Schwarzenegger announces bid for governer. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Phaenx · 08-07-2003, 03:05 PM

Yesh, I don't trust career politicians.

The_Dude · 08-07-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
That's pretty sad. You essentially suggested that only rich people familiar with manipulating the position should be allowed to hold it.

In my opinion, we need more, not less, "common" citizens to hold office. Arnold is definitely not "common", but he is not tied up in the bureaucratic nonsense yet, and so is more a represenative of the people than a career politician.

if i'm not mistaken, this is the first elected position he's gonna hold. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA!

he's gonna make his mistakes ON CALIFORNIA! this is not a job for a n00b.

Rodney · 08-07-2003, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

In my opinion, we need more, not less, "common" citizens to hold office. Arnold is definitely not "common", but he is not tied up in the bureaucratic nonsense yet, and so is more a represenative of the people than a career politician.

I dunno; as a liberal, I've always been suspicious of "limousine liberals," people like Streisand, Joan Baez, Jane Fonda, and so on. They speak well on the big issues, but that's all they are: nice voices, spokespeople. They don't really have the staying power to do anything important except rally the troops, and a lot of them don't really identify all that well with "the little people." So in that sense I don't know how representative of the people Arnold is. Can a guy who gets his prepackaged airline meals custom made by gourmet chefs (saw this on TV) really step into the shoes of a poor couple in Bakersfield who's trying to raise three kids on two min-wage salaries? Does he have a clue about what would help them most? (might not be money)

Roughly ten years ago I saw Arnold in person at the grand opening of the gym I belong to (it's owned by an old buddy of his). Arnold and entourage flew into a nearby airport in a Gulfstream exec jet and then drove over to the gym in five stretch limos. There were flunkies and bodyguards everywhere. There was a phalanx of southland bodybuilders. There was Grace Jones, migawd. I have nothing against Arnold, and I think he means well; but I don't think he's really got a clue of who all "the people" really are. How could he?

Phaenx · 08-07-2003, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
if i'm not mistaken, this is the first elected position he's gonna hold. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA!

he's gonna make his mistakes ON CALIFORNIA! this is not a job for a n00b.

He's not new to politics. And honestly, how much more could California get fucked up? He'll probably end up saving it just by the only strategy I've heard from him so far:

"I WILL CRUSH THE SPECIAL INTREST GROUPS, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE ME, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THEIR LIFE PARTNERS!!!1!!"

That's not the exact quote, I don't remember what he said about Davis pandering to special interest groups.

bermuDa · 08-08-2003, 12:12 AM

Arnold stands a good chance to win on name recognition alone... His name would be easy for people to pick out of a list of 500... especially when the collective intelligence of the majority of voters is roughly equivalent to that of a breadbox.

So far the only candidate whose actually made a legitimate suggestion to help pull us out of debt is Flynt. He proposed to legalize slot machines and tax the hell out of them. That alone should pull in at least 3 billion a year.

Another great idea which actually has a chance is to tax interstate internet purchases, like amazon.com Consumers and the internet companies may not like it, but it would help the state and local retailers who have no choice but to charge tax... good luck getting past the lobbyists who would rather see our state sink further down the drain than see their interest groups lose profits. GOD I LOVE DEMOCRAZY!

lol that was a typo but I'm gonna leave it

j8ear · 08-08-2003, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bermuDa
Another great idea which actually has a chance is to tax interstate internet purchases.....I LOVE DEMOCRAZY!....

~Another~ great idea? What was the first? Taxing the hell out of a bunch of new slot machines?

There are few methods, imho, more disgusting then gambling and the subsequent taxes they generate to raise revenues. It is restricted almost exclusively to the poor and lower (not a value judgement but a commonly accepted label) classes and disproportionately to minorities. Plus I have real problem with deeming things illegal for the common good then permitting them only in order to raise money. Hypocracy to umpteenth degree

Additionally, internet taxes are banned (for the time being) at the federal level. Not sure how applicable that is to states, but personally, I'm on board with the moratorium. Even if states could tax internet sales, could they they do so for 'interstate' transactions?

The first candidate who proposes drastic reductions in spending will have my support. I would even support higher sales or income taxes ~IF~ they were accompanied by drastic and reasonable cuts in spending.

Concur on that freudian slip of a typo

-bear

The_Dude · 08-08-2003, 11:09 AM

no, actually i dont think it's banned at the federal level.

i live in texas, and if i buy something online from california (like newegg.com), i would NOT have to pay taxes.

if i buy the same item online from texas (like directron.com), i WOULD have to pay taxes.

that's a lot of $$ CA is missing out on.

Willy · 08-08-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by urizenxvii
great... you'd think we'd have learned our lesson from the last time we had an actor as governor...

and the democrats have threatened a recall if republicans win this one.

can the bay area secede from California? please?

Haha, I live in the Bay Area, and it is at least as flakey as any other part of CA. Probably more so.

smooth · 08-08-2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
no, actually i dont think it's banned at the federal level.

i live in texas, and if i buy something online from california (like newegg.com), i would NOT have to pay taxes.

if i buy the same item online from texas (like directron.com), i WOULD have to pay taxes.

that's a lot of $$ CA is missing out on.

Cali still gets the money. The way it works for all states right now is that if the store has a physical location in the state you are ordering from and the state has sales tax, then you pay sales tax.

marcopolo · 08-08-2003, 03:09 PM

It's a conspiracy I tell ya.

Those Austrians are still day dreaming about their past Austro-Hungarian Empire's glory, Arnold is just going to create the great Austro-Californian Empire. You'll all be required to wear lederhosen, watch Schwarzwaldlink over and over till you are brainwashed into believing Austria is a land of perpetual sun and cheesy romance and they'll add "Maria" to all your landmark, building and trains names!!!

Run, run far away, before it's too late!

Shagg · 08-08-2003, 03:11 PM

Arianna Huffington doesn't have much of a chance in my opinion. Too many people in California have SUV's. Anybody remember that spot she did about if you drive a SUV you are supporting terrorism? She is running as an independent and that she has worked a deal with the Green party doesn't really mean much.

Larry Flynt will most likely do far better than Arianna, but I doubt that many serious voters will support him. His idea that gaming could be a realistic source of revenue, will kill any possible support from the Native Americans and anybody they influence. Never mind the fact he has the charisma of a squashed toad, and image will play a heavy part in this election. Also his idea of a general amnesty for illegals pisses many people off.

I think Cruz Bustamante shot himself in the foot filing the motion in court that he should be Davis's replacement if the recall passes. Yes he is Hispanic, but I don't see that playing a heavy a roll, particularly since Arnold IS an immigrant success story and supports immigration. Bustamante's statement that he would like to "see California and Mexico as one region" was deliberate pandering to the hispanic vote, much the same as Davis's initiative to give illegals drivers licences.

Garamendi and McClintock don't have the name recognition, though McClintock would probably do very well as Governor.

Bill Simon still doesn't have a clue that an extreme right wing conservative has no chance in California.

Arnold has a great number of things going for him. He isn't going to have to lay out much money for politcal ads, he gets plenty of free publicity from the entertainment shows and local news media, which do not fall under the legal obligation of equal time for candidates. He is very charismatic and incredibly confident. I don't think there is a single candidate that comes across as confident as he does. Like I said before Arnold IS the great American success story. He has had plenty off success outside of acting, he owns a shopping mall and has quite a bit of real estate. He is about as far left as it is possible to be and still be a Republican. He is pro-choice, supports gay rights and favors limited gun control. However unlike most liberals, he supports business, doesn't pander to the labor unions, wants to reform workers comp and doesn't want to raise minimum wage. Right now the big unknown is his position on the car tax. Republicans as a rule are against it, but Arnold has refused to comment on it and so I am inclined to think he will leave it in place. (which in all honesty, as much as I hate the idea of paying 400+ bucks for car registration, is probably a good move, provided that it is only a part of an otherwise agressive move to cut spending.)

Personally, I am not an Arnold fanboy, I'm a registered Libertarian. I would have much rather seen Richard Riordan running than Arnold. But... I think Arnold is a better choice than any of the other candidates that have a realistic chance of winning. His lack of experience is politics really isn't that much of an issue when you consider how well Davis performed with his vast amount of experience. Keep in mind that Davis is very skilled at getting elected, he was able to literally pick his opponent in the last election. He spent more money on the Republican primary for Governor than any Republican did to insure that Bill Simon was his opponent. He knew that he would have lost against a moderate Republican like Riordan. But even so Davis barely won the election, and given his opponent it should have been a landslide victory.

Ultimately this election will be between Bustamante, Arnold, Garamendi, and McClintock. I think Arnold will win by a significant amount, Bustamante will have the largest portion of Democrat votes with Garamendi and McClintock receiving about the same. Flynt is pretty much a wild card and if anything he will pull votes from the Democrats. I will be seriously surprised is Arianna gets more than 1%

Zeld2.0 · 08-08-2003, 03:17 PM

Well it goes both ways IMO on bustamante

He *can* garner a lot of Hispanic votes - considering they are the largest group in CA now thats pretty significant.

The problem is, though, that many don't vote. The turnout ratio is horrid in CA for all groups.

Also, many don't even know who the hell he is - whereas everyone knows who Arnold is in one way or another.

I betcha most people who vote don't even know their stand on issues - they just go by name or party affiliation.

Ah how great democracy works in the U.S. - only here can you curse the same people you elected.

mikecc · 08-08-2003, 03:18 PM

I have registered to vote & I will see to it that Arny wins

Nizzle · 08-08-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
I was just gonna post this.

I think he has a great chance at winning. Look at the idiots that are gonna be running. Does anyone actually think the people of Cali would be dumb enough to elect another dem after Davis lied and cheated the state and most importantly all the people who live in the state.

Davis has not "lied and cheated the state" *since* he was re-elected by the people.

You all had your chance to vote for Simon during the election a few months ago. Wait, Simon didn't win, did he? No, Davis did.

The recall effort is a travesty of fair political process.

Phaenx · 08-08-2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
Davis has not "lied and cheated the state" *since* he was re-elected by the people.

You all had your chance to vote for Simon during the election a few months ago. Wait, Simon didn't win, did he? No, Davis did.

The recall effort is a travesty of fair political process.

Only when a liberal democrat is getting recalled.

j8ear · 08-08-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
Davis has not "lied and cheated the state" *since* he was re-elected by the people.

You all had your chance to vote for Simon during the election a few months ago. Wait, Simon didn't win, did he? No, Davis did.

The recall effort is a travesty of fair political process.

Davis has done nothing but lie and cheat. He's a politician.

Guess what...California gets another chance

Who gives a crap what happened then. This is now. Try and live in the here and now.

Really? It's a total travesty to you when Californians exercise their constitutionally sanctioned right to recall their governor? Interesting perspective you bring.

Try and avoid straw man and ad hominem attacks should you be able to muster a rebuttal.

Nizzle · 08-08-2003, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx

Only when a liberal democrat is getting recalled.

No, anyone.

You do realize it only takes 85,000 signatures to get the recall on the ballot, right? That's an insignificant number. The recall mechanism is in place for removing politicians who have demonstrated a need for replacement after being elected.

In this case, it's a matter of a wealthy Republican interest going for another try because the party leaders made the mistake of sponsoring Simon, thus ensuring a hasty defeat. California does not want an ultra right-wing Republican in office, and this was proven during the last election. Even with Davis' known shortcomings, Simon got his ass beat.

The appropriate and time honoured thing to do when you lose is accept it and prepare for the next time. You don't get to keep trying until you win. Sponsoring a recall so that your party can try a different candidate is a clear misuse of our system and its safeguard procedures.

But it's only 85,000 signatures. Davis' biggest enemy now is voter apathy.

j8ear · 08-08-2003, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
You do realize it only takes 85,000 signatures to get the recall on the ballot, right?

Actually it was more like nine hundred thousand (add a zero to your number and your still a bit short) . Your off by one thousand percent.

I believe they actually mustered up about 1.4 million.

Still insignificant granted...but let's at least try and be factual.

-bear

Nizzle · 08-08-2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Really? It's a total travesty to you when Californians exercise their constitutionally sanctioned right to recall their governor? Interesting perspective you bring.

Only 85,000 californians, actually, which is the required number of signatures to excercise a recall effort.

It is not being sponsored by "Californians", it's being sponsored and funded by a single wealthy Republican. Since the Republicans *lost* the last election, I fail to see how his endorsements represent all Californians.

Quote:

Try and avoid straw man and ad hominem attacks should you be able to muster a rebuttal.

Just because you disagree with me is no need to be pre-emptively insulting. It also does not advance your argument in any way.

j8ear · 08-08-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
Only 85,000 californians, actually, which is the required number of signatures to excercise a recall effort.

Already addressed and WRONG.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
It is not being sponsored by "Californians", it's being sponsored and funded by a single wealthy Republican. Since the Republicans *lost* the last election, I fail to see how his endorsements represent all Californians.

Straw man.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
Just because you disagree with me is no need to be pre-emptively insulting. It also does not advance your argument in any way.

Hmmm?

Shagg · 08-08-2003, 05:31 PM

Lets not forget that the Republican that funded the recall is not going to be on the ballot.

Phaenx · 08-08-2003, 06:52 PM

You need enough signatures to equal about 14% of the people who voted in the election (in this case it was about 895 thousand people, they went well over this number however) to start a recall. Davis barely got elected last time as well. You should know this, you live there.

Phaenx · 08-08-2003, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Overview

The recall mechanism for statewide officers and legislators in California first appeared as a constitutional amendment in 1911, one of several reform measures put in place by the Progressive administration of Governor Hiram Johnson. Basically, it requires the circulation of recall petitions. The process begins with the filing of a notice-of-intent-to-recall petition written in the proper legal language and signed by 65 voters. Once that is accomplished, the recall petition can be circulated in earnest. Petitions for the recall of statewide officers must be signed by voters equal in number to 12% of the last vote for that office, including voters from each of five counties equal in number to 1% of the last vote for the office in that county. Petitions for the recall of state legislators must equal in number to 20% of the last vote for the office.

The recall ballot has two components: a yes or no vote for recall, and the names of replacement candidates, selected by the nomination process used in regular elections. The recall measure itself is successful if it passes by a majority. In that case, the replacement candidate with a simple plurality of votes wins the office. If the recall measure fails, the replacement candidate votes are ignored.

The recall law underwent some "streamlining" changes as a result of the passage of Proposition 9 in November 1974. The changes included a new 160-day limit on signature gathering (there was no time limit previously), and the new provision for immediate recall petitioning. Previously, there was a six-month waiting period to initiate a recall petition against a statewide elected official (five days for a legislator). Now, the recall procedure can begin immediately after the election of the recall target.

Recalls have often been attempted in California against statewide officials and legislators. All governors in the last 30 years have faced some level of recall attempt. Significantly, none of the recall attempts aimed at statewide officials has ever reached the voting stage. However, recall efforts against several state legislators have reached the voting stage, and two were actually recalled. These were Paul Horcher and Doris Allen, two Republican Assembly members recalled in 1995. There have been many successful recall attempts at the local government level in California.

TaLoN · 08-08-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
That's pretty sad. You essentially suggested that only rich people familiar with manipulating the position should be allowed to hold it.

In my opinion, we need more, not less, "common" citizens to hold office. Arnold is definitely not "common", but he is not tied up in the bureaucratic nonsense yet, and so is more a represenative of the people than a career politician.

common citizens are retarded. if they all held office the world would go to shit because as soon as they achieved power, they would abuse it like mad(more than current politicians). common citizens are all hypocrites that criticize politicians because they are jealous... they would be doing the same things

Willy · 08-08-2003, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TaLoN
common citizens are retarded.

Can we assume that you are a common citizen? and therefore retarded? or are you a career politician?

(I'm not saying you're a retard, just following your logic here.)

The_Dude · 08-08-2003, 10:38 PM

maybe not retarded, but incapable of making a good decision considering the society at large.

i really wanna see arnold's views on key issues and his plan for gettin out of the budget crisis.

so far, the guy hasnt really published his views (i know his pro-choice and economically conservative) but he hasnt offered a plan to salvage CA.

Phaenx · 08-08-2003, 11:25 PM

He said something about bringing business back to calee-fornia and taking away the focus from special interest. That's all I've heard regarding his views for the budget.

Zeld2.0 · 08-08-2003, 11:28 PM

really though - do most californians acutally want the recall? I'd say most don't even care.

And yes this was funded by a wealthy republican - who isn't in it for himself BUT what he really really wants is to see Davis out and only Davis out - he would've run if Arnold didn't, and now he isn't as is Riordan to hopefully be able to prevent a split of votes so Arnold is given a much higher chance of winning instead of a Dem or other group

Oh and its not exactly the best part of the constitution, only 18 states acutally have the ability to recall.

This isn't exaclty what I'd say is a good precedent - because now, suddenly, every governor in states where recalsl are allowed will suddenly be subject to it whenver people get pissed even slightly - if the next gov't fucks up in CA in anyway you bet many people will try to get him recalled as well.

Not very good IMO - and pretty shitty part of the constitution of the state (one which hasnt' been used by any state in 80 years... until now)

And for those who live outside CA... i seirously wanna say : just stop saying who you'd vote for, because you don't acutally live here to know what people really are thinking other than a few outraged people - the real bulk of voters still have differing opinions

Zeld2.0 · 08-08-2003, 11:30 PM

Oh and on the subject of Arnold...

He is new to the realm of politics - and I am somewhat frightened that what he does will only tarnish his own reputation.

The CA budget shit is only worse after this election - just bringing back business here can't really help the issue. From the sounds of it, he is unsure - and he doesn't want to piss off the majority of voters - he wants to ensure a balance so everyone will be pleased.

But not having a stance now may be an issue - the election is but a few months away and with no solid solution, it will be some bad shit.

Bumm · 08-09-2003, 12:24 AM

"Ahnold" will win

smooth · 08-09-2003, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
really though - do most californians acutally want the recall? I'd say most don't even care.

Right now I'm voting against the recall but I'm casting my vote for Arianna. I listened to Gary Coleman tonight and he had some really good ideas. He was very sensible and exactly the type of person who should be in office. He explained that he was only on the ballot because a group of his fans asked him to do it for them--they paid the fees and now he's here.

I feel the following qualities constitute a very important part to true democracy:

1) grass roots

2) pick your person at the local level

3) sponsor that person without a load of campaigns (he's only going to travel around to answer questions when he's asked which is quite different from paying large sums of money to media corporations)

I really liked his idea about how we could implement desalination plants that produce energy (he said Florida uses them now) and I hope his ideas are picked up and implemented by the mainstream candidates.

j8ear · 08-09-2003, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
really though - do most californians acutally want the recall? I'd say most don't even care.

And yes this was funded by a wealthy republican

We'll see how many care come recall day. Most is irrelevant, as spelled out in Cali's recall procedures.

AND WTF....does the wealth of the recall effort 'funder' have to do with anything. What? Please someone explain. It is a fact of ZERO relevance to the issue. DEMS looooove to demonize someone who is rich because obviously eveeerrrryyything they do is evil. What a crock.

I ask you this...How was it Davis was re-elected? Go ahead...say it...because he shilled his rich little political ass in the primary of his opponent, and was then elected as the 'worst of two evils.' Please reconcile this fact before you perpetuate that strawman position about Issa's wealth and it's mundaneness to this discussion.

-bear

Shagg · 08-09-2003, 08:45 AM

I actually signed the petition and I am not a Republican.

But lets clarify some stuff here. Recall initiatives have been successfully used in the past in California on a local level. Just read the end of Phaenx's post for the names (10 posts up).

Davis is arguably one of the most experienced politicians in the California and has held 2 of the highest offices in the state prior to becoming Governor. He was State Controller as well as Lt. Governor. He spent 6 years as Governor Jerry Brown's (Governor Moonbeam) Chief of Staff, and spent 4 years in the State Assembly.

Viewing the success he has achieved with his wealth of experience, is it any wonder people want (and will elect in my opinion) an inexperienced political outsider?

This is without a doubt the most publicized recall initiative ever, and it will undoubtedly lead to further ones. Keep in mind though that every Governor since Reagan has had an attempted recall. People now realize the power that they hold and will be more inclined to exercise it.

The State Assembly really needs to take a hard look at the recall laws in place now and make an effort to reform them. $3500 is not a sufficient filing fee, 25k+ is more realistic as well as a significantly larger number of signiatures. Seriously, if a prospective candidate can't raise 25k from supporters, then they don't have what it takes to hold office. This will mainly serve keep out the "joke" candidates.

=======================================
Now here's something that really pisses me off...
State Democrats are saying that they will immediately launch a recall initiative if their party doesn't retain the office. This is an arbitrary statement saying they don't give a damn about how a replacement performs, they just want one of their own in office. California politicians as a whole are pretty fucked up, but the Democrats really take the cake right now. They were caught blatently making an effort to prolong the budget crisis (and I can back this up with numerous sources for those that didn't hear about this) so that the voters would give them the power to pass the budget with a simple majority rather than a 2/3 vote. This means they will no longer need a 2/3 vote of the House to raise taxes. Picture this... Governor Davis hires 35,000 more people after a statewide hiring freeze (which was in place because the state had no money {and yes, this really happened}) the House only needs a 51% vote to take more money from masses to pay for Davis's excesses.

In a nutshell he told the Highway Patrol, State Police, Department of Forestry etc. that they couldn't hire more officers/rangers/firefighters and then proceded to create and hire for 35,000 bureaucratic jobs.

Sorry if I went off on a bit of a rant there, but I think it was justified.

The_Dude · 08-09-2003, 09:38 AM

well, if the democrats are disatisfied by the governorship, they have the constitutional right to start a recall, as the republicans are doing right now.

i agree that some of the things that davis did were not pleasing to everyone or even correct, but that's not enough to recall him.

ctembreull · 08-09-2003, 09:41 AM

I can almost guarantee you that no governor in California will be permitted to serve more than half of his term of office without a recall for the foreseeable future.

Willy · 08-09-2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ctembreull
I can almost guarantee you that no governor in California will be permitted to serve more than half of his term of office without a recall for the foreseeable future.

I seriously doubt it, there's only so much of this silliness the people will be willing to put up with. If it gets to be a regular thing, they will probably change the law. In fact, Arnold might be smart to propose that himself

.

Shagg · 08-09-2003, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
well, if the democrats are disatisfied by the governorship, they have the constitutional right to start a recall, as the republicans are doing right now.

i agree that some of the things that davis did were not pleasing to everyone or even correct, but that's not enough to recall him.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shagg
State Democrats are saying that they will immediately launch a recall initiative if their party doesn't retain the office. This is an arbitrary statement saying they don't give a damn about how a replacement performs, they just want one of their own in office.

They are going to be displeased if they don't win. They are not going to give the successor a chance to do anything before taking action to start a recall.

Davis has hurt my quality of life. He has hurt the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Californians. Utility costs are one of the reasons I had to move back in with family several years back. His plan to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses is an insult. He has undermined any efforts to control our illegal immigrant population. He overspent the budget surplus we had from his predecessor and had no plan beyond additional taxes to fund the jobs he created. He and his party have made it increasingly difficult for any business in California to do business.

The legal taxpaying population of California has actually shrunk under the leadership of Davis. Movie production has moved to Canada, defense industry has moved to Nevada, Arizona and Washington. Hospitals are closing because they can't continue to give free healthcare to illegals. Power costs are still much higher than they should be. Teachers are getting laid off, class sizes are increasing and college tuition is increasing in cost so that the part time student can't afford to go anymore and the debt burden of the full time student is unbearable.

Please, somebody show me all these benifits that Davis has made to my life and the lives of others. Show me how he has improved the state. Show me how the Democratic party has improved the lives of the people who actually pay the taxes. Both my parents are lifelong union members my dad is Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers union and my mom is Classified School Employees, I personally work in healthcare. My family works hard and yet the more taxes we pay, the less benefit we see from them.

Doctors are quiting because they can't afford the cost of insurance. Businesses can't afford the cost of workers comp. Certain areas are trying to pass "living wage" laws which will shut down many of the small businesses that depend on unskilled workers.

Davis and others work to shut down the comercial hunting and fishing industries, when its taxes and licensing fees from this very industry that pay for the majority conservation efforts. Department of Fish and Game is operating at a profit because of hunters and fishermen paying for licenses. How will the elimination of Hunting and Fishing help the state when those revenues are no longer available.

No matter what spin you put on it, Davis essentially rigged the last election. He took out the best man for the job before he even had a chance to run against him. Davis spent more money helping Bill Simon against Richard Riordan in the Primary than he did actually campaigning against Bill Simon in the General Election.

Macheath · 08-10-2003, 08:04 AM

The more I read of Arnold, the more he comes across as a very "liberal" sort of Republican. I wonder; can the far right wingnut faction of the GOP keep their mouths shut until after he wins the election, or is one of them going to have a big dirty spray over not getting another fellow traveller into office?

sunstone · 08-10-2003, 09:51 AM

I think CA will be a media circus for the next 2 months will not have much chance of a beneficial result.

I don't live in CA or know many of the details about Davis, but I do remember when CA took it's first and most significant financial tumble. It was during the energy crisis when Enron and other Texas energy companies were looting CA and bankrupting it's energy resources. Bush didn't lift a finger to help CA even after all the illegal activities were obvious (not a surprise given his dislike for the state that refused to support him). It was said that the Republicans feared Davis was getting too powerful and perhaps would become a force is national politics; perhaps even against Bush in 2004. It was further reported that the administration helped to pin the energy debacle on Davis as a means to destroy him and his political future. If any of this is so, then they have engineered a successful coup.

I used to live in Arizona and was generally embarassed by the gubernatorial antics in that state. I'm just glad I am not in CA now!!

Shagg · 08-10-2003, 11:33 AM

I imagine both Simon and McClintock are going to put quite a bit of effort into taking down Arnold, but I think the 4 or 5 heavy liberal candidates will equalize this.

I think Arnolds biggest disadvantage will be a listing towards the end of the ballot, since it will likely be alphabetical without regard to party affiliation.

08-07-2003, 03:05 PM	#41 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Yesh, I don't trust career politicians. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-08-2003, 12:12 AM	#45 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	Arnold stands a good chance to win on name recognition alone... His name would be easy for people to pick out of a list of 500... especially when the collective intelligence of the majority of voters is roughly equivalent to that of a breadbox. So far the only candidate whose actually made a legitimate suggestion to help pull us out of debt is Flynt. He proposed to legalize slot machines and tax the hell out of them. That alone should pull in at least 3 billion a year. Another great idea which actually has a chance is to tax interstate internet purchases, like amazon.com Consumers and the internet companies may not like it, but it would help the state and local retailers who have no choice but to charge tax... good luck getting past the lobbyists who would rather see our state sink further down the drain than see their interest groups lose profits. GOD I LOVE DEMOCRAZY! lol that was a typo but I'm gonna leave it __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

08-08-2003, 11:09 AM	#47 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	no, actually i dont think it's banned at the federal level. i live in texas, and if i buy something online from california (like newegg.com), i would NOT have to pay taxes. if i buy the same item online from texas (like directron.com), i WOULD have to pay taxes. that's a lot of $$ CA is missing out on. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-08-2003, 03:09 PM	#50 (permalink)
marcopolo I am the anomaly. Location: Motown	It's a conspiracy I tell ya. Those Austrians are still day dreaming about their past Austro-Hungarian Empire's glory, Arnold is just going to create the great Austro-Californian Empire. You'll all be required to wear lederhosen, watch Schwarzwaldlink over and over till you are brainwashed into believing Austria is a land of perpetual sun and cheesy romance and they'll add "Maria" to all your landmark, building and trains names!!! Run, run far away, before it's too late! __________________ Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others. Last edited by marcopolo; 08-08-2003 at 03:14 PM..

08-08-2003, 06:52 PM	#62 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	You need enough signatures to equal about 14% of the people who voted in the election (in this case it was about 895 thousand people, they went well over this number however) to start a recall. Davis barely got elected last time as well. You should know this, you live there. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy Last edited by Phaenx; 08-08-2003 at 07:03 PM..

08-08-2003, 03:11 PM	#51 (permalink)
Shagg What day is it? Location: Downey, CA	Arianna Huffington doesn't have much of a chance in my opinion. Too many people in California have SUV's. Anybody remember that spot she did about if you drive a SUV you are supporting terrorism? She is running as an independent and that she has worked a deal with the Green party doesn't really mean much. Larry Flynt will most likely do far better than Arianna, but I doubt that many serious voters will support him. His idea that gaming could be a realistic source of revenue, will kill any possible support from the Native Americans and anybody they influence. Never mind the fact he has the charisma of a squashed toad, and image will play a heavy part in this election. Also his idea of a general amnesty for illegals pisses many people off. I think Cruz Bustamante shot himself in the foot filing the motion in court that he should be Davis's replacement if the recall passes. Yes he is Hispanic, but I don't see that playing a heavy a roll, particularly since Arnold IS an immigrant success story and supports immigration. Bustamante's statement that he would like to "see California and Mexico as one region" was deliberate pandering to the hispanic vote, much the same as Davis's initiative to give illegals drivers licences. Garamendi and McClintock don't have the name recognition, though McClintock would probably do very well as Governor. Bill Simon still doesn't have a clue that an extreme right wing conservative has no chance in California. Arnold has a great number of things going for him. He isn't going to have to lay out much money for politcal ads, he gets plenty of free publicity from the entertainment shows and local news media, which do not fall under the legal obligation of equal time for candidates. He is very charismatic and incredibly confident. I don't think there is a single candidate that comes across as confident as he does. Like I said before Arnold IS the great American success story. He has had plenty off success outside of acting, he owns a shopping mall and has quite a bit of real estate. He is about as far left as it is possible to be and still be a Republican. He is pro-choice, supports gay rights and favors limited gun control. However unlike most liberals, he supports business, doesn't pander to the labor unions, wants to reform workers comp and doesn't want to raise minimum wage. Right now the big unknown is his position on the car tax. Republicans as a rule are against it, but Arnold has refused to comment on it and so I am inclined to think he will leave it in place. (which in all honesty, as much as I hate the idea of paying 400+ bucks for car registration, is probably a good move, provided that it is only a part of an otherwise agressive move to cut spending.) Personally, I am not an Arnold fanboy, I'm a registered Libertarian. I would have much rather seen Richard Riordan running than Arnold. But... I think Arnold is a better choice than any of the other candidates that have a realistic chance of winning. His lack of experience is politics really isn't that much of an issue when you consider how well Davis performed with his vast amount of experience. Keep in mind that Davis is very skilled at getting elected, he was able to literally pick his opponent in the last election. He spent more money on the Republican primary for Governor than any Republican did to insure that Bill Simon was his opponent. He knew that he would have lost against a moderate Republican like Riordan. But even so Davis barely won the election, and given his opponent it should have been a landslide victory. Ultimately this election will be between Bustamante, Arnold, Garamendi, and McClintock. I think Arnold will win by a significant amount, Bustamante will have the largest portion of Democrat votes with Garamendi and McClintock receiving about the same. Flynt is pretty much a wild card and if anything he will pull votes from the Democrats. I will be seriously surprised is Arianna gets more than 1%

08-08-2003, 03:17 PM	#52 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Well it goes both ways IMO on bustamante He can garner a lot of Hispanic votes - considering they are the largest group in CA now thats pretty significant. The problem is, though, that many don't vote. The turnout ratio is horrid in CA for all groups. Also, many don't even know who the hell he is - whereas everyone knows who Arnold is in one way or another. I betcha most people who vote don't even know their stand on issues - they just go by name or party affiliation. Ah how great democracy works in the U.S. - only here can you curse the same people you elected.

08-08-2003, 03:18 PM	#53 (permalink)
mikecc Upright	I have registered to vote & I will see to it that Arny wins

08-08-2003, 05:31 PM	#61 (permalink)
Shagg What day is it? Location: Downey, CA	Lets not forget that the Republican that funded the recall is not going to be on the ballot.

08-08-2003, 10:38 PM	#66 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	maybe not retarded, but incapable of making a good decision considering the society at large. i really wanna see arnold's views on key issues and his plan for gettin out of the budget crisis. so far, the guy hasnt really published his views (i know his pro-choice and economically conservative) but he hasnt offered a plan to salvage CA. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-08-2003, 11:25 PM	#67 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	He said something about bringing business back to calee-fornia and taking away the focus from special interest. That's all I've heard regarding his views for the budget. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-08-2003, 11:28 PM	#68 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	really though - do most californians acutally want the recall? I'd say most don't even care. And yes this was funded by a wealthy republican - who isn't in it for himself BUT what he really really wants is to see Davis out and only Davis out - he would've run if Arnold didn't, and now he isn't as is Riordan to hopefully be able to prevent a split of votes so Arnold is given a much higher chance of winning instead of a Dem or other group Oh and its not exactly the best part of the constitution, only 18 states acutally have the ability to recall. This isn't exaclty what I'd say is a good precedent - because now, suddenly, every governor in states where recalsl are allowed will suddenly be subject to it whenver people get pissed even slightly - if the next gov't fucks up in CA in anyway you bet many people will try to get him recalled as well. Not very good IMO - and pretty shitty part of the constitution of the state (one which hasnt' been used by any state in 80 years... until now) And for those who live outside CA... i seirously wanna say : just stop saying who you'd vote for, because you don't acutally live here to know what people really are thinking other than a few outraged people - the real bulk of voters still have differing opinions

08-08-2003, 11:30 PM	#69 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Oh and on the subject of Arnold... He is new to the realm of politics - and I am somewhat frightened that what he does will only tarnish his own reputation. The CA budget shit is only worse after this election - just bringing back business here can't really help the issue. From the sounds of it, he is unsure - and he doesn't want to piss off the majority of voters - he wants to ensure a balance so everyone will be pleased. But not having a stance now may be an issue - the election is but a few months away and with no solid solution, it will be some bad shit.

08-09-2003, 12:24 AM	#70 (permalink)
Bumm Tilted	"Ahnold" will win

08-09-2003, 08:45 AM	#73 (permalink)
Shagg What day is it? Location: Downey, CA	I actually signed the petition and I am not a Republican. But lets clarify some stuff here. Recall initiatives have been successfully used in the past in California on a local level. Just read the end of Phaenx's post for the names (10 posts up). Davis is arguably one of the most experienced politicians in the California and has held 2 of the highest offices in the state prior to becoming Governor. He was State Controller as well as Lt. Governor. He spent 6 years as Governor Jerry Brown's (Governor Moonbeam) Chief of Staff, and spent 4 years in the State Assembly. Viewing the success he has achieved with his wealth of experience, is it any wonder people want (and will elect in my opinion) an inexperienced political outsider? This is without a doubt the most publicized recall initiative ever, and it will undoubtedly lead to further ones. Keep in mind though that every Governor since Reagan has had an attempted recall. People now realize the power that they hold and will be more inclined to exercise it. The State Assembly really needs to take a hard look at the recall laws in place now and make an effort to reform them. $3500 is not a sufficient filing fee, 25k+ is more realistic as well as a significantly larger number of signiatures. Seriously, if a prospective candidate can't raise 25k from supporters, then they don't have what it takes to hold office. This will mainly serve keep out the "joke" candidates. ======================================= Now here's something that really pisses me off... State Democrats are saying that they will immediately launch a recall initiative if their party doesn't retain the office. This is an arbitrary statement saying they don't give a damn about how a replacement performs, they just want one of their own in office. California politicians as a whole are pretty fucked up, but the Democrats really take the cake right now. They were caught blatently making an effort to prolong the budget crisis (and I can back this up with numerous sources for those that didn't hear about this) so that the voters would give them the power to pass the budget with a simple majority rather than a 2/3 vote. This means they will no longer need a 2/3 vote of the House to raise taxes. Picture this... Governor Davis hires 35,000 more people after a statewide hiring freeze (which was in place because the state had no money {and yes, this really happened}) the House only needs a 51% vote to take more money from masses to pay for Davis's excesses. In a nutshell he told the Highway Patrol, State Police, Department of Forestry etc. that they couldn't hire more officers/rangers/firefighters and then proceded to create and hire for 35,000 bureaucratic jobs. Sorry if I went off on a bit of a rant there, but I think it was justified.

08-09-2003, 09:38 AM	#74 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	well, if the democrats are disatisfied by the governorship, they have the constitutional right to start a recall, as the republicans are doing right now. i agree that some of the things that davis did were not pleasing to everyone or even correct, but that's not enough to recall him. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-09-2003, 09:41 AM	#75 (permalink)
ctembreull Crazy Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA, Earth	I can almost guarantee you that no governor in California will be permitted to serve more than half of his term of office without a recall for the foreseeable future. __________________ Mac "If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

08-10-2003, 08:04 AM	#78 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	The more I read of Arnold, the more he comes across as a very "liberal" sort of Republican. I wonder; can the far right wingnut faction of the GOP keep their mouths shut until after he wins the election, or is one of them going to have a big dirty spray over not getting another fellow traveller into office?

08-10-2003, 09:51 AM	#79 (permalink)
sunstone Upright Location: Pacific Northwest	I think CA will be a media circus for the next 2 months will not have much chance of a beneficial result. I don't live in CA or know many of the details about Davis, but I do remember when CA took it's first and most significant financial tumble. It was during the energy crisis when Enron and other Texas energy companies were looting CA and bankrupting it's energy resources. Bush didn't lift a finger to help CA even after all the illegal activities were obvious (not a surprise given his dislike for the state that refused to support him). It was said that the Republicans feared Davis was getting too powerful and perhaps would become a force is national politics; perhaps even against Bush in 2004. It was further reported that the administration helped to pin the energy debacle on Davis as a means to destroy him and his political future. If any of this is so, then they have engineered a successful coup. I used to live in Arizona and was generally embarassed by the gubernatorial antics in that state. I'm just glad I am not in CA now!!

08-10-2003, 11:33 AM	#80 (permalink)
Shagg What day is it? Location: Downey, CA	I imagine both Simon and McClintock are going to put quite a bit of effort into taking down Arnold, but I think the 4 or 5 heavy liberal candidates will equalize this. I think Arnolds biggest disadvantage will be a listing towards the end of the ballot, since it will likely be alphabetical without regard to party affiliation.