrat

Seems the other networks are dropping the running man from the broadcast lineup.

I sort of like what the Sci-Fi channel is replacing him with.Sci Fi, owned by Vivendi Universal, will instead offer viewers a slate of California-themed disaster movies.

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 06:35 AM
Sun Baked: :D How apropos...

Sayhey, sure, Davis inherited problems. Trouble is, he apparently didn't recognize them as problems. (If it is indeed factual as to the various reports of increases in state salaries, etc., since he took office.) But little old me, I've been aware of the potential--and probablility--for economic hard times for a good five years, now. The Davises of this world are supposed to have a better handle on economic matters concerning an entire state than some old retiree out in the desert.

To try to excuse Davis for his actions taken after his "inheritance" is no smarter than trying to excuse the Carter administration for their policies which exacerbated the inflation and inflationary trends he inherited from LBJ/Nixon-Ford.

Question: Whether Davis or Arnie, if corporations are leaving California because of the state's tax structure, what would you suggest as a way to get them back?

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 09:36 AM
'Rat, there is more than the tax structure at work here, the cost of living is so high that many businesses look elsewhere because their employees can't afford to buy houses here. If fixing the tax structure would take care of the problem it would have been done already. There are serious problems with water supply as well that dictate levels of growth below what is needed to keep housing prices down. Ironically the growth restraints are a product of the stubbornness of the left and the right. Environmentalists scream bloody murder any time they hear the word development, but I'm not surprised what with the way the big developers have treated the state. They don't want to build anything other than 2500+ sf detached single family houses since that is the highest profit margin or ROI for them. City governments are unwilling to take on the NIMBY coalitions among their constituency. City's would rather build auto malls and pedestrian malls because they generate tax revenue unlike residences since Prop 13. Until some rational thought is given to long term regional growth solutions, the problem will continue to be pushed off into the nearest unincorporated area.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Sayhey, sure, Davis inherited problems. Trouble is, he apparently didn't recognize them as problems. (If it is indeed factual as to the various reports of increases in state salaries, etc., since he took office.) But little old me, I've been aware of the potential--and probablility--for economic hard times for a good five years, now. The Davises of this world are supposed to have a better handle on economic matters concerning an entire state than some old retiree out in the desert.

To try to excuse Davis for his actions taken after his "inheritance" is no smarter than trying to excuse the Carter administration for their policies which exacerbated the inflation and inflationary trends he inherited from LBJ/Nixon-Ford.

'Rat

Davis is a twit. He should have done a lot of things he didn't. Doesn't change the fact he is being used a scapegoat by a republican party who senses an opportunity to seize the state's governors mansion. For instance, I think he should have been much more bold in taking on the energy companies who looted the state and the Bush administration's nonaction that helped them do it. That doesn't mean he was responsible for the rolling blackouts.

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 11:44 AM
Mac, I can comprehend that it's a multi-faceted problem. I hadn't specifically thought of the housing costs as a disincentive to industry, but that's for-sure a real factor. It seems to me, however, that there oughta be a lot of areas where land prices are not so high, where more rational site locations and residential developments would have more realistic pricing. The fact remains, however, that the major corporate gripes have to do with operating overhead.

It seems to me that what you speak of cities having a high regard for mall developers for the purpose of more tax incomes shows a desire for monies over and above existing needs. After all, new houses don't get grandfathered in at low tax rates, do they? When any level of government tries to be all things to all people, it will always need "More money!"

Each constituency for some given idea of "how things oughta be" will most certainly have the attitude of, "Let's you and him fight! But, not ME!" :) Everybody wants to be able to flush his toilet, but he doesn't have to live near a sewage treatment plant.

Sayhey, I have no argument about what the Pubes see as an opportunity to glom on to the Gubner's Mansion. The rise in political viciousness during this last 30 or 40 years is astounding. I've never expected sweetness and light, but the power to control vast amounts of money has exacerbated the degree of emotions.

Which, in and of itself, is reason enough to drastically downsize governments.

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Mac, I can comprehend that it's a multi-faceted problem. I hadn't specifically thought of the housing costs as a disincentive to industry, but that's for-sure a real factor. It seems to me, however, that there oughta be a lot of areas where land prices are not so high, where more rational site locations and residential developments would have more realistic pricing. The fact remains, however, that the major corporate gripes have to do with operating overhead.

Well, first off I will gladly conceed that our tax structure here is something of a disincentive to operating here. California is a very unique situation here, and many of the solutions we reach are... how shall we say.... interesting. Much of this money undoubtedly goes into our bloated state beuracracy. But some is becuase we have an amazing amount of stuff to deal with. Tourists bring plenty of dollars but the state only gets a small portion, and they drive on all the states roads, use our parks and beaches, and many other derivative effects that cost us money. We have massive illegal immigration problems. Some of the costs for industry are the cost of doing business in the land of the INCREDIBLY VALUABLE LAND that people have found here. It's simply amazing what people will pay to live near the beach. Espescially when that beach is 85 degrees in the summer and 65 degrees in the winter. I've watched over the last 5 years as the houses where I live now have doubled in value. There are places in California where land is relatively cheap, and this is where most of our growth is happening right now. Unfortunately all thats left is the Central Valley which is roughly comparable to hell. Yet sprawl continues unabated. People drive unbeliavable distance routinely between their suburb and their job along crowded highways. I've watched many businesses leave and others refuse to come because of land costs alone, let alone other factors.


It seems to me that what you speak of cities having a high regard for mall developers for the purpose of more tax incomes shows a desire for monies over and above existing needs. After all, new houses don't get grandfathered in at low tax rates, do they? When any level of government tries to be all things to all people, it will always need "More money!"

Prop 13 capped residential property tax at 1% of assesed value at time of sale. On a $400,000 house (which is just over the median house cost here) that is $4000/year a city can expect. Figure an average of about 4 units per acre, and then compare it to say a 10 acre auto mall. If there are houses, the most the city will see is $160,000/year in property tax revenue. If the surrounding population is dense enough to support it the auto mall will generate far more in tax revenue. Cities were largely forced into this position by the no-tax crowd. So if the residents won't pay the businesses will. I'm not saying cities have a high regard for auto malls, but its simple business numbers.


Each constituency for some given idea of "how things oughta be" will most certainly have the attitude of, "Let's you and him fight! But, not ME!" :) Everybody wants to be able to flush his toilet, but he doesn't have to live near a sewage treatment plant.

You'd be surprised how contentious of an issue a sewer can be. There's a city right next to me that has had a building morotorium for 13 years now because of a fight over who pays for the new sewer. The state has finally had to step in and force a solution.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 12:29 PM
The Crazy Uncle of California politics is Proposition 13. This law simultaneously destroyed the ability of local governments to set tax rates and sent this power to Sacramento. It also created massive inequities between communities of greater and lesser affluence, and started everyone chasing after commercial development and high-end housing, which are the only forms of development which are revenue positive for local governments. It also shifted the burden of property taxes away from commercial, industrial and residential income property owners and towards single family homeowners. In short, it's been an unmitigated disaster and is at the heart of many of California's structural problems. But like other Crazy Uncles, nobody really wants to talk about this one.

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Crazy Uncle of California politics is Proposition 13. This law simultaneously destroyed the ability of local governments to set tax rates and sent this power to Sacramento. It also created massive inequities between communities of greater and lesser affluence, and started everyone chasing after commercial development and high-end housing, which are the only forms of development which are revenue positive for local governments. It also shifted the burden of property taxes away from commercial, industrial and residential income property owners and towards single family homeowners. In short, it's been an unmitigated disaster and is at the heart of many of California's structural problems. But like other Crazy Uncles, nobody really wants to talk about this one.

You're very right here, without at least a basic understanding of prop 13, California politics will make little sense to an outsider.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Crazy Uncle of California politics is Proposition 13. This law simultaneously destroyed the ability of local governments to set tax rates and sent this power to Sacramento. It also created massive inequities between communities of greater and lesser affluence, and started everyone chasing after commercial development and high-end housing, which are the only forms of development which are revenue positive for local governments. It also shifted the burden of property taxes away from commercial, industrial and residential income property owners and towards single family homeowners. In short, it's been an unmitigated disaster and is at the heart of many of California's structural problems. But like other Crazy Uncles, nobody really wants to talk about this one.

I've always been a supporter of the various incarnations of the "split-roll" proposal. For those who don't know, it would make it possible for property taxes to be raised on commercial property but keep the 1% on residential property. Given the money needed for political campaigns and where that money comes from such a proposal stands about as much as the proverbial snowball in hell.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I've always been a supporter of the various incarnations of the "split-roll" proposal. For those who don't know, it would make it possible for property taxes to be raised on commercial property but keep the 1% on residential property. Given the money needed for political campaigns and where that money comes from such a proposal stands about as much as the proverbial snowball in hell.

I personally don't think that bandaid is large enough to cover this particular wound. The other half of this equation is sales tax subventions, the mother's milk of local government funding in the post-Prop 13 era. We've probably all seen local governments get into furious bidding wars over the location of major commercial developments, essentially agreeing to refund millions in property taxes to commercial developers in exchange for locating within their jurisdictions. It also perpetuates the nasty and inequitable system of property taxing that hits new property owners with taxes orders of magnitude higher then long-term owners. It also doesn't devolve taxing authority back to local governments, which is essential to fixing the system, IMO.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I personally don't think that bandaid is large enough to cover this particular wound. The other half of this equation is sales tax subventions, the mother's milk of local government funding in the post-Prop 13 era. We've probably all seen local governments get into furious bidding wars over the location of major commercial developments, essentially agreeing to refund millions in property taxes to commercial developers in exchange for locating within their jurisdictions. It also perpetuates the nasty and inequitable system of property taxing that hits new property owners with taxes orders of magnitude higher then long-term owners. It also doesn't devolve taxing authority back to local governments, which is essential to fixing the system, IMO.

I've also heard many who advocate going to somekind of overall value-added tax structure. Don't know what I think of that yet, but I do think that when we look at budget reforms we have to look to both sides of the ledger.

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 01:52 PM
The whole point of Prop 13 (at least ostensibly) was to stop the astronomical increases in property tax people were paying, so I don't know how well anything that is tied to the added value of your house will go over.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
The whole point of Prop 13 (at least ostensibly) was to stop the astronomical increases in property tax people were paying, so I don't know how well anything that is tied to the added value of your house will go over.

mactastic,

I'm no expert on tax structures, but I believe the idea of value add taxes is to place a tax on any transaction. Right now, for instance, sales taxes are only on the sale of a commodity while there is no tax on a service. So under this idea a tax, smaller in each instance but greater overall, would be applied from all exchanges of goods and services. I don't think this would apply to the increase in value of property.

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
mactastic,

I'm no expert on tax structures, but I believe the idea of value add taxes is to place a tax on any transaction. Right now, for instance, sales taxes are only on the sale of a commodity while there is no tax on a service. So under this idea a tax, smaller in each instance but greater overall, would be applied from all exchanges of goods and services. I don't think this would apply to the increase in value of property.

I see.. I was thinking it would apply to houses.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I see.. I was thinking it would apply to houses.
Only when you sold it or paid for materials and services to upgrade an existing home.

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Frohickey, for the republicans in the state legislature the difference in name is everything considering their pledge to pass no budget with new taxes. Now, Davis is talking about repealing the increase in license fees and replacing it with an income tax on the wealthy. Very smart move on his part, and it will hold the republicans feet to the fire. What do think Arnold's position will be?

The state budget did not have any new taxes, and one prominent republican is fighting the 'illegal' tax increase when Steve Pease increased the vehicle license fee. As to increasing the income tax rates, what that will do is further drive business away from California. The wealthy are among the most mobile of any group, and they could afford to set up residence in a low tax state, while maintaining a 'summer home' in California for when they 'visit'

Republicans should vote against an increase in income tax rates, besides, you need a supermajority vote for tax increases.

Dunno about Arnold's position. He's not really a conservative. (Hmm... Gary Coleman's character is named Arnold too.) :D

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 02:42 PM
I'm not sure I follow. When you sell it, the actual value of the physical stuff that makes up a house has lost value, that is, the wood is in worse shape than when you bought it, the windows and roof etc are closer to needing replacement. The property is really the only thing going up in value. And property is assessed even under prop 13 at the time of sale, so I don't see what the change is there. And if you upgrade more than a certain percentage of your house you have to have it reassessed which can raise your taxes also right? Maybe I'm missing something.

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I'm no expert on tax structures, but I believe the idea of value add taxes is to place a tax on any transaction. Right now, for instance, sales taxes are only on the sale of a commodity while there is no tax on a service. So under this idea a tax, smaller in each instance but greater overall, would be applied from all exchanges of goods and services. I don't think this would apply to the increase in value of property.

How about instead of finding new ways to tax people for their economic transactions, finding new ways to cut the size of government?

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
How about instead of finding new ways to tax people for their economic transactions, finding new ways to cut the size of government?

How about we do both?

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:48 PM
Energy generation situation
The red tape involved to build a new energy generation plant in California is tremendous. This, and the NIMBY attitude of the typical Californian who is told that its bad to have a power plant next to them, whilst they buy every electric powered modern convenience known to them from Circuit City. During the energy crisis, I would see cars driving along the freeway, urging that Calpine not be allowed to build a 600MW power generation plant in the Santa Teresa area of South San Jose. There is already a power distribution plant near there, sounds like a very good idea to have a power generation plant there too.

Davis did not make it easier during the energy crisis either. What he should have done is allowed the power companies to charge end-users what the power was costing them to deliver. That would have dropped demand, and would have stabilized prices. Instead Davis subsidized it.

High housing costs
If you look at California, its a pretty large state. But a lot of the land is locked away from commercial or residential development. There is a powerful environmental lobby here, and it seeks to lock people away from land. Forget that the leaders of this lobby already have their beachfront properties, and such.
Silicon Valley's proposal for luring more businesses here is to increase mass transit, aid traffic congestion and build more apartments. How about just getting the various city legislatures to open up more land for development? That will solve the traffic congestion as people and businesses move to these new areas for new facilities. It will also solve the high housing costs as you have made more land available for housing.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
How about we do both?

Exactly. As to the value added tax I think the idea is two fold. First, to equalize the tax structure so that services as well as commodities are tax. Second, to simplify the structure so for instance instead of 8% sales tax and other misc. taxes peg at certain levels all would be taxed at say 3 or 5%. As I said before I'm no expert on this stuff and I don't even know if I would support such a move to an overall value add tax. I do know I think we have to not only look to cut waste in government, but also look to a fairer tax structure that supports the needs of society.

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Energy generation situation
The red tape involved to build a new energy generation plant in California is tremendous. This, and the NIMBY attitude of the typical Californian who is told that its bad to have a power plant next to them, whilst they buy every electric powered modern convenience known to them from Circuit City. During the energy crisis, I would see cars driving along the freeway, urging that Calpine not be allowed to build a 600MW power generation plant in the Santa Teresa area of South San Jose. There is already a power distribution plant near there, sounds like a very good idea to have a power generation plant there too.

California has had several new power plants come online since the power crisis. It did not help that several large plants somehow went offline at just the time they were needed most. Despite what you might think, the environmental lobbies do not actually run things in Sacremento.

Davis did not make it easier during the energy crisis either. What he should have done is allowed the power companies to charge end-users what the power was costing them to deliver. That would have dropped demand, and would have stabilized prices. Instead Davis subsidized it.

Davis was hamstrung by an agreement made by Pete Wilson that held energy prices at a fixed level, neither letting them drop while energy costs were low (which was the industry gamble when they helped draft the legislation) nor raise them when they went through the roof. Davis flubbed the negotiations with the power companies, but by then he was already over a barrel, so to speak.

High housing costs
If you look at California, its a pretty large state. But a lot of the land is locked away from commercial or residential development. There is a powerful environmental lobby here, and it seeks to lock people away from land. Forget that the leaders of this lobby already have their beachfront properties, and such.

The goal of the environmental movement is not to lock land away from people, that is a gross mischaracterization. The goal is responsible use of the land, and so far developers have largely shown themselves to be untrustworthy in their stewardship of the land. Thus the people have a vicious reactionary response to any development.

Silicon Valley's proposal for luring more businesses here is to increase mass transit, aid traffic congestion and build more apartments. How about just getting the various city legislatures to open up more land for development? That will solve the traffic congestion as people and businesses move to these new areas for new facilities. It will also solve the high housing costs as you have made more land available for housing.

Putting more land up for development is what this state has been doing for a long time now, and it's not making things better. Zoning needs to be changed to allow multi-family mixed-use developments that are carefully planned and are mostly infill in existing city cores. Mass transit can work as soon as residential densities pass the 10 unit/acre level, with a much higher level in cities. Yet environmentalists AND commercial interests are against this, the environmental lobby as a knee jerk reaction from being burned so many times before, and the banks and developers by a lack of incentives to build dense housing. There are many other aspects to this, I don't want to get to in depth here, but cities have little incentive to build the kind of housing that lower income people can afford. Suburbs have suburbs that also have suburbs now, sprawl is taking over and making poor use of the land in a manner that is costly and unsustainable for the long term, but is subsidized and encouraged now.

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by mactastic California has had several new power plants come online since the power crisis. It did not help that several large plants somehow went offline at just the time they were needed most.

Davis was hamstrung by an agreement made by Pete Wilson that held energy prices at a fixed level, neither letting them drop while energy costs were low (which was the industry gamble when they helped draft the legislation) nor raise them when they went through the roof.

The goal of the environmental movement is not to lock land away from people, that is a gross mischaracterization.

Putting more land up for development is what this state has been doing for a long time now, and it's not making things better.

Power plants have a fixed lifetime, so you need to be constantly building them because the ones you have built will need to get renovated or closed, and upgraded. When you have redtape on new construction, you are really affecting your current production.

Davis could have asked for legislation to allow costs to be passed on. Or he could have done nothing and let the system hash itself out. What Davis did was not smart, and made a non-state fiscal problem into a state fiscal crisis

So, why are environmentalists against improving the roads currently in some national monuments and parks? These have already been said by firefighters to be crucial in getting firecrews where they are needed in order to fight the wildfires that crop up every summer. The other benefit is that the public, which owns the land to begin with, gets to enjoy their state and federal lands. The guy in the wheelchair can't get off his truck to enjoy the outdoors when the road is blocked, he paid for the national park too.

Haven't seen the state open up any state lands for sale to the public. If the environmentalists do not like being burned by the developers, maybe what is needed is that the developers only get to build on the land that is purchased by the future homeowner. True, that is the rarity in real estate transactions, but both are still private groups, the developers admit it, while the environmentalists attempt to hide behind the 'shield of being for the public interest'.

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Power plants have a fixed lifetime, so you need to be constantly building them because the ones you have built will need to get renovated or closed, and upgraded. When you have redtape on new construction, you are really affecting your current production.

Davis could have asked for legislation to allow costs to be passed on. Or he could have done nothing and let the system hash itself out. What Davis did was not smart, and made a non-state fiscal problem into a state fiscal crisis

So, why are environmentalists against improving the roads currently in some national monuments and parks? These have already been said by firefighters to be crucial in getting firecrews where they are needed in order to fight the wildfires that crop up every summer. The other benefit is that the public, which owns the land to begin with, gets to enjoy their state and federal lands. The guy in the wheelchair can't get off his truck to enjoy the outdoors when the road is blocked, he paid for the national park too.

Haven't seen the state open up any state lands for sale to the public. If the environmentalists do not like being burned by the developers, maybe what is needed is that the developers only get to build on the land that is purchased by the future homeowner. True, that is the rarity in real estate transactions, but both are still private groups, the developers admit it, while the environmentalists attempt to hide behind the 'shield of being for the public interest'.

In case you haven't noticed, yes there are radical environmentalists just as there are religious zealots and other extremist types of thought. Just because some environmentalists are against something doesn't mean you can paint the whole movement that way. But there are also developers with no soul, who will gladly defile any piece of property for a dollar. I could lump you in with them and then easily debunk your argument, but thats not the point. What I'm saying is that is is a combination of left and right politics that is combining to create a mess here. Or have you not noticed the pseudo-environmentalists that drive SUV's and live on pristine lots? Those are not environmentalists, they are simply using the existing legal structure to protect their own interests. They are no more environmentalists than certain people who exploit the religious tax-exemptions are religious. Do not confuse those people (who have the money to delay and block projects they feel will threaten their view corridor) with those who think we can responsibly use the land so that future generations will be able to enjoy it in as pristine a manner as those of us lucky enough to be alive now do.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 03:56 PM
The "energy crisis" was not one of demand, which had hardly increased at all when the lights started to go out, but one of supply, or more accurately, how the supply was controlled. If demand was really the issue some say it was, and new power plants aren't being constructed in California because of "environmentalists," then I have to wonder why the power companies aren't building these plants over the state lines, in Arizona and Nevada?

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 04:08 PM
I can't help some ironic chuckles at the whole electricity situation in California. I've yet to drive through the Palm Springs area or through Altamont Pass and see those wind generators in use.

The new power plants of very recent years are gas-fired, at a time when we are now beginning to import natural gas. With the areas locked against drilling for more gas, the total available reserves are in decline. Coal couldn't be used because of particulate emissions...But I guess that CO2 doesn't really contribute to Globular Worming, if an environmentalist really wants his lights, refrigerator and computer to work. :)

I spent four years with Texas' Coastal Zone Management Program, back in the mid-1970s. There, I first learned of Env. Impact Statements (EIS). Now, it occurs to me that the impact of any given project will be the same as for a previously built project, but for local affects on such things as cross-drainage from rainfall. It's amazing to me that people can believe that the entire design and the entire area must be researched from scratch, as though nobody ever saw the site before, or built a project in the past...IOW, a lot of wasted time and money. An EIS is a good thing, but not as misused solely to "Stop the evil!"

Bush' speech today about the reworking of the power grid is well taken. Load locations have shifted in great degree since many of the older transmission lines were built, and these must be rerouted/rebuilt or added to. (The same hold for oil and gas/gasoline pipelines, as well.)

These problems aren't limited to California, of course, but they are the most obvious in the inability to deal with them in a reasonably quick fashion.

'Rat

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly The "energy crisis" was not one of demand, which had hardly increased at all when the lights started to go out, but one of supply, or more accurately, how the supply was controlled. If demand was really the issue some say it was, and new power plants aren't being constructed in California because of "environmentalists," then I have to wonder why the power companies aren't building these plants over the state lines, in Arizona and Nevada?

There have been studies about how the demand for electricity has increased by 35% or so, while the supply of electricity in California has not kept with the pace. When demand outstrips supply, the way its brought inline again is by the raising of prices. Prices were not allowed to rise during the California energy crisis, at least not the prices borne by the ultimate user of the energy. Instead, its borne by the California taxpayer via bond measures stretching years in the future.

Actually, California had power coming into is that was generated in Mexico.

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 04:36 PM
I was actually down in the Palm Springs area in the spring, and saw probably 75% of the wind generators working away. It's somewhat amusing to see one side blame the other for the mess, while both are to blame. Yet neither one will give an inch and the general public gets held hostage to the radicals on each side.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
These problems aren't limited to California, of course, but they are the most obvious in the inability to deal with them in a reasonably quick fashion.

California is apropos of nothing really, as far as energy is concerned. The state only made headlines when they turned the energy markets into instant pay-off slot machines for the energy traders. The "crisis" somehow managed to disappear when the traders and producers were handed a few spare billions. No new megawatts were created.

FWIW, we've been enduring six straight weeks of record heat here in California, and throughout nobody's uttered a word about brownouts or rolling blackouts. It must be some sort of miracle.

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by mactastic What I'm saying is that is is a combination of left and right politics that is combining to create a mess here. Or have you not noticed the pseudo-environmentalists that drive SUV's and live on pristine lots? Those are not environmentalists, they are simply using the existing legal structure to protect their own interests.

Do not confuse those people (who have the money to delay and block projects they feel will threaten their view corridor) with those who think we can responsibly use the land so that future generations will be able to enjoy it in as pristine a manner as those of us lucky enough to be alive now do.

Agreed, there are rabid extremists from every group. But couldn't there be a solution that is equitable to everyone?

The pseudo-environmentalists that drive SUVs and talk-the-talk about pristine lots, they can sell their SUVs and walk-the-walk and purchase pristine lots from people, instead of having politicians threaten the property owners with fees and jailtime if they develop their property.

The ones that responsibly use the land, why should they be hampered by the ones that want to preserve their view corridor? Sounds like the way to ensure an equitable solution is to preserve and respect the property rights of the property owners.

The ones that want to preserve their view corridor would have to either purchase their view from the property owner, or live without their view corridor.

The pseudo-environmentalists that drive SUVs and live on pristine lots would have to purchase the land from the responsible land-use people if they want to keep the lot pristine.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
There have been studies about how the demand for electricity has increased by 35% or so, while the supply of electricity in California has not kept with the pace. When demand outstrips supply, the way its brought inline again is by the raising of prices. Prices were not allowed to rise during the California energy crisis, at least not the prices borne by the ultimate user of the energy. Instead, its borne by the California taxpayer via bond measures stretching years in the future.

Actually, California had power coming into is that was generated in Mexico.

Over what period of time? The change in demand during the year of the "energy crisis" and the prior year was in the very low single digits.

Yes, I know some of California's electricity comes from out of state. That's precisely my point. If the demand for power in California had been skyrocketing, and the only reason why new plants weren't being constructed in the state to meet the demand is due to environmental restrictions, then these plants could have been built over the state lines in places like Nevada, where the words "environmental" and "protection" are hardly ever uttered in the same sentance. But they weren't built, which to me certainly raises the question of whether the demand actually had increased enough to justify an investment in new power plants.

More importantly, the crisis in energy was a farce. No shortage existed. We should all know that by now.

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Agreed, there are rabid extremists from every group. But couldn't there be a solution that is equitable to everyone?

The pseudo-environmentalists that drive SUVs and talk-the-talk about pristine lots, they can sell their SUVs and walk-the-walk and purchase pristine lots from people, instead of having politicians threaten the property owners with fees and jailtime if they develop their property.

The ones that responsibly use the land, why should they be hampered by the ones that want to preserve their view corridor? Sounds like the way to ensure an equitable solution is to preserve and respect the property rights of the property owners.

The ones that want to preserve their view corridor would have to either purchase their view from the property owner, or live without their view corridor.

The pseudo-environmentalists that drive SUVs and live on pristine lots would have to purchase the land from the responsible land-use people if they want to keep the lot pristine.

The problem with property rights is that not everyone has them. Some people have an incentive to keep others from owning property. Plus the property rights groups have taken their views to the extreme as well. Developers have felt they have the right to put anything they want up in whatever fashion suits them, and then leave and head back to their pristine lots with nice views. They leave the rest of us with a crappy development that has an effect on the future for a long time.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
The problem with property rights is that not everyone has them. Some people have an incentive to keep others from owning property. Plus the property rights groups have taken their views to the extreme as well. Developers have felt they have the right to put anything they want up in whatever fashion suits them, and then leave and head back to their pristine lots with nice views. They leave the rest of us with a crappy development that has an effect on the future for a long time.

Another big, ugly fly in the ointment which is conveniently overlooked by the property rights crowd is where those cherished property rights come from. Most of the land in the United States was forcibly removed from its previous occupants by the government and then redistributed to new owners. Some of those owners now claim they have the right to do "whatever they like" with this property, free of government interference -- when if it hadn't been for government interference, they wouldn't have any property rights to begin with.

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by mactastic The problem with property rights is that not everyone has them. Some people have an incentive to keep others from owning property. Plus the property rights groups have taken their views to the extreme as well.

To plagiarize Goldwater, "Extremism in the defense of property rights in no vice..."

Property rights only belong to people that own property. Just like human rights only belong to people.

Its the people that try to keep others from owning property that are the problem. They stoop to using government and fake environmental concerns in order to do what they can't do legally.

Frohickey
Aug 15, 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly Another big, ugly fly in the ointment which is conveniently overlooked by the property rights crowd is where those cherished property rights come from. Most of the land in the United States was forcibly removed from its previous occupants by the government and then redistributed to new owners. Some of those owners now claim they have the right to do "whatever they like" with this property, free of government interference -- when if it hadn't been for government interference, they wouldn't have any property rights to begin with.

I take it that you are referring to the plight of the Indians. The land in the United States was forcibly removed first, from the British crown, bought from the French, gained from a war with Mexico, another from a war with Spain, wars with Indian tribes, bought from Russia, and finally taking over of Hawaii from the queen.

Yes, people have been forcibly removed from their ancestral lands, but that is the way things are between sovereign countries.

What we were talking about was things that are within a sovereign country.

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 08:27 PM
Folks that worry about their view corridor could maybeso do what I did to protect mine: I bought it. And it doesn't bother me a bit that it protects the views of some five or so other neighbors of mine, either. :) The nice thing about it is that it's above-average wildlife habitat, for a desert.

I've long suspected that the importance of one's view is the true reason behind California's antipathy toward offshore drilling. I note that the best fishing off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is around the oil rigs. The support legs are of such diameter that there is an acre of marine habitat developed upon them for each 100 feet of depth. An entire food chain then develops, all the way up to those good-tasting king mackeral and suchlike. And dolphin (fish--mahi-mahi in the restaurants, for obvious reasons) hang out in the shade...But oil rigs ain't purty.

:), 'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I've long suspected that the importance of one's view is the true reason behind California's antipathy toward offshore drilling. I note that the best fishing off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is around the oil rigs. The support legs are of such diameter that there is an acre of marine habitat developed upon them for each 100 feet of depth. An entire food chain then develops, all the way up to those good-tasting king mackeral and suchlike. And dolphin (fish--mahi-mahi in the restaurants, for obvious reasons) hang out in the shade...But oil rigs ain't purty.

:), 'Rat

I like my view of the ocean as much as anyone and don't necessarily want it spoiled, but the main reason we Californians don't want offshore drilling is our experiance with oil spills. I'd rather mess up our views of the hills like the Altamont Pass with windmills and get our energy that way.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
I take it that you are referring to the plight of the Indians. The land in the United States was forcibly removed first, from the British crown, bought from the French, gained from a war with Mexico, another from a war with Spain, wars with Indian tribes, bought from Russia, and finally taking over of Hawaii from the queen.

Yes, people have been forcibly removed from their ancestral lands, but that is the way things are between sovereign countries.

What we were talking about was things that are within a sovereign country.

Yes, and?

I'm talking about the same thing. Had it not been for all of this forcible action between "sovereign nations" (eg, colonialism), the people militating for unrestricted property rights today would have had nothing to militate for. Setting aside for a moment the ethical issues associated with colonialism, the government made it possibile to have property rights, so it makes no sense for anyone to say that the government should have nothing to do with regulating how they use it.