Why do the Republicans want to replace Davis?
Wouldn’t it be more to their advantage to leave the Democrats running the State House and both houses of the Legislature and let the Democrats take all the blame for the results of the tax-and-spend approach to running an economy?
A Republican governor would just be a scapegoat for the Democrat legislature continuing to spend money it doesn’t have.
What advantages are there for Republicans if they replace Davis?
Leaving aside as much politics as possible, the short answer is, Davis is weak, California is huge and the Republicans want it.
Controlling all three branches of the federal government, the Republicans want to control as much of the state and local government structures as they can. Witness recent attempts in Texas to force an off-year redistricting to benefit state and federal Republican legislators. They did the same thing in another state, I want to say Colorado but I don’t recall. California is a state that is enormously important in terms of economy, population and electoral votes, and the Republicans are shut out of it. They hold no statewide elective office and IIRC they are the minority party in both statehouses. Gray Davis is very unpopular and the Republicans are seeking to exploit that weakness to capture the nation’s largest governorship with an eye to bolstering Republican performance in the state in the 2004 presidential election.
Plus, Issa, the guy who spearheaded the recall campaign, wants to be governor real bad but he can’t win it in a straight-up match. So now he has a shot at being elected, he thinks, and if he doesn’t win the recall election he’s in a position to challenge a weakened Republican governor in the next primary.
But why?
Say a Republican does replace Davis. What is likely to happen?
The California Legislature will continue spending money they don’t have thereby running up the debt, weakening the economy, destroying jobs, etc.
The California press corps will use the Republican Governor as a scapegoat and blame him/her for the increasing debt, the weakening economy, the destruction of jobs, etc.
The California voters (admittedly not a group of people that the admissions committee at Mensa is trying to get in contact with) will believe what the reporters tell them and blame the Republican governor for all the troubles.
Wouldn’t a wiser strategy for the Republicans be to let the situation continue as it is now, and in three more years say to the voters, “Now you’ve seen what compulsive spending and tax hikes do to an economy. Want to give limited government and tax cuts to grow the economy a try?”
But in three years they have to fight an actual election battle. Who knows what the political climate will be in three years? Maybe the economy will turn around. Maybe there will be a natural disaster or a terrorist strike in California and the governor will attain Guiliani-like stature as a result. Maybe W will lose in 2004 and the momentum nationally will shift back to the Democrats.
Davis is weak now and the opportunity is there now. It may not be there in three years, or one year, or even six months (which if Davis’ lawsuit to delay the election and place him on the ballot as a possible replacement candidate succeeds is when the election will be, to coincide with the already-scheduled primary). Six months is a lifetime in politics. Better in the Republicans’ view to take the prize now if they can and worry about keeping it later.
The populace doesn’t think he is doing his job, so they want someone who would do the job.
I don’t agree that it’s just the Repubs that don’t want him, its the ordinary citizens that don’t, most of them anyway.
Why replace Davis with a Republican? Hell, by your logic, why run for office at all? Just let the Democrats run everything, and cast the inevitable blame where it belongs!
The problem with that thinking is that a Republican governor can DO things: veto troublesome social legislation, appoint Republicans to important committees, etc. There are many powers exercised by a governor that well outweigh the negatives of taking power during an economic low.
Besides, it’s not ALL strategic thinking; many Republicans think they’re the bulwark against ruin, and any chance to grab power must be seized for the sake of the people. Or something like that; I wouldn’t know – I’m a Democrat.
I believe that whoever is named Governor (I hate to say elected) in the chance that Davis is recalled, wll serve a full term not just what’s left on Davis’ term.
My question is… have any of the serious candidates said what they would do to bring the budget in line?
That’s the answer I’m looking for!
Still, the runaway spending will continue. Don’t the Democrats have enough seats for a veto override in both houses of the Legislature?
The Legislature’s refusal to defeat spending bills is the cause of most of California’s troubles. A republican gov. can veto some of the spending, but the vetoes will almost certainly be overridden and the press will paint the governor - not the Legislature - as the bad guy.
It still seems to me that the GOP would be better off pointing out to the public that it’s the Democratic strategies that they should get rid of, not the Democrat governor.
Nope. The replacement would serve out only the remainder of Davis’ unexpired term. He or she would not serve a full term.
What???
That recall was started less than 45 days after the election (Remember-when the populace elected him) It is a financed effort to overturn the will of the electorate.
Actually, the Bush administration is not particularly happy about the recall due to potential blow-back on republicans in the presidential elections next year.
Republicans aren’t the only ones who want to replace Davis. This registered independent (who has voted both Democrat and Repulican, depending on the candidate) wants his incompetent, money-burning ass out of there. It really burns me that the Dems are trying to make it sound like this is all about Republicans being sore losers. From what I understand, there are more than a few Democrats who want him gone now, too–they’re just being very strongly directed not to put their name on the ballot. One did anyway.
I hate discussing politics, but I just wanted to clarify–it is NOT solely about one party trying to oust the other.
" It is a financed effort to overturn the will of the electorate."
By definition, that’s what a recall is. The electorate say we changed our mind. If it’s not the electorate that elect the replacement, who is it?
Now, you might argue that California law makes it too easy for the electorate to change it’s collective mind, and the resulting new election is too different from the “normal” election, and I’d probably agree with you. But it’s not like some outside power doing this… only California voters get to vote.
Changed your mind damn quick, then.
I had a girlfriend like you guys once.
“admittedly not a group of people that the admissions committee at Mensa is trying to get in contact with”
Up yours, flyover.
Anyway, the economy got so bad, and things got so screwed up, that they can’t logically get any worse. A workable budget has passed. Things are taking a natural swing back for the better, and whoever’s in office will take credit for that. The republicans would like it to be them.
Arnold is running - officially.
Good. More (un-)votes for Davis.
They started the recall less than 30 days after he took office.
Which changes not at all the fact that if Davis is recalled his successor would serve out the remainder of his term rather than serving a full term. What is your point and why do you think it has any relevance to the factual answer to the question of how long a replacement governor would serve?
You’ve also made the assumptions that the Rebuplicans act as a team. Any given Republican, given a reasonable chance to be governor, might seize that, despite the wishes of the Republican leadership.
P.S. That goes double for democrats.