Re: Re: Re: Re: It's on. Actually, the Lege is currently in special session to discuss, among other things, redistricting. And while the Republican majority in the Texas House is going to go ahead and dance to the tune that Washington Republicans are calling, the Texas Senate is saying, "Not so fast, boys": http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/070903dnetexredist.3063c.html Part of it is because Senate rules require a two-thirds vote for a bill to even hit the floor for a debate. Part of it is because the Texas Senate has always been a more collegial, bipartisan body. But even though the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they're not about to ram Tom DeLay's map down everyone's throats.
Re: Gray Davis Recall Nah. I don't buy it. The Democrats haven't enough testicular fortitude to try something like that. They're still caught up trying to figure out if they're really mean-spirited win-at-all-costs politicians, or their c. 1972 Friend to the Masses persona.
Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall What you call the absence of testicular fortitude is really the decency to respect democratic institutions. Our country is better than other countries because we don't go around tearing down our government every time we have civil unrest. Apparently, people in California are too concerned with the immediate present to put their actions in context. Just like Superdave said -- will to power. Only this time you've got Greenies like you in on the conspiracy.
Re: Gray Davis Recall Which is, of course, what has Mr. Davis in the fix he's in Right... all 1 - 1.5% of us. Is that the not-so-vast left wing conspiracy? Pathetic. While the DNC talks about our numbers "spoiling" their god-given-right to every left leaning vote, it's certainly not our numbers that have them in a tizzy. It's that we actually are a viable alternative for those who'd like to vote their conscience as opposed to voting against the more-right candidate. Conspiracy... Sure, here in SD, we chat all the time with folks like Issa and Duke Cunningham, while the good folks in the DNC are protecting the rights of honest working folk with such gems as NAFTA, Taft-Hartley, and the death penalty.
Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall You're pushing this recall so fervently, it's hard not to wonder what's in it for you. It's no big secret that the Green Party would benefit from the demise of the Democratic Party. You say so yourself in claiming to be a "viable" alternative. The only issue is whether the will to power label that aptly describes Issa and his ilk is a fair characterization of Greens now as well. Are you so starved for influence that you will destabilize democracy for incremental gains in power? Supporting this recall effort seems to push the evidence a bit doesn't it? Anyway, have fun with your mockery of a democracy.
Greens may be pushing for the recall, but I know there is no conspiracy between them and the Republicans to kill off the Democrats. Like Don Quixote, they're charging the windmill on their own. The fact is, when Republicans have control in the gov's office or Legislature, there is no opportunity for Greens to push their agenda. Ralph Nader and the Greens certainly made a "statement" in 2000, but is there any concrete impact of Nader's message today in a D.C. controlled on almost three sides by the elephant? Nope. Democrats on occasion need to listen to the Greens to appease their liberal base.
Re: Gray Davis Recall It's a secret to me. I don't know about any other Greens, but I'm aware that our message is quite a bit left of center, and thus will never command the numbers the DNC can. What I do have a problem with is the sense of entitlement felt by the Democrats, leading them to believe that they can at the same time own the left vote and reject leftist ideals. Even with equal access to the means of campaigning, we'd probably only poll 15-20% (that is, our candidates would receive 15-20% of the votes, not that we would have 15-20% of the registered voters registered Green), but we should have access to that 15-20%. readers' digest version: 1) We're not destabilizing anything. The recall and referrendum have been the law of the land for awhile now. The GPCA hasn't even signed on to this particular recall effort, although we'll probably endorse Camejo now that it seems to be reality. 2) Winner-takes-all isn't my idea of democracy, either. Plurality rule does not equal majority rule. As has been mentioned, Instant Run-off voting would clear this up very easily.
Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall Hence my question. Is the Green party guilty of compromising democratic stability in an effort to "access" that 15-20% (if it exists). I would say complicity in the recall means you are. So has impeachment, but just because those particular tools exist does not mean they should be used cavalierly without regard to the destabilizing consequences associated with their implementation.
As I said before, I am for the recall, because it is a legal and democratic way to get rid of a governor that sells himself to the highest bidder. But you have to wonder what the republicans are thinking. The biggest losser if we have a recall is the GOP. If they were smart in a Maquiavellan sense they would let Davis and the democratic legislatiure deal with the crisis and its likely disastrous conclusion, and then when the term expires bring out a strong candidate for governor who gravitates towards the center on social issues. Then they would get their guy in Sacramento, with a chance to catch the state probably on the rebound. That would be a nice way for them to gain ground on the democrats at the state level. But if they do the recall now and win they would have a legal governor but with an asterisk, and he/she will inherit all the crap and have to deal with a very hostile legislature. He will preside over a disaster, and when the next election comes, democrats will probably be poised to go back to power. I think for those of us in the center who are not strongly partisan, getting rid of Davis now is probably the best. But I cannot help but think that right wingers in California have no brain. They blew it once by choosing the only candidate that might have been worse than Davis, and now they are blowing it again by attempting to take the Davis 'problem' away from the liberals. It would be more shrewd of them to leave Davis in power and let him cause as much harm to the democrats as possible. But apparently they are so desperate for power for themselves that they cannot manage play their cards smartly. I will look for the 'neither/nor' candidate. No Davis, and certainly not somebody like Issa who will likely be at a standoff with the legislature. We need somebody who is honest and who can stand up to the legislature without alienating them. I don't mind even if they raise some taxes a bit, as long as they are also cutting down the waste in spending. In fact, we will need some type of tax raise to get out of this mess. But we cannot have a raise in all kinds of regressive taxes in order to continue business as usual, as Davis and the legislature are proposing.
Re: Gray Davis Recall No. As a party, we decided to maintain neutrality on the recall question. However, the recall seems to be a reality, and any party that wants a say in how the state is run would be foolish not to run a candidate, if they had one that was willing. That's why we'll probably endorse Peter in our next plenary session. I, on the other hand, am in favor of the recall, and will vote for it. Your question may be better posed: Are you, SObearCAL, guilty of compromising democratic stability in the hopes that your party's status as a player in the state will improve? Again, I'd answer no. The guy's a crook, and if Peter Camejo was governor and pulled the same shenanigans, I'd have signed on for his recall, too.
Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall If we had a European-style parliamentary system I'd have no doubt there would be Greens in the California Legislature and in Congress. But that is not how it works, unfortunately. If Greens did have consistently 15-20% of the votes in elections, Republicans would consistently win all races. The Green Party's counterparts on the opposite end of the political spectrum (i.e. Libertarians, American Independents etc.) don't quite have the clout to draw off voters from the Republican party. Left-leaning voters tend to be more fickle... I know Democrats who voted or Nader in 2000. I would be for a multi-party system where four or more parties were "viable." IMO, if you look at the number of people who voted for the Democrat and Green candidates in the 2000 election, you would get the sense that we are generally a progressively-leaning nation. But because of the way our system works, the most ardently conservative president since Herbert Hoover was elected.
Can you imagine how the right wingers would feel if Davis is recalled and a guy like Peter Camejo wins? He is way too liberal for me, but it might be worth it just to see their reaction. And California has enough liberals to possibly pull it off, especially if the right is divided. I am sure many on the right don't care for Issa. I tend to have rightist views (mostly on economic rather than social issues) and I wouldn't vote for Issa. I would vote for Riordan or possibly for a guy like Arnold S. if he ever tells us what he stands for. This will get interesting.
If no Democrat runs in this race, this could well happen. I have to assume that most of the people voting will be those with right of center views looking to boot Davis at any cost. But if the Republicans don't unite under Issa, then that leaves the possiblity that Camejo could sneak in. Question for clarification: can a person who votes "no" also vote for a candidate? If so then the possible absence of a Democrat leaves the chance of a Green gov open. If that happens, Issa will no doubt get the next recall attempt going within the next week.
Re: Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall Okay, thanks, to a guy who lives 3,000 miles away and couldn't give a flying fuck about the fact that California is running budget deficits equal to half of our annual revenue. It's good to know that democracy is alive and well in Georgia, where if you're not a Republican or Democrat you have to collect 40,000 signatures just to get on the ballot. Way to stick it to us.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall My concern for your budget deficits, or for the federal government's budget deficits doesn't override my larger concern that people not abuse political mechanisms in pursuit of power. I've pretty consistently condemned any radical power shifts as bad, including impeachment, recalls, and violent juntas. Georgia's no peach for democracy, true, but we did manage to use the electoral process to get rid of both Bob Barr AND Cynthia McKinney last general election, so we've got a little somethin' for the effort.
Re: Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall Here's a quick little question for the conservatives in favor of this. You guys seem to be arguing that recall is a good idea. Do you advocate a federal constitutional amendment adding a recall provision for the president, or are you a bunch of sickening hypocrites? Cuz I sure woulda liked a recall provision in the spring of 2001. Which would make it a demockerycy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall Would have been nice to see, Superdave, but I think everyone to the right of, say, Dick Gephardt has headed for the hills.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gray Davis Recall At the national level? Personally, I would say it is not a good idea to keep adding ammendments to the US constitution. I would probably be against it. To be honest, I am not sure if I would even support it at the state level, if this was a new law that was proposed and I was a legislator who had to vote on it. But we are not arguing about whether we should pass such a law. The law already exists in California, regardless of how we feel about it. It was written by the people of the state of California for the people of the state of California. Are you a citizen of the state of California? The question we have before us as Californians is not whether California's laws are better or worse than federal laws, or whether we want to impose California laws at the national level. The question is, how do we apply current California law in order to achieve the most favorable course of action for the state of California. The issue before us now is that, since we (the people of California) have the right under state law to recall our governor in a democratic manner if the situation warrants it, we are given the responsibility of having to decide whether we should do it or not. It is a responsibility given to us by law to decide whether Davis deserves to be recalled for his actions. It is a big responsibility which we cannot evade. Nobody is forcing Davis out of office. Apparently enough people felt that Davis should be out to qualify the question to a vote. Now, if a majority of the citizens of California believe that he should not be recalled, then we can vote against the recall and keep him in power. But if we believe that he must step down, then the option is given to us to vote him out. That is our system and if we choose to live in this beautiful state then we must do what we believe is the best recourse for us within our system. Let Californians search their heart and decide what is best for Californians.
We can vote down supreme court justices in California, too. And it has happened, Rose Bird is in retirement because of this. Any mechanism to put the fear of accountability into politicians, I'm for, but I have no great expectations that it will make a difference. I would really like to see US supreme court justices held up for re-election every ten years.
Are you freakin mad. Do think that Jefferson and Madison wrote the constitution with a thumb up their asses? The election of supreme court justices has got to be the most assinine idea ever. The reason why they are appointed is two fold. First, you don't lose them for a year before the election to campaign. And second, they have the ability to maintain impartiality. The court is not there to serve the public's whims. It is there to interpret the constitution in an unbiased and inteligent manner. And although there are some exceptions (those patryline pricks Scalia and Thomas are two of them), the majority of the court does not follow a party belief, rather a view of strict or loose constructionism. If justices were elected, you would not have seen the dramatic results out of the court that have appeared in the last two months. Rather, you would have a polarized court with no room for your Jusice O'Connor's and your Justice Kennedy's. There is a need now for less democracy, not more. the most respected organizations of our government are the least accountable to voters, i.e. The Supreme court, the Fed, the millitary, etc. You should read Fareed Zakaria's book, the future of freedom. You'll understand that the more direct democracy you have, the more zealots take over and bad government rears its head. Thats why California's politics are so out of whack because there is too much accountability and therefore noone can have the balls to do the unpopular thing, however right it may be.
The recall mechanism and the referrendum were very well intended, but are seriously flawed. The flaw lies more in the inherent purchaseability of the process than in the "rise of the demos", though. While it is at times true that the populace at large is prone to blind faith in a fond gospel, evangelism is significantly helped along when one has a few mil to throw down. I'd love to have seen how this would have shaken down if signature collection was no longer a money-making enterprise.