Why are conservatives supporting Ahnold?

[peptoabysmal]

It might have something to do with the unpleasantness in Florida where punch card votes changed the course of the country. While it is probably true that the error bars are insignificant in most elections, the realization of how very important it can be possibly may be important to a lot of people.

As I recall, Davis did not squeak in by a few hundred votes, so it is fortunate that such changes would have not affected the last California gubatorial election. This election is likely to be much closer, what with the numerous candidates. Besides, last I heard, Bustamante is the odd-on favorite to win if the election were held today. Why are the Republicans whining about the delay?

Davis' re-election was *post* Bush vs. Gore. No one knew before the election by what margin he would win.

The Republicans (and me) are whining about the delay because it puts the vote at the time when the Democratic primaries are being held, and therefore there will be more Democrats at the polls. It is obviously a case of a court being pressured by Democrats to put the odds as much in their favor as possible.

I agree Bustamante will probably win, which is sad, because he is worse than Davis.

What I find funny right now, is that Davis is signing laws and bills left and right that people have been asking for for a long time.

The 9th Circuit invalidated our state constitution to "protect the rights of disenfranchised voters", by pushing the date past the 80 day limit.

An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor, shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures. (Cal.Const., Art II, Sec. 15)

Shelley noted that the California constitution demands that the vote be taken no longer than 80 days after enough signatures of registered voters had been collected to force the recall.

Recall supporters gathered enough signatures this summer to put the initiative before voters on Oct. 7. The first ballot question asks whether Davis should be recalled, and the second offers a list of replacement candidates if the governor fails to get a majority of the vote.

big ass government PDF

AP story

 

[Silicon]

The 9th Circuit invalidated our state constitution to "protect the rights of disenfranchised voters", by pushing the date past the 80 day limit.

Yeah, they can do that, because they ruled that it violated the Equal Protection guarantees of the US Constitution. That one trumps the measily little California Constitution.

 

[Silicon]

The Republicans (and me) are whining about the delay because it puts the vote at the time when the Democratic primaries are being held, and therefore there will be more Democrats at the polls.

That part IS unfair.

But it's part and parcel of our 2-party system. It happens on ALL elections.

The incumbent gets a butt-load of free press because he IS the President. He gets mega coat-tails for straight-ticket voters, and some really great fund-raising perks.

But the price the party in power pays for that is the fact that he's the de-facto candidate, the OTHER party gets a boost on the other measures on Primary day.

 

[Kodiak]

The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Court's ruling to block the recall. The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

Am I good or what!



Appeals panel overturns decision delaying Oct. 7 election

 

[Kodiak]

Where are all the naysayers and liberals who cried "election stealing!"?

 

[Tricky]

Where are all the naysayers and liberals who cried "election stealing!"?

I don't recall saying anything like that. I'd just as soon get this train wreck started. Of course now the Democrats are pi**ed off, and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

On a lighter note, Ahnold (Remember him? He's the subject of this thread.) does his only debate (if it can be called that) tonight. I'm sure he will have his lines well memorized. Too bad they can't sneak in a surprise question on him.

 

[Crossbow]

I don't recall saying anything like that. I'd just as soon get this train wreck started. Of course now the Democrats are pi**ed off, and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

On a lighter note, Ahnold (Remember him? He's the subject of this thread.) does his only debate (if it can be called that) tonight. I'm sure he will have his lines well memorized. Too bad they can't sneak in a surprise question on him.

You know Tricky, when John Stewart won his Emmy, he issued a warning in his acceptance speech that essentially said:

"Now if Arnold wins, it will not be possible to send someone from the future back into the past to kill him, because he will be ready for that sort of thing!"

 

[Kodiak]

I don't recall saying anything like that.

True enough. I wasn't directing that post at reasonable persons on the left like yourself.

...and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

True, but it's their democratically chosen little monster...

 

[Tricky]

True enough. I wasn't directing that post at reasonable persons on the left like yourself.

Erm... thanks, I think.

True, but it's their democratically chosen little monster...

Yes, but the form of our democracy should be a republic, i.e. we elect our leaders, they vote on the bills. California has become more of a true democracy where the people vote on every bloody issue. Damned inefficient way to run a state, I think. They should stick to republicly deciding things. (Can I use that word?)

 

[Kodiak]

Yes, but the form of our democracy should be a republic, i.e. we elect our leaders, they vote on the bills. California has become more of a true democracy where the people vote on every bloody issue. Damned inefficient way to run a state, I think. They should stick to republicly deciding things. (Can I use that word?)

A republic, yes, but a constitutionally limited one. Californians amended their State Constitution to allow for a recall as permitted by their Constitution. Nothing is stopping them from repealing it.

That said, I too abhor referendums.

 

[Tricky]

A republic, yes, but a constitutionally limited one. Californians amended their State Constitution to allow for a recall as permitted by their Constitution. Nothing is stopping them from repealing it.

That is true, and I suspect that the next time one party gets a nice safe margin in both houses, it will be repealed. After watching this circus, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Californians would say "oops, we ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up."

 

[Clancie]

Did anyone see his press conference after the debate last night?

A reporter asked why AS wasn't participating in any other debates than this one (the only one where they had the questions in advance).

He said, quite sincerely, that the one last night would be the one with the biggest audience, the biggest ratings and there was no need to participate in the others because they "would only get a 1% share in the ratings" anyway.

 

[Tricky]

Did anyone see his press conference after the debate last night?

A reporter asked why AS wasn't participating in any other debates than this one (the only one where they had the questions in advance).

He said, quite sincerely, that the one last night would be the one with the biggest audience, the biggest ratings and there was no need to participate in the others because they "would only get a 1% share in the ratings" anyway.

Reminds me of a line I saw in Doonsbury years ago. I forget to whom it was directed (probably Reagan), but it had a reporter asking the question,

"If we turned off the cameras, would you cease to exist?"

 

[DavidJames]

Arnold also benefitted from the "politics of low expectations". I was amazed that Jeff Greenfield from CNN fell into that trap. He was impressed that Arnold was able to rattle off a few statistics.

The more I hear from Arnold the less impressed and more annoyed I get that he is a couple of votes away from being gov. I can understand (however lame) the argument that yes, while he may not be the best Republican candidate overall, he's the Republican candidate with the best chance of winning. One has to wonder about the thinking behind the Republican machine who allowed this to happen. Although in all honesty, I have to give them credit as I think they understand the minds of voters, which is a little sad, because they are right.

 

[Silicon]

Strangely enough, I found McClintock the candidate with the best grasp of the facts. Even though he's the very picture of the opposite of my views, he did seem the most "qualified" candidate.

Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance.

Oh, would it only be that the MODERATE Republican, or the democrat had such a grasp of the issues, rather than the anti-abortion, anti gay-rights... anti any personal freedoms besides the second amendment candidate.


The main thing that keeps me voting democrat is the dumbass moralizing of the Republicans. Oh, and that whole "we're the party of Jesus, patriotism, apple-pie, and you're the party of Satan, terrorism and Tofu" garbage.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Arnold also benefitted from the "politics of low expectations". I was amazed that Jeff Greenfield from CNN fell into that trap. He was impressed that Arnold was able to rattle off a few statistics.

The more I hear from Arnold the less impressed and more annoyed I get that he is a couple of votes away from being gov. I can understand (however lame) the argument that yes, while he may not be the best Republican candidate overall, he's the Republican candidate with the best chance of winning. One has to wonder about the thinking behind the Republican machine who allowed this to happen. Although in all honesty, I have to give them credit as I think they understand the minds of voters, which is a little sad, because they are right.

Just remember that it's the Republican machine in California. These guys just can't get a grasp on the fact that the majority of Californians won't vote in an ultra-conservative pro-lifer.