Shodan: By November 1864 the tide of war had pretty definitely turned in favor of the North, which undercut McClellan in two ways: it made his “exit strategy” platform less attractive, and it showed that he had been too timid in his generalship earlier in the war (since now the electorate had Grant, Sherman, etc., for comparison). But ISTM that Whack-a-Mole makes a good point: had there been the possibility of a recall at that time, McClellan might well have beaten Lincoln as late as the spring or early summer of '64, and certainly in '62 or '63, when the war was largely going poorly for the North. Whether that would have made Lincoln prosecute the war any differently is a matter for the counterfactual historians, though.
I’m not Republican nor conservative, but I’ll throw in my $0.02 as a resident of California.
I think the recall effort was entirely sour grapes on the part of the losing Republican party in the 2002 elections.
As at least one point of reference, let me give you all this little gem, which is the formal statement to recall Gray Davis:
Sorry, but I see nothing illegal in that list that would give me reason to sign that petition and recall the governor. Did Gray Davis make mistakes and bad choices? Of course he did. But did he do anything worthy of a recall (i.e., those things listed above that he did NOT do during his first 4-year term) between the time of his election and the time the recall was launched? NO, he did not. If he was such a blundering idiot, why did he get elected in November, and then the drive started just two months later? The implication is that he must have done something (i.e., those things listed above) after he had been elected to warrant a recall, right? Yeah, right. Thanks to Issa’s deep pockets, enough signatures were garnered by enough people to put it on the ballot, and once the juggernaut of a special recall election took over… well, now we see the results.
Sour grapes, IMHO. And a travesty of democracy. I agree with you completely Stoid.
I also agree with the law experts who say the recall was intended and/or ought to be implemented as a vehicle to remove someone from office should they do something illegal or overwhelmingly egregious (which I feel none of the things Davis is accused of either was, or was something that he had direct control over), not as a means to remove your opponent should you lose the election (which I feel this recall effort was).
I will agree with Jodi, however, that technically there was nothing illegal about the recall effort, and that it is, indeed, a stupid law that needs serious reworking. Of course, the first governor that proposes such a thing will be accused of trying to avoid his own recall, so that will likely not happen any time soon.
Esprix
It operated within the confines of the law. Please point out specifically which laws were broken upon which you base your presumtion of “illegitimacy”. It may have been petty, stupid, and the motivations a pile of fetid bird poop, but as far as I can tell it was perfectly legitimate.
If Californians have a stupid law, then they should change the law.
But that’s the way California’s recall law is set up – no showing of illegal behaviour is required. I’m confident (without having seen it) that the recall petition against Governor Reagan also did not allege anything illegal.
**No, the very definition of democracy. The voters voted for the recall law, then a bunch of years later they used it. Unwise? Yeah, maybe. But not undemocratic.
**The “law experts” are irrelevant. The plain text of the California constitution says “Sufficiency of reasons is not reviewable.” It doesn’t get much plainer than that.
Easy solution. Craft the change to take effect after the end of the term of office of the Governor and Legislators sitting at the time of passage.
The California recall clearly does not require ANY sort of grounds for recall. A Governor can be recalled for having an Austrian accent, or for any other reason. Many other states have requirements that recalls can only happen for various reasons…moral turpitude, etc. But California does not. All California governors have been subject to recall for any reason or for no reason. The recall did not have to give any sort of justification, other than that the governor should be recalled.
And Esprix, please explain how the recall process was undemocratic. I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Did a majority of California voters vote for the recall or not? If only a minority voted for the recall, yet the governor was recalled anyway, then that would be undemocratic. If a majority vote for recall, and the governor is recalled, then that is democratic. See, under a democratic system you hold elections and abide by majority rules. And if they change their minds and voted differently in another election, then that is still democratic.
You could argue that the Electoral College is undemocratic, you can argue that impeachment of the president is undemocratic, but how on God’s Green Earth can you argue that the recall was undemocratic, given that a MAJORITY VOTED FOR IT???
Huh? How does a Democrat governor knock out a candidate from the Republican primary? Did Davis send goons over to his house to break his thumbs or something?
According to this, there have been 31 other recall attempts, including at least one on Ronald Reagan, and none were successful.
That right there should be an indicator of how truly unpopular Gray Davis really was.
During the primaries, when Davis was unopposed and Riordan and Simon were squaring off for the Republican nomination, Davis ran a negative anti-Riordan ad campaign. It worked and Simon got the nomination.
Having read this whole thread, I guess I’m confused by what STOID means when she asks if the recall was “legitimate.” It might be helpful to have that term further defined, as she is using it.
The recall was legal. The recall was democratic – people exercising their right through election (or de-election) to choose their leader. The recall was ethical, so long as one does not feel, as I do, that election to a term of years ought to include the right to serve for that term of years, in the absence of malfeasance – a provision that, while IMO eminently sensible, California has yet to adopt.
So I guess I’m not sure what else might be meant by “legitimate.”
Unless Davis sent heavily-armed thugs to the Republicans’ homes and strongarmed everyone into voting for Simon over Riordan, it’s still a stretch to blame Davis for the California GOP’s inability to choose a viable candidate.
Word.
Agreed. It’s unusual, though, for a member of one party to run attack ads on a member of the other party before the candidate has been chosen. I think it reflects negatively on CA Republicans, that they’re able to be so easily and blatantly manipulated.
I am using the term “undemocratic” because I feel Issa’s signature-gathering subverted the will of the people (that had been rightfully exercised in 2002) using his own money - that is wholly undemocratic. However, certainly enough people did sign the petitions and did vote for the recall, so in the technical sense it was obviously legal and democratic. I just find the entire process to have been spurious and counterintuitive to how democracy is supposed to work. I mean, what next - start having elections every year? Every six months? Ridiculous.
IMHO, that is.
Esprix
Esprix:
So, it’s both “wholly undemocratic” and “legal and democratic” at the same time? 
I don’t like the recall deal either, but that’s all part of what democracy is-- sometimes you’re on the losing end. What is undemocractic is assuming that democracy only works when the outcome is something you like. From reading your many posts in the past, I doubt you really feel that way. There is something about this process that sticks in your craw, but it’s not fundamentally different from the initiative process: You collect a bunch of signaturs and get something on the ballot. Nothing undemocratic about it.
John Mace, I see your point, and Esprix’ also. This is probably becoming a topic for a different Debate, but it boils down to: is it still “democracy” if it’s totally dollar-driven? If there is a direct relationship between votes and money spent? Or in the case of recalls & intiatives, between signatures and money spent? I think it’s that relationship that causes the queasiness. There’s an underlying feeling that the process is driven by He Who Has the Cash–which isn’t very democratic.
Just asking the questions…
…and in that regard, the recall signature drive and election is no different than any other US election.
Which has been true ever since political candidates saw that mass media advertising (or even big train tours) was effective. This is not any different, and I have the distinct impression that those who are serious in their complaints about “the money bought the recall” just don’t like that the vote didn’t go their way.
I agree with Cardinal, above, and would add that democracy would be subverted if people were being paid for there signatures, but not so if someone is paid to collect signatures. It’s no different from a presidential candidate paying his or her campaign manager.
Spirit vs. letter.
Banging your fist on the table, vs. arguing either the facts or the law.