My bad Beryl, I wasn’t responding to you at all. I was responding to Spoofe’s post which took issue with my first post. I don’t post here that frequently and didn’t quote his comments.
What you fail to acknowledge is that Davis’s ineptness, and California’s future insolvency and massive deficits were on the wall for all Californians to see during the last election; these issues didn’t just suddenly materialize in early 2003, or when Issa started funding the recall.
The real problem is that none of Davis’s opponents, then or now, has offered any real solution that might help fix the problem. Arnie has certainly proved himself to be long on rhetoric and short on policy. But, hey, if you want him as your Governor, be my guest.
mhendo
You are absolutely right.
So, do we sit quietly in the passenger compartment while the Captain flies the plane into a mountain, or do we do something to dispel our pending doom? Do we have an obligation to the future of California? What about the future generation that may still be cleaning up his mess long after we are gone? When do we stop him, or do we need the plain to hit the mountain before everyone realizes that ”Yep, sure’nuf he was a poor pilot.” Have you seen how California is rated in the financial circles lately?
Is it that you don’t agree that now is the time to stop him, or do you think that there should be new examples of ineptness before continuing with this?
And BTW, I think that $3500 or 10,000 signatures, or a combination of each (35 cents per signature credited to the $3500), is far too lax a requirement for someone who can potentially be the governor of California. I wouldn’t worry about Arnie either, it looks like Cruz has picked up a major block of votes, and will most likely win if Davis is sacked.
The point i was trying to make is that, if Davis needs to be stopped so badly, then why didn’t Californians realize this only 9 short months ago?
And, to carry on with your aviation analogy:
Sure Davis might be a poor pilot, but at the moment there is no evidence that any of his potential replacement have any idea at all of how to fly a plane. I’d stick with a poor pilot over a well-intentioned non-pilot in those circumstances.
The point i was trying to make is that, if Davis needs to be stopped so badly, then why didn’t Californians realize this only 9 short months ago?
And, to carry on with your aviation analogy:
Sure Davis might be a poor pilot, but at the moment there is no evidence that any of his potential replacements have any idea at all of how to fly a plane. I’d stick with a poor pilot over a well-intentioned non-pilot in those circumstances.
Mhendo
I guess if I had looked at your sig. I would not have used the airline analogy…
Let’s look at it.
We can’t blame Davis for the dot.com fall.
We can’t blame Davis for the tech. Stock losses.
We can’t blame Davis for Bush invading Iraq.
We can’t blame Davis for industry slowdowns, like the air carriers are experiencing.
We can’t blame Davis for a crappy economy.
We can’t blame Davis for getting raped by a bunch of thieves at Enron.
BUT we can blame Davis for not doing what you, what I, and what most other individuals have to do when the income and the expenses don’t balance. We call it pulling the belt in a notch or two. The state should be calling for draconian cuts in spending. How he would approach the budget, taxes, and spending was not apparent when the election was held. This is post-election news.
First you cut spending, then you increase taxes. If he had the, (gender specific anatomical term) to stand up and do what is right, he might have a chance. He has proven otherwise. Raising taxes when the economy in failing due to lack of confidence in Sacramento is ridiculous, until spending has been cut to the max.
If anyone is interested, here are the statutes governing the Cal recall.
From the Election Code
CA RECALL LAW
From the California Constitution
Califiornia Constitution, Article 2, RE: Voting
Cal Const. ArtII
Thanks
Sorry Hammer
All is well:D
Beryl, you seem to contradict yourself on the cause of California’s fiscal problems.
So, are the economic problems being faced by California internal or external to the state itself? While Californians may have lost confidence in Sacramento, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that this lack of confidence is the actual cause of the failing economy.
For what it’s worth, i think that Davis must shoulder some of the blame, but not all of it. There are, as you correctly point out, many economic factors over which he had little or no control.
But, while you are correct that Californians could not have known Davis’s exact budget and tax intentions at the last election, neither could Issa and friends, who launched their recall move barely a couple of months after the election, and before all the crucial budget battles of this year.
I’m not defending Davis; i never liked him during his first term, and i don’t like him now. But i think the recall is being abused. Also, i think it’s pretty brazen of Republicans to say that California’s budget shortfall justifies a recall, when the Republican in the White House is setting the nation up for deficits that make California’s look like my piggy bank.
Perhaps the most troubling consequence of all this is the possibility that it will set up a tit-for-tat round of recall attempts and other non-productive and expensive political debacles. I mean, in a state with over 30 million people, i’m sure it’s pretty easy to find a million people who would be happy to recall any governor, Democrat or Republican. All you need is some self-interested millionaire to put up the money to collect the signatures. And that’s not a great system, IMO.
What were you thinking when you got on the plane? Actions have consequences. The state voted for this governor knowing who that man was an how long terms last.
Several posters, including Hammer have already made this point:
The OP asked:
The best answer I’ve seen was an early **blowero[/s]"
… and, blowero’s post didn’t have a coding error!
No, I don’t blame Davis for what he no control over, I find fault in his failure to recognize the situation and react to it in a manner that creates confidence that he has the ability to lead.
It is almost as if he refuses to open his eyes to the problems. Possibly he is afraid that what people are telling him might be true. Anybody can be Captain of a warship in peace time, but when the battle starts, it enervates the crew to hear the Captains knees knocking as he stutters and mumbles, in utter confusion, trying to lead them from harms way.
Davis’ long term planning is 18 to 24 hours out.
“It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.”
…George W. Bush
::much work ahead::
Well, we seem to have debated ourselves to a stop here. I just think that the way the recall system is set up in Calfiornia, with no provisions for illegal or unethical behaviour, is a problematic thing.
An, in case it wasn’t clear in the other half-dozen posts, i really have no time for Gray Davis.
Abd what is it with you and the transportation metaphors, beryl? I think you need to be on your bike now! 
j.c.
Reread the thread, we have covered that issue already. There are things that have happened since Davis was reelected that reflect negatively on his inability to handle this state…
You’re right it doesn’t require misconduct to remove a Governor. Neither does removal for medical reasons. Neither does removal should he die in office. Obviously those are not recall issues, but, If you want to keep him in office until his term is up unless he is found to have participated in misconduct, then I imagine it could get pretty ripe in Sacramento.
Apparently the wisdom of those enacting this law felt that misconduct was not the only reason for which there should be a recall process. Typically, even arguably, we deem that the legislature has unlimited wisdom when enacting laws, the process typically involves 2 separate bodies, the assembly and/or the senate. Both at one time or another approve it, or require it to be modified. Various committees must review and pass it during this process. Then it makes it to the governors desk for his signature, if he chooses to sign it. Given that process, apparently the concept of misconduct only was rejected. There are probably a multitude of reasons why.
Suppose the governor becomes mentally unstable. And refuses to be examined by any medical professionals. According to your logic, we should bite the bullet and let the Governor serve his term, mental defect ands all, even though he swings on the chandeliers in the capital rotunda every night, while barking at the guards trying to get him down and back to his cage. Assume he starts freeing condemned prisoners, which isn’t misconduct on his part, it is within his power to pardon, should we wait until his term is up, and most, if not all are all back on the street? Is this what you really want? I didn’t think so.
Thanks.
Mhendo posted.
Shucks, I knew that all along, because You could read n’ write.
I’m going to ride my bike now, even though the neighbors hate it when I start it at this time of the day.
“Kites rise highest against the wind–not with it.”
…Winston Churchill
Let’s get the history of recall elections correctly and firmly in our minds so we can better understand both the original purpose and the current pros and cons.
The first recall law in the country was promulgated and passed in Los Angeles County in 1903. It applied to local officials. Thirty-six states currently allow the recall of local officials, according to this web site: National Conference of State Legislatures. In 1908, the first two states, Oregon and Michigan, adopted recall elections for statewide offices. California joined this trend in 1911.
From roughly 1880 to 1910, California politics at all levels was highly influenced by the Southern Pacific Railroad (merged with the Central Pacific Railroad in 1884 under the leadership of Leland Stanford (yes, that Stanford) and Collis P. Huntington). Through an extensive system of political bribery, the railroad managed to have significant control of state and local government entities, including the California Legislature and the Governorship. A synopsis of the state of California politics of the time can be found at the following site: LearnCalifornia.Org
In 1909, Hiram Johnson, a little known lawyer, but son of a state senator (ironically, one who was very pro-SP), successfully convicted San Francisco political boss Abe Reuf of receiving political bribes disguised as “attorney’s fees” from corporations doing business with San Francisco, which money he then used to bribe city officials in his pocket. Hiram Johnson’s success was the only successful prosecution during the course of the various graft trials initiated by Progressives in the period of 1907 to 1909. The prosecutions were brought to a halt when the special prosecutor appointed by President Roosevelt, one Francis Heney, was defeated in the general election for district attorney for San Francisco County by Charles Fickert, a former football player for Stanford’s university (yes, that university).
The then governor of the State of California was James Gillett, who had been nominated in 1906 by the Republican party (the party of the Southern Pacific) because the incumbent Republican governor (selected by the Southern Pacific to defeat a reform minded Democrat candidate), one George Pardee, had dared to introduce reform legislation regarding railroads. This blatant manipulation of the system, combined with the nationally growing mood in favor of progressive political reforms (Theodore Roosevelt being the incumbent president) led to success at the ballot box for progressive candidates in the 1908 elections. The legislature managed to produce a reform of the party nomination system, requiring a direct primary election. This produced the desired result, the nomination in 1910 of Hiram Johnson by the Republicans, championed by the progressive wing of that party. Johnson won election in the fall, and, combined with a progressive dominated Legislature, proceded to reform California politics and laws in quite a number of ways.
Important to our discussion, in 1911, the Legislature produced a constitutional amendment at his request, allowing for referendums, initiatives and recalls at the state level. This amendment to California’s constitution was ratified by the state’s voters in a special election October 10. 1911. Thus, if the Legislature passed bad laws, citizens could annul them by referendum. If the Legislature refused to act to correct problems, citizens could institute reforms through initiatives. And, should office holders act sufficiently egregiously, citizens could through them out through recall. And all of these actions can occur without the need for party approval. Having spent quite some time overcoming the effective control of the Republican party by the Southern Pacific Railroad, the progressives wanted to ensure a system that allowed the citizens of California to opt out of the party process and still obtain results. It is for this reason that the recall provisions in California and five other states mandate the election of a new official simultaneously, without allowing the Lieutenant Governor to succede to office, or the election to follow a process of party nomination and politicking.
I don’t know if Hiram Johnson and the Progressives ever understood the total irony of this legislation. After all, the need for such measures assumes that effective reform cannot occur through the mechanics of the two-party system, yet the progressive reforms occurred precisely as a result OF that system. Still, had recalls, referenda and initiatives existed in California in the late 1800’s, it is likely that the stranglehold on politics held by the SP would have been ended sooner (though there are those who point out that the stranglehold ended essentially with the introduction of the automobile and the concept of highways…).
What does this mean for California today? Have the dynamics of two-party politics in California obviated the need for recall elections? Are recall elections bad things, at least for statewide office? It is hard to make a convincing case that they are, given that only once in the history of the country has a governor ever been recalled (Lynn J. Frazier, North Dakota, 1921, along with the attorney general and agricutural commisioner of the state). Arizona likely would have recalled Evan Mecham, had the Legislature not impeached him succesffully in 1988. Californians have attempted to place gubernatorial recalls on the ballot 32 times, but the current attempt is the only one ever to successfully make it to a ballot. Efforts to recall state legislators have been similarly unsuccessful, limited to a handfull of recalls out of well over 100 attempts.
Still, the current attempt raises questions that can’t be easily dismissed by an appeal to historical failure.
-
Does the fact that this recall petition achieved success in requiring an election only after the personal intervention of Dan Issel, who pumped in substantial amounts of money in order to pay for professional signature gatherering (presumably in an attempt to provide a vehicle for his own effort at election to the office) mean that the state will be subject to multiple elections whenever someone with sufficient cash is willing to spend it?
-
Does the fact that the concurrent election is resolved by a plurality (as opposed to any sort of “run-off” election) mean that someone with a narrow agenda, supported by a limited amount of actual voters, stand a chance to become governor despite the possible abhorrence of said person by a super-majority of the voters? (This reminds me of the sort of examples used by my political science professors to demonstrate how democracy in not a “rational” selection process)
-
Can the state of California successfully conduct this election without becoming the butt of jokes from the entire rest of the nation? (OK, they already are anyway, but we are talking a whole new degree of amazement here…)
A good way to look at this is to review California’s quite thouroughly used initiative process. If you believe that the initiative process allows the citizens of California to overcome the relatively consistent logjam that inevitably seems to accompany attempts to address issues the public is concerned with (e.g.: property taxes, insurance costs, educational spending, etc.), then likely the recall election remains of value in your mind. It allows voters to avoid the party mechanics which result in unpalatable choices beholden to special interests, and remove from office incompetent or undesirable office-holders, replacing them with someone who doesn’t need the official okey-dokey of the one or the other of the parties. If, on the other hand, you view the initiative process as the personal playground of special interests, a nightmare of competing attempts by organizations with excess cash to establish legal systems more beneficial to their needs, an endless drag on the state as the results of well-intended but poorly drafted initiatives are played out over time, then the concept that one or the other of the political parties can hijack the recall process in an attempt to re-determine a political race only recently determined by the ballot box and foist onto the state a governor who may have less support than the ousted incumbent probably causes you to shudder in fear at the future.
My own personal opinion is that this effort will likely be the only successful attempt to force a statewide recall for the forseeable future. Significant negative publicity is being generated by the effort, the main backer has had to back out of the election, frustrating his primary purpose in pushing the issue (and spending a gazillion dollars of his own money), and the result of the election in October will probably be the worst possible outcome for the Republican party: a much more “competent” and less disliked Democrat office holder able to run for governor as an incumbent in 2006.
DSYoungEsq excellent work!
The problem in California as I see it is that an early 20th Century political tool is being used to try fix a 21st Century problem.
Fixing campaign finance first may have been a better idea than using this heavy-handed technique.
I also believe that the original backers of the Davis recall are trying to organize a “Recall Bustamante” movement saying that Davis and Bustamante are part of a “team.” This despite the fact that the two men were elected separately and don’t like each other very much and don’t confer on any substantive issues.
That there exists a recall process is a good thing, IMO, DSYoungEsq. I think most people believe we need ways to address political agents. Some may think that simply not voting them back in again is good enough, of course, but I think more extreme measures need to be available. At any rate, what your post fails to address is the problem our OP really presented us: if we’re voting in someone who is less popular than the guy we’re kicking out, does this recall system match our expectations? Not being a Californian, I cannot answer that question except by projecting my opinion which is: no, this is not a satisfactory method of recall.
DSYoungEsq posted
Dan Issel was a basketball player.
Detroit Pistons, 1970
Denver Nuggets, 1976 when they joined the NBA.
Do you mean Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.
.
Yes, I must have, though obviously I didn’t jump through enough hoops in my late night answer check. 
Nice job.