Anyone Here for California Governor?

Subject: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 03:42 PM

Now that Larry Flynt has decided to run for California governor in the recall election, it is clear that anyone in America, no matter how scummy, can run (this is news?). Anyway, surely there must be a Mudcatter or two -- all of whom are on a higher plane -- who is gearing up for the 65 signatures necessary.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Deckman
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 03:51 PM

I nominate Joe Offer! Bob

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 04:19 PM

Well, I thought of running, but I guess I won't. It really is a dilemma for those of us who don't want a right-wing talkshow bigot to take over the state. Nobody likes Governor Gray Davis, but he was duly elected in a lesser-of-two-evils race in November, 2002. It does seem like he used some dirty-tricks political advertising to help ensure that the best Republican candidate (Riordan) didn't get nominated, but it's the people who voted for the idiot who got the Republican nomination.

As I understand it, a simple majority can vote the Governor out in the recall, and then a pluriality can elect the new governor. In a field with many candidates, the new governor can conceivably be elected with less than ten percent of the vote. Since it's probably perceived as disloyal for a Democrat to run in this mixed-up race, it seems likely that the next governor will be the Republican with the best name recognition.

I sure don't like the idea of it. This was a wonderful state when I moved here in the 1970's, with good schools and highways and parks. Then came Proposition 13, which hogtied the tax system. Now our schools are deteriorating and our highways full of potholes, and the parks dirty and neglected. The tax revolters can afford to pay to go to Disneyland and send their kids to private schools, but the common people lost out to the Forces of Selfishness. California isn't what it used to be.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 04:26 PM

Joe, if anyone from this community should try, you should.

You've even gopt the head for it!


A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kim C
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 04:28 PM

Hasn't Larry Flynt run for governor before?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amergin
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 04:29 PM

how about spongebob squarepants?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amergin
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 04:34 PM

Amos....are you saying Joe has a big head??? Most politicians do you know... ;) BG

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 06:37 PM

Well, I didn't mean that, no -- I was referring to his judicious analytical skills and his diplomatic talent.

I have never actually seen Joe's head, and from pictures I have seen it seems about of normal dimensions.

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amergin
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 06:45 PM

True he does have those skills and I agfree would make a fine governor for my southern neighbours...but as for being a good enough politician to get it....I doubt...he's too honest.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 07:33 PM

Doesn't being governor of California require living there? That's always been one of my top ten fates worse than death...

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Deckman
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 07:39 PM

Hi Joe,

All kidding aside, it really is a very sad story. I have very good thoughts and memories of California. I lived there from 1962 through 1967, up in the redwoods of the Santa Cruz mountains. A beautiful place and a beautiful time. In fact my last year I got my degree from U.S.F., and we used to go to the "city" all the time. I still have wonderful friends there and we talk frequantly. They sound as dissapointed as you, regarding the direction that things have gone.

If there's anything I know, and most of my friends think I know nothing, I do know that California is in for a horrible time and there ain't 'gonna be any simple answers. Also, as California is often regarded as a national leader in things to come, I suspect that shortly there will be other states in this situation.

We've got troubles up here in the Pacific Northwest also, but you still might want to come up here for a visit and a looksee! I know a house you can visit! CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kim C
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 07:48 PM

Spongebob would be just as good as any.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Deckman
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 07:52 PM

Who is "spongebob squarepants?"

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 07:59 PM

Bob: yes, these are interesting times. That's the way I try to look at it. In San Diego County new home prices just broke $500K median; and I hear people talk as if they can only go up. It was less then ten years ago that the newspapers here were full of doom and gloom articles about everyone leaving; following the last real estate bubble. Big numbers all around us these days, hard to guess what they foreshadow.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Frankham
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 08:17 PM

I lived in Los Angeles for too many years. I saw California deteriorate under Reagan. Brown picked it up a little in my view.
Arnold will undoubtably run and this is a Hollywood pattern. Reagan, George Murphy, Shirley Temple Black...many filmland folks wind up into politics. Clint as mayor of Carmel.

My question is this. Which reality will prevail? That of the movie industry or the cognizance of the real social problems of California such as isolated children in pockets of LA who don't have access to cars, or those who must ride a terrible transportation system in LA,
the cutting down of timberland indiscriminately in Northern California, the escalating of housing costs, energy drain etc. Or will there be Disneyland in perpetuity?

Mickey Mouse for governor?

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kim C
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 12:31 AM

Spongebob Squarepants is a cartoon character who's popular with kids and apparently has a huge adult following.

Personally, I think the Power Puff Girls ought to run for governor.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Deckman
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 12:32 AM

Hi Frank, I didn't associate you with California, only Chicago. My ignorence! I think you do hit the nail squarely ... when will the reality of the economy hit california, and all of us, and what will be the outcome? Again, I do see the state of Califonia as a bellwether of things to come. I'm going to send you a pm. CHEERS and thanks for your contributions. Bob

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 04:33 PM

Artbrooks:

You are grievously mistaken, sir. Perhaps you have California confused with Los Angeles? Otherwise I just don't know what you could be thinking of.

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 05:26 PM

California was a beautiful place to live up until Willie Brown, "Big Daddy" Unruh and a few cold-blooded politicos started running it as their little thiefdom, much as many Eastern cities have been run for 150 years. Budget was 34 Billion in 1998 and now it is 134 Billion. 400% increase in 4 years and you folks are talking about Shirley Temple, Clint Eastwood and prop.13? Get real!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 05:54 PM

Your figures are off, pdq.

The 1998-1999 CA state budget was $76+ billion for 32 million residents or $2375 per resident
The 2002-2003 CA state budget is $98.9 billion for 35.5 million residents or $2786 per resident

At 4% inflation per year, a budget that adjusted for inflation only would be $88.9 billion. Adjusting for popultation would increase that figure to $2778 per resident.

However, CA budgets were slashed to emergency spending levels in the early '90's during the recession that hit CA pretty hard. We have a legacy of crumbling schools and lagging infrastructure that still hasn't been overcome. CA may have serious budget issues, but the truth is that we've never had the leadership to recover from the last recession and stash some money away during the good times, and now it's come home to roost when times are hard again.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 06:22 PM

Sounds to me like California's problems are everyone's problems, possibly as a result of a society that wants to endlessly enlarge its "economy", its marketing, its arms, and its other forms of materialism (not to mention its population) in a World that has ever diminishing resources. But I can believe that it's worse in California than in some other places. The problem with human beings is that their social policy is based on a fragmentary idea, a deluded concept, and is quite out of touch with the larger reality in which they must live.

Liberals or conservatives...they ALL want to see the economy expand during their term of office, not shrink, but where does that lead? Into a very deep hole, that's where. People don't want to deal with the truth, because it's painful and demands self-sacrifice on behalf of the greater good (which takes into account all life). People who tell the whole truth don't get elected.

Look at Santo Domingo today as compared to what it was 500 years ago...from a fertile, forested paradise to a wasted desert of poverty and desperation. That is the future that awaits the competitive society when the resources run out.

- LH

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Deckman
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 06:32 PM

Little Hawk ... I'm very impressed with your words, and I don't impress easily. Such wisdon combine with such brevity! Hmmm, any chance you'll move to California and put in for the position? CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 06:44 PM

Your budget figures are a joy to the Gray Davis camp and I won't argue, other than to point out that even liberal-slanted papers in the formerly Golden State say we are spending 134 Billion this year, almost 40 Billion more than revenue. Fiscal v. calender years? Budget v. spending? Any economists out there in CA?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 06:57 PM

Me again... just noticed " we've never had the leadership to recover from the last recession and stash some money away during the good times, and now it's come home to roost when times are hard again. "

Pete Wilson left a $12 Billion surplus! What are you talking about! Do you work for Davis? Another point to those outside CA is that times are booming, right now!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 07:03 PM

Touchy, touchy. I was including Davis in the lack-of-leadership category. Times ain't booming in CA and haven't been for a while, or haven't you heard about the dot-com crash? Nor is the economy booming anywhere in the US.

Wilson and the CA legislature then also left us a disastrous energy deregulation scheme that is a significant contributor to the current fiscal crisis.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 07:09 PM

Hmmm ! Then there is always the "San Andreas" (SP) fault as the final arbiture.

California split from the US of A. - Many a science fistion writer has pictured that.

I love Azimov's short story on that theme. California survives - The rest of the US of A slides beneath the Waves.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 08:29 PM

Not to beat a dead horse, but blue collar work in CA is begging for warm bodies of any kind. More work and prosperity than people can handle. Only a few white collar types see it otherwise. Education, government, labor, farming, ranching, service industries, construction, dope growing, movies, porno, etc. etc. etc. All booming in CA. Only problem is cost of housing.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bert
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 09:07 PM

Hmmm, why not, I see a lot of people here who are B movie actors. DON'T LOOK AT ME.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 01:08 PM

Ah, it just gets better and better in this bogus recall election. We now have almost 300 candidates running -- among them rabble-rousing columnists and their former husbands who are now gay, actors, porn kings, a model who's claim to fame is a billboard in Hollywood that she pays for, several former election losers including the whiny, corrupt, and inept Bill Simon for whom this whole circus is happening, and the current Lt Gov!

Meanwhile, the only folks who are genuinely qualified to be Gov are refusing to run.

So get this -- it's a plurality election. We could have a new governor who gets less than 1% of the vote.

It's a circus.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 01:31 PM

Where is Pia Zadora when you need her??

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 01:49 PM

No one knows what Riordan will do now that Arnold is in. He said he wouldn't run if Arnold did. All the papers are waiting for an official confirmation.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 01:58 PM

What people think of Bill Simon comes from the Gray Davis publicity meatgrinder, something Diane Feinstein did not have the guts to face during the 1998 Demo primary. Simon may be inept by political standards but is a good person.

Good news for PC types! Once Arnold Schwarzenegger started talking it became obvious that he is a Socialist! Vote early and often, as they say in Chicago.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 03:12 PM

Running for governor in California is only slightly more expensive than putting vanity plates on your luxury automobile.

My mother always liked to refer to California as "The Land of Fruits and Nuts."

SRS

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 04:32 PM

The beauty of it is that whoever is elected will get a minority of the votes, so the day after the vote, if the recall is successful, you can start another recall petition and have ANOTHER vote for a new governor in another 3 months.

In fact, I suggest the Democratic Party of California ought to announce now that if a Republican is elected, they will launch a new recall to steal the governorship back on the very next day.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: kendall
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 04:39 PM

It's another republican conspiracy. They need as many republican governors as they can get to steal the next election.

I think King Kong should run; that would offset that other ape.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 05:11 PM

At $30+ million per recall election, it's just what we need to help the fiscal shortfall.

As utterly inexperienced as he is, Arnold is probably one of the least frightening candidates in the election. Although if you're looking for a moderate Republican, Riordan is probably the better candidate.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 05:19 PM

Between Ariana Huffington, Larry Flynt and Arnold Schwartenegger, it looks like Calif. will be well taken care of...they can have an inept Democrat, or one of several unqualified, publicity-seeking Republicans.

It totally boggles the mind!...California voters got themselves into this mess a few years ago when they approved that proposition that cut all the taxes...now they think changing boneheads at the top is gonna FIX it?   *sigh*

Couldn't happen to a more ...ummm...'interesting' state! Maybe Hollywood can make a movie about this race and use the proceeds to pay off the debts!! Starring...Arnold Sch...nawwwwwww...

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 05:28 PM

CRASH: Cruz M. Bustamante (D) announced today that he will be a candidate in California's recall election this fall

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kim C
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 05:34 PM

I think it is unfair to assume that just because someone is an actor, or a musician, or some other already-public figure, they're unqualified to hold a public office. People are full of surprises. I mean, there are plenty of people who are supposedly qualified who suck at their jobs, so why couldn't someone who's supposedly not qualified do better?

Besides, I think a good number of those candidates aren't going to get any votes at all.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 05:38 PM

Name any quality of Gray Davis, and Arnold is exactly the opposite. Rash prediction: He will win; He will have Reagan Teflon; He will be competent; He will inspire confidence and a rebound. He will even be a good example for nasty neo-cons.

(I'd rather vote for Riordan.)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 05:38 PM

Sorry, folks. Can't have SpongeBob SquarePants as a candidate for Governor of California because he already has a tentacle tentative commitment.

In the event that the Democratic Party fails to come up with a viable candidate for the 2004 election, I have decided to emulate Paul Wolfowitz, who spent a great deal of time in Texas during the Nineties to groom George W. Bush to become president in 2000. As Wolfowitz did with Bush, I am traveling frequently to Bikini Bottom to work with SpongeBob SquarePants. SpongeBob is obviously a different kind of candidate, he has a large following, and he would definitely offer an alternative to the current administration. It is obvious to all that he is a clean candidate, and he has promised me that if elected, he will use his unique talents to wipe the place clean.

For those who are not familiar with him, here is a portrait of candidate SquarePants and some of those he is considering as possible members of his cabinet. They would certainly be an improvement over the present collection of bottom-feeders! SQUIRT!!

Don (When I said I would back SpongeBob SquarePants if necessary to get the Bush administration out of there, I wasn't kidding, and besides, I love Krabby Patties!) Firth

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 05:58 PM

"California voters got themselves into this mess a few years ago when they approved that proposition that cut all the taxes...now they think changing boneheads at the top is gonna FIX it?   *sigh*"

Minor point but Prop. 13 only froze property taxes, and then only on property bought before (about) 1977. All property which has changed hands in the last 25 years is taxed at current (confiscatory) rates.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 06:40 PM

I see now you can also have teeny actor Gary Coleman or a former baseball commisioner...along with maybe your local plumber.

Lets have debates! Let Hollywood film those and sell videotapes, along with the movie about the race. Or, lets just turn the southern half of California into a theme par and sell tickets...let Disney expand and run it. We'll have that budget balanced in no time.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 07:01 PM

Prop 13 slashed property taxes by 30% to bring them down in line with national levels. A lot of tax assessors went to jail in the 70's for corruption. Until Prop 13, an assessor could come by any day and arbitrarily decide to double or quadruple your property taxes based on a subjective ans assumed paper value of a property. In one block, you could have a property assessed at 115% or it's value and another a 5%. It was outrageous and uncontrolled and people were pissed.

After Prop 13, a property is reassessed to the current market value when it is sold, and any increases while you own it are limited to 2% per year. In other words: little old ladies don't get taxed out of their homes anymore because the modest home they bought in the SF suburbs decades ago is now supposedly worth a million dollars. But if they sell it, the new buyer gets hit with a property tax bill for what s/he paid for the property.

Prop 13 is blamed for everything for schools to rainy weather, but in reality it sheparded in a huge economic boom in the 80's and tax revenues went UP. The money savings mostly went to lower to moderate income homeowners and small and mid-size businesses; job growth and net income skyrocketted. It was a very smart tax cut -- even the proponents were surprised at how well it worked.

Since 1978, about 89% of the homes "frozen" in 1978 have been reassessed.

Then Pete Wilson hiked taxes so far up in the early 90's that most of the theoretical revenue loss was offset anyway. People just like to blame Prop 13.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 07:36 PM

Thank you, Nicole C! Can you do an equally good explanation of the budget. As I see it, you cannot really claim a "budget" of $96 or $98 Billion when spending exceedes $134 Billion! That is like a man telling his wife that the used jeep he just paid $12 thos for only cost $7 thos cuz that's how much they allowed in their budget.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: kendall
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 07:48 PM

As I understand it, Arnold went through bankruptcy a few years ago, If so, how the hell can he manage the state budget woes?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 08:08 PM

I think that was planet hollywood (?) which isn't exactly the same. If it was personal then you are right that's too loopy.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 08:27 PM

hmmm...Ok...I radically overstated the effects of Prop 13. I do wonder though, if that was not the genesis of a mindset toward "no more taxes than we feel like paying". (not accusing..just wondering)

I am always curious about the root causes of a $30+ billion defecit. Is the demand for services excessive? Are government salaries higher than reasonable? Has money been squandered in bad investments? Did the power crisis break the camel's back? Is California's share of the war in Iraq relevant? Are taxes BEING collected reasonably..or avoided by those with money? Does California simply need more water/power/pollution control/highways/security/ etc. than it can afford? All of the above?

In short...just how much culpability does Gray Davis have in all this mess?

and the BIG question...will whatever strange Republican they are likely to elect have any chance of making a significant difference before he/she is also recalled?

I have made some attempts at funny facetious remarks above, but it IS a serious situation...just a bit more serious than some of the other states. (You can watch journalists on TC struggle to do 'straight' interviews with some of these candidates, when a short description of the situation reads like a 'C' comedy movie script...I mean, Gallagher, the comedian who bashes watermelons, running against Gary Coleman and others? wow...)

Do the folks in California really have any idea how the state is perceived by much of the rest of the country? Stereotypes are dangerous, but they usually have some roots in reality...........

"oh, shut up, Bill...quit babbling and go watch the news..."
"ok, Bill, I think I will"

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 08:30 PM

Your previous statement, "Budget was 34 Billion in 1998 and now it is 134 Billion." and was not only very,very wrong, but you can't provide a source.

I can -- the California Department of Finance. (Requires Acrobat.)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 08:43 PM

Some of all of the above, Bill. California is a big state with an economy larger than every other country but 5 (including the US) on this planet. Little problems look awfully big at that size and magnify quickly. Davis may not be the best governor, but lots of this mess is really not his doing. I still expect his head on the election chopping block. The guy's just not likeable or good enough to get out of being the scapegoat and no one will cry when he's gone. Sad thing is, the alternatives are yet another stinky election.

I notice that the Republicans who are whining about Davis' budget deficit are gung-ho for Bush's huge deficits. Wonder why that is?

And anyone else wonder why a Republican hopeful candidate spent $1.7 million dollars of his own money to engineer a recall petition drive? Who gave him his marching orders? (Ironically, he dropped out today in the face of Arnold's competition.)

In CA, you get multiple petitions shoved in your face outside of every grocery store and Wal-Mart by paid workers. I'd be shocked if tthey didn't find enough people to sign the recall petition.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 08:49 PM

Well, I never signed it, for one, but it was obviously a campaign, not what I would call grassroots. I think he may have been a little too offensive to the power-grid suppliers when he tried to sue them for gouging.

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Benjamin
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 09:12 PM

LittleHawk, your imput was great as it always is. Today, it seems like we think strip malls are better than farmlands, or that we don't need farmland with stores selling us food on developed land.
The richest soil for farm land in Washington (where I live) was around an area called Tukwilla, a short ways south of Seattle. If you go by there today, there's one hughe mall, bunch of other stripmalls, small office buildings, etc. It's now officially the ugliest part of the state.
I also have an aunt and uncle who own a big farm outside St. Cloud in Minnisota. As the city expands, they're trying to aquire the sourounding land to develope with things not unlike those mentioned above. While I hope that they learn a lesson we didn't and don't recreate Tukwilla over there, they might not have much say. If the government decides that because their land can be developed, it should be zoned commercial, they then wouldn't be able to afford the property tax, forcing them to sell.
While all I've mentioned are farmers, it seems that we are trying to improve our economy by offering more things for sale, but we aren't thinking about being able to produce them. I personally do believe that the earth is perfectly capable of producing enough resources constantly to sustain such a population as we've become. But I'm not confident that our resources are being managed in a way that there will always be enough.
Well, I'm not entirley sure I know what I'm talking about anymore, so I should stop before it all looks worse!
BMW

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 09:46 PM

Again, dead-horse beating, but there are reasons for the Gray
Davis recall, and the budget deficit is numero uno.

"The 1998-1999 CA state budget was $76+ billion for 32 million residents or $2375 per resident
The 2002-2003 CA state budget is $98.9 billion for 35.5 million residents or $2786 per resident" [ex Nicole C]

Nicole C: Your web site says "Expenditure for 1997-8: $100 Billion, same for 2002-3: $164 Billion". Obviously we both have trouble with numbers since your figures were $96 Billion and $99 Billion, off by about 70%. I am not trying to argue but we are talking past one another.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 09:53 PM

Obviously my post minus ID. Sorry 'bout that. To answer the actual question, I think Amos is the first choice. He lives in California, he is politically involved, and he can play "Ragged But Right" with a VI-II-V-I chord progression. The guy must be special.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 10:34 PM

Benjamin..."I personally do believe that the earth is perfectly capable of producing enough resources constantly to sustain such a population as we've become. "

I do NOT...I have studied this for 'about' 30 years and see irrevocable damage already. It is not enough to do math and show that if all the food produced were saved and divided fairly, we could all eat supper. Right now the Chesapeake Bay, near me, is in trouble...and YOU ought to know about the Salmon problem, as well as the need for major irrigation in central Washington. And world-wide it is VERY scary..ask anyone in Indonesia or Bangladesh.

Even 'if' you were correct about the current population level, what do you think we will do in 30 years, if the population doubles again?

I have a son who just turned 21...he will see things I don't want to think about...it makes me sad. (I 'may' live that 30 years..if Mudcat is still going, I'll log on at 94 and remind you what I predicted..*wry smile*)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 10:36 PM

Guest -- I can see you're confused, so I'll explain. And if you think I'm being sarcastic, you're absolutely right.

The figures to far right labelled "Expenditure Totals Including Federal Funds" include expenditures of federal funds received in the "Federal Funds" column. Ambiguous label, I know. But it's not state money, it's so-called "federal" money.

The column labelled "Budget" would, of course, relate to the state budget, which is commonly referred to as the California State Budget. For 2002-03, once all the actual revenue -- not the estimated revenue -- was counted up, was $94,664.6 million.

"Bond Funds" relate to investments sold to build infrastructure which eventually have to be paid back by tax revenue. "Bond Funds" also includes numerous items the voters on various Propositions have decided they really want (like clean water, better schools, veterans housing) but are too lazy to actually force the legislature to pay for out of the budget. Of course, the "Budget" column includes interest and investment payments on previous years' bond issues. This is like credit card debt.

"Budget Totals" is reached by totalling the General Fund and State Special Fund revenue (i.e. "Budget") to the Bond revenue (i.e. "Bond Funds.") When you add "Budget Totals" to negative amounts, if any, in the "Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties" column, you get how much the state actually spent in a year of state funds. If the amount in the "Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties" column is positive, it means money that was left over and goes into this special fund for future lean times.

To recap 2002-03:
State budget was $94,664,600,000
Bonds sold for revenue was $14,725,000,000
Shortfall was $5,853,100,000 (You know shortfall, right? It's the amount you didn't mean to spend. Debt.)
Amount spent, of state funds, in 2002-03 was $115,242,700,000

$115,242,700,000 does not equal $134 billion, no matter what "even liberal newspapers are reporting," whomever they may be.
$115,242,700,000 was not the budget, $94,664,600,00 was the budget

There was also federal revenue of $54,566,200,000, of which $54,566,200,000 was spent.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 10:52 PM

Bill D.: Be careful, you may actually say something that is important, and the usual crowd will never forgive you. Population is the number one problem in the world. The left will say you are trying to limit the number of non-white people, and the right will say that you are out of accord with God's will. Sad fact is that California's great central valley, the product of which helps feed one third of the world's people, will be a net importer of food in thirty years. Yep, 700 miles of houses from Bakersfield to Marysville. This is important. It is one reason that some of us are amazed at the tripe people talk about on this forum.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 11:18 PM

pdq...I was being, for me, low key!...it is, indeed, true that California's central valley can't produce like this forever. (And I have already several times on Mudcat been admonished for baseless predictions.)

When a situation is just too uncomfortable to consider, the reaction of many is to rely on religion, bad math...or faith in 'science' to get us out of it. As you say, population is it....it is the key...meaning that if we solve ALL the other problems, population will still eventually get us (and population exacerbates the other problems, making them more difficult to deal with)...but as you indicate, any solution that suggests limiting growth will be condemned by someone as being racist or showing preferential treatment.

If I had the power and we had an 'ideal' society,I would have a lottery, and all little girls at puberty would be given an implant...some containing contraceptive, some not. But it would never work in reality, as some would cheat and some would claim THEY were being cheated, and there would civil unrest like you wouldn't believe! (Much like the food riots when that valley won't grow that big asparagus anymore)

*bracing myself for the stones* they still hurt...even in cyberspace

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 11:41 PM

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 07 Aug 03 - 11:59 PM

$164 Billion is more than $96 Billion, and money spent by the state is money spent by the state, even though is was temporarily routed through Wash DC! There are lies, damn lies, and there are budget figures given by a partisan. None of this shows the fabled $38 Billion deficit or the $12 Billion surplus left us by Pete Wilson. The state is run like shell game, and the perps are Democrats. That is the truth, sorry if it hurts your little feelings.

Bill D.: If you ask the State of California, they will give you anything you want, free. How about a pair of free Kevlar shorts? And yes, Norplant is cheaper than 75 years of public assistance, but the latter is PC.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 01:56 AM

Sorry, pdq, but the "truth" is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence for your fables, while accusing the State's Dept of Finance of lying. Meanwhile, you fail to grasp the fundamentals of state and federal finances.

As for that temporary routing of tax money, does that mean California can have the several billion dollars in taxes we pay to the feds every year all BACK?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 09:08 AM

I find this whole fiasco terribly disheartening, and I don't even live in California. In fact, I've never been there. But I have wonderful friends and relatives who live there. They aren't insane, fruity, or nutty, and I'm guessing Californians are probably pretty fed up with the mass media stereotyping of it's citizenry as crazy.

There is nothing crazy about reacting angrily to the budget mess. But I wonder why no one is looking for some of the actual villains (hello energy speculators who engaged in price fixing and gouging during the so-called California energy crisis) who drained the coffers. I believe a few Texas energy speculators were part of the problem?

Then there is what appears to be gross mismanagement over a considerable amount of time, by both Republican and Democrat administrations.

And then there is the revenue problems exacerbated by too many of California's citizens' extreme poverty. Can't collect much in property taxes from poor people who don't own property, and can't afford to pay sales taxes on a ton of consumer goods, or income taxes because they can't get jobs, because they can't get a proper education from the federal, state, and local (if it exists) education dollars. So all they do is suck service dollars from the state for housing, health care, food stamps, and maybe child care, that is hobbled together with huge gaps in benefits, or non-existent because they have been disqualified for benefits for one stupid reason or another. So the state benefits are never enough for them to get ahead, which just entrenches the poverty cycle and concentrates it.

But I don't suppose anyone is talking about that much. Better to focus on the celebrity cult, which is almost as bad in Hollywood as it is in Washington D.C. Of course, no one is crazier than Washington politicians. Except the establishment media which creates media celebrities to cover the political celebrities, the sports celebrities, the Hollywood celebrities...

Is anyone paying any more attention to the state of the state, than they are the state of the nation?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 11:31 AM

Nicole C: You have set yourself up as an expert on the Calif Budget Crisis, I did not. I hear every day that we have a huge deficit, and I am simply asking where is that shown in the official figures. My off-the-cuff remarks show a level of knowledge that an average voter might have, based on ABC and CBS news reports. I am a blue collar type as I have said in other threads.

Other point is that we surely have a right to get back money we sent to DC, but that is "revenue" and not "budget" by all common sense.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 12:20 PM

No, pdq, you repeatedly made snide remarks about a situation that it is clear you know nothing about, and then toss out insults when it is shown you are wrong. Not every voter chooses to make decisions based on the story they hear from ABC/Disney.

Federal Funds are not revenue, they are monies allocated by the federal government to a state to be spent on federal projects like interstate highways and Medicare. It's an expense account, not an allowance. I agree that you can make a case for including it in state money figures (which is why it's on the official chart) but it is NOT the "budget," not in any state.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 01:02 PM

Hope for an end to this soon, but you set yourself us as an authority on the Califorinia "budget crisis", as you have set yourself up as an expert on Bush's foreign policy and on Dental Care in Third World Countries! Your knowledge is veneer-thin at best. Please let someone else have the mantle of "expert" on this one. Thanks

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 01:14 PM

PDQ:

I see no evidence that Nicole is setting herself up as an expert. She is demonstrating that she has the intelligence to gather and interpret data. That doesn't make her an expert. It just makes her an intelligent debater -- one who usually stays away from ad hominem invective, also. She analyzes intelligently and debates persuasively. It is just possible she is too good at what she does for you to compete with her -- if in fact there is anything competitive going on. But I can assure you that turning from debate to personal slurs is not going to make it any easier. I can tell you this much -- I wouldn't want to oppose her without a lot of hard data at my fingertips. She's too good at cutting through BS.

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 01:30 PM

>Please let someone else have the mantle of "expert" on this one. <<

No such person exists, I fear. I was listening to one of those grow-your-mind radio stations the other day as they tried to explain why the energy deregulation fiasco has no bearing on the budget deficit. It was simple to those experts; perhaps it is -- but even in a balanced state budget where the universal rules of addition and subtraction are supposed to work, I would, let's say, "question authority."

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 01:41 PM

Aww, you say the nicest things, Amos! You're definately getting invited to the housewarming party now. Right after I rip up the pink carpet and paint over the mint green walls.

Heric is 100% right. In this day and age, one can't blindly rely on the propaganda of politicians or political commentators, or the 20 second "in-depth analysis" before they go to commercial on the TV news. The facts are out there and we are fortunate enough to live in a country where even your average Joe has easy access to that information if they bother to look.

And if anyone can produce a statement from me anywhere on the subject of 3rd World dental care, I'll give 'em my personal copy of the Mudcat Cookbook.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 02:05 PM

Send it on over, sweetie. It is in the post just above this one, last sentence, first clause.

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 02:26 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 04:23 PM

Everything else being equal, what would a man's (or woman's) height have to do with his or her qualifications for the job? mg

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 05:49 PM

No problem admitting a mistake, it was Little Hawk who made the statement about dental problems of third world countries. Gosh, now I'll have more of 'em after me!

For what it is worth, Steve Peace, the CA State senator who wrote the energy "de-regulation" bill, which many consider the start to the energy crisis, is now Gray Davis' manager of budget.
Here is a site which makes it clear that CA does not have business as usual:
      
      
       http://www.caltax.org/StateBudgetCrisis.htm

                               then go to:
       *        Budget Crisis: The Hole Grows Deeper as reported in Caltaxletter, April 4, 2003.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 04:53 PM

"It will cost $2.3 billion to $2.5 billion per year to repay the bonds. Although bond proceeds will go into the general fund, the state could not repay the bond from the general fund for legal, political and financial reasons.

Instead, the bonds will be repaid with a three-way shift of revenues dubbed the "triple flip." Here's how it will work:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/10/BU224339.DTL&type=business

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 07:31 PM

Have I got this right? If the present governor gets as high as 49.999% of the vote on this recall election, he's out. And the job goes to whatever candidate gets the highest vote - which, since there are going to be scores of candidates, could well be some ridiculously low percentage...

Our electoral system here in England has seemeed pretty silly to me, but...

I assume a lot of people who don't want any more Arnold movies will vote for the guy, and his fans who do want to see them will vote against him.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 07:45 PM

this electoral 'recall' process, as practiced in California, IS getting some reviews as being pretty damn silly! It has allowed this list of over 100 candidates to swamp the ballot, and will allow a strange popularity contest, raher than a semi-sane political routine to determine who governs this HUGE state.

Sure does give the pundits a lot of fodder, huh?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 08:54 PM

Tell you what, Kevin. I love California. In fact I was born there. I have a lot of friends there and I like to go there on trips. California is a great state and it has a lot going for it.

BUT:--

Of the all the silly, ridiculous, asinine, stupid, and just plain ill-advised things the world has managed to come up with during the last century and a half, probably more of them have been invented, hatched, cobbled together, spontaneously erupted, or let in California than in any other state in the Solar System.

Ya just gotta love the place. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 03 - 02:52 PM

hey! you wanna giggle a bit? Look here at a selection of cartoons about the race!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 03 - 03:06 PM

I like this one and this one and < a href=http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Arnold/CArecall/1/babin.jpg>this one

....and THIS one

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 03 - 03:32 PM

well..I don't know what has happened to my a hrefs today, but that first link was

cartoons about the race!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 03 - 03:47 PM

Where is Howard the Duck when his country clearly really needs him? (And here is more campaign material from 1976, when the duck ran for President, but got beaten by some guy whose name I forget.

Pity he wasn't up againt Bush, because he'd surely have walked it. Schwarzeneger would be a tougher opponent, but I'd put my money on the duck.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 10:16 AM

And if all this weren't silly enough, here's the game show!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 11:09 AM

*sigh*....all this is because of a perceived problem with the way the budget is being controlled...so they throw a circus that is estimated to cost $63,000,000 MORE...and that they are not sure they can pull off (read, Florida³), in order to give 3-4 other politicians and 192 publicity seeking dingbats the opportunity to sit in the the hot seat with maybe a 12% plurality and FIX things?

The only thing that can 'save' California now is "The Big One" ...the eatrthquake that has been expected for 20+ years now.....that would bring the whole country to California's aid, and distract attention from this travesty of the Democratic process. (No..I don't really hope for that!)

If you had submitted this scenario to a TV sit-com show, they would have laughed you out of town. But...here we go, folks...*grin*...

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 02:17 PM

"...3-4 other politicians and 192 publicity seeking dingbats "

Be fair, Bill. Surely that should read "...195 or so dingbats, 3 or 4 of whom are politicians."

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 02:20 PM

But essentially it *will* be a television sit-com - by the time the game show airs and the news coverage of the whole thing.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 02:31 PM

I've just had a brilliant idea- one that could work in every US state that is in a financial bind: Close the financial gap with the monies each candidate has to pay upon filing for governor. Or maybe PRESIDENT! This is a scathingly brill idea.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 03:10 PM

And in that way guarantee that, no matter what might happen, there can never ever be anyone elected to such a position who doesn't have access to enormous sums of money...

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 03:16 PM

And that would be different, McGrath? :)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 07:22 PM

It's what happens, sure enough - but there's always the hope that people might come to their senses and vote for the candidate and the party without the money and the backing of the media barons.

It happens sometimes - most recently in Brazil, and Bush's friends down there are hopping mad.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Gypsy
Date: 12 Aug 03 - 09:57 PM

coming back in late in the thread but........

"Not to beat a dead horse, but blue collar work in CA is begging for warm bodies of any kind. More work and prosperity than people can handle. Only a few white collar types see it otherwise. Education, government, labor, farming, ranching, service industries, construction, dope growing, movies, porno, etc. etc. etc. All booming in CA. Only problem is cost of housing. "

PDQ, i don't know where you are, but where i am, ALL jobs are in short supply. And the few available, are a fraction above minimum wage. Of course, i am in NORTHERN CA. don't know much about SO CA. As for teaching positions, fully 70% of teachers in my county have been shorted by 50% in hours, if not laid off. Think mebbe you should check on facts a little more.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 01:45 PM

I have a half pound of hamburger here in the fridge that is a bit too old for the BBQ. I was gonna throw it out this coming garbage day but, if someone wants to donate the shipping costs (tax-deductible), I think it might give Arnie a good run, especially in the debates....

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 03:02 PM

Humorous commentator on NPR this morning remarked that the guy who started the whole recall thing in the first place burst into tears and dropped out when Arnie that Android decided to run. Arnie has more name-recognition. The commentator said that it was like buying a new dress, then discovering that no one wants to take you to the dance. He went on to say that after going through the whole list of candidates for governor (weight-lifters, former child actors, smut-peddlars, bimbos, clowns, partridges in pear trees, etc.) the only one who actually seems to be qualified for the job is Davis, the one they want to get rid of.

. . . California. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 03:49 PM

well, a pro wrestler ran Minnestoa for 4 years and Minnesota survived. But California is...umm..'different'

Too bad Jesse isn't still 'in' they could make big $$$$ staging matches between Jesse and Arnold.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 03:52 PM

Jesse Ventura: the politician who told the Dalai Lama he should rent the movie "Caddy Shack" because he's mentioned in it.

Minnesota, eh?....

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 04:37 PM

Today's David Horsey cartoon in the Seattle P.I. is germane to this thread.

SRS

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 05:03 PM

I've been doing my homework on the elctoral procedure and it looks as if it really is a crazy as I'd suspected.

Two questions on the ballot paper (or whatever it is they use for this kind of thing) - one is "should the Governor be sacked?", and the other being "who should replace him?". So if he doesn't get 50% of the votes on the first question - and it's pretty well unheard of for anybody to get 50% of the vote in an election - he's out. Even if he just scraped under that 50% by a single vote.

So then it goes to the question of whonm among the other candudates gets the most votes. And with 250 candidates in the race, it would be quite possible for a winning candidates to come in first with a vote of way below one per cent of the votes...

I don't think that is quite what they mean when they say "only in America."

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 06:06 PM

So, Don, you feel this is whole charade is about selecting someone qualified for the job, do ya?   ;>)

You mean, its not about another spoiled Republican acting the three-year old brat throwing a temper tantrum which- as usual- produced a result he hadn't counted on? Ooops.

If Californians- and and the rest of the U.S.- aren't deeply ashamed and embarassed about this whole clusterf$$k, they sure should be.

Stand tall, America....

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 07:10 PM

I'm voting for Arriana. I think she's cute.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 08:03 PM

Circus, yes. Utter failure of democratic process, yes. 100% agreement.

But I think it's important to make a distinction, though. The fact that California has an accessible recall process to get rid of incompetant politicians is GOOD. The fact it's never been used before (in this kind of stupid way) is GOOD. The fact that running for governor doesn't totally exclude people for arbitrary reasons like having gobs of money is GOOD.

The problem is that certain people involved have manipulated the process for a) selfish reasons, and b) in CA you can get 100,000 voters to sign a petition without reading it at all, let alone for it being a legitimate reason, and c) everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, particularly in CA.

It's turned into a circus, but it really didn't inherently HAVE to be one. You can have good ingredients and still end up with a lousy dinner.

I'd say Bustamonte's a respectible candidate, too. In CA, Lt Gov's are elected on their own, they aren't attached to the governor's ticket. So B- has already won voters over and everyone knows he and Davis are about as cozy as the porcupines. Too bad he's not getting much press and has protected his poitical behind by standing behind Davis -- I don't think he has a prayer of winning despite being one of the (if not THE) most qualified folks in the race.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 08:21 PM

Heck, why not streamline the process and have on the same ballot a vote to recall the winner. Seems reasonable to me.

Lets say that Arnie wins, which is what Bush and his press want to happen, what happens next year when *clueless* Arnie screws up the job much worse than the current guy who does have a *clue*? What, another recall?

I say, Recall Arnie in October and save the fuss!!!!....

Bobert

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Aug 03 - 08:43 PM

Actually, no I'm voting for Ueberroth.

http://www.dybbuk.com/mgp/people/arianna.250.jpg

Well, though. . . today, Arnold Schwarzenegger named Democrat Warren Buffet as his chief financial adviser. (Am I joking or am I serious?)

Flynt is groty. No on Flynt.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:02 AM

Now the republicans have disowned Arnie. Too liberal.
What botheres me is the fact that California is the fad capital of this country. This could set off a rash of recalls!

Come to think of it, that might be a good idea. Bush has set us down on the road to financial ruin, and he has no clue...let's ALL run for president!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:56 AM

Flint's just a pornographer; never claimed to be anything else. Not as 'grotty' as your two-faced, self-agrandizing pols, by half. With his business experience, he's at LEAST as qualified as Ahnold.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 12:42 PM

Well, honesty is vital too, and Angelique is right up front.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 12:47 PM

With an official 135 candidates on the ballot, can you imagine what the ballot looks like! You had better have your mind made up before you enter the voting booth. Or maybe the eyes-closed-stab-at-a-name method would do as well.

Is absurdity infectious, ya think? Maybe 'drawing by lot' will determine the next government. (The Amish church did/still does that for years: Every adult's name goes into a hat and the first three names drawn become the hierarchy.}

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 01:31 PM

I suppose it was Angelique I saw being interviewed this morning on CNN (Long blond hair and, as Kendall says "right up front")...she was asked whether her candidacy was really the travesty of democracy some were saying.... and her response left me giggling...

(paraphrasing all but the italics) "oh, no...I think many people have felt left out of the political process, but this election gives an opportunity for all forms of lifeuh..people from all walks of life to enter the...blah, blah".....I think she had it right the first time

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 01:47 PM

As a Minnesotan, let me assure everyone that Jesse Ventura, along with the Minnesota Republican Party (the party he made pacts with to get his legislation passed in the state legislature), ran the state of Minnesota into the ground.

I know of very few people who voted to elect Ventura, who would have voted for him a second time. They realized, after four years of that vicious, destructive lunatic, who cared not a damn for governance, the political process or the people of the state of Minnesota, that they were idiots for having voted for him "in protest" in the first place.

If there is anything for Californians to learn from Minnesotans (and fat chance that could ever happen, with the media cultivating a greater circus atmosphere than actually exists on the ground), it is that we should never hold the government in such contempt, that we blithely throw away our votes on a protest vote, as was the case with Jesse Ventura, and which is certainly the case with the recall of Gray Davis.

It needs to be remembered that this recall was started by a Republican with an agenda. The agenda was to take advantage of widespread anger over the California budget mess, and manipulate a takeover of the governorship in California for the Republicans and the benefit of the Bush campaign's re-election chances for taking home California's huge cache of electoral votes. If the Republicans win, and it is very likely they will with Arnie as their preferred candidate with the best shot at getting in, they will control a lot of important things (think Florida 2000, and who sat in the governor's seat and the secretary of state's office) that influence the outcome of elections on the state level in 2004.

And that is all the California recall is about. It is a Republican tactic to steal the California governorship, the same way the Republicans stole the Florida election in 2000.

So, who is the secretary of state of California, and to which party do they belong? If it is a Democrat, expect to see that person run out of office by the Republicans next. That is what the current Republican governor of Minnesota is doing right now to the Democratic secretary of state. to wit:

Minneapolis Star Tribune article "Pawlenty vs. Hatch"

The article begins:

"Minnesotans can expect a long season of state-government investigations, with barely muted partisan undertones, into business relationships of top elected officials, centered on Attorney General Mike Hatch and Gov. Tim Pawlenty."

This is the national re-election strategy of the Bush campaign, people. It is a strategy of legalized graft and corruption of the political system. The Republican Party is now, officially, much more corrupt than any Republican or Democratic eras past in US history, and there have been some real doozies. The current neocon conservatives have made Tamany Hall look like a Sunday picnic.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 04:09 PM

It's just another way of ensuring that the candidate who gets the second highest number of votes gets elected once again. Except this time the margin will be a lot wider.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 04:13 PM

I have been trying to find a way, for a while now, to state clearly my concern that Republicans, (the arch-conservative wing, anyway), have developed a strategy intended to change the very structure of government and elections and the juducial process to ensure that they will always and forever control the direction and character of this country...(and thus, of many other countries also!)

This they do out of conviction that they are somehow morally right to do so. We see some Muslims conducting suicide bombings because they are SURE they are justified and are only fighting what is self-evidently evil for them. When any group believes its purpose and goals are somehow righteous and unassailable, then almost ANY way to those goals becomes acceptable.

The Democrats/liberals...most of them...barely comprehend the mindset they are up against. They want to win elections and have THEIR agenda in place also, but part of their agenda is to leave others alone unless they break laws or endanger others..etc.. Serious conservatives do not INTEND to leave others alone! They want you to either think like them, or have no power.

We have seen people voting Republican, who used to vote Democratic sometimes, because they are inundated with carefully chosen single-issue campaigns. You get a few votes against abortion, a few against gun control, a few against 'big government', a few in favor of cutting taxes...etc...and pretty soon you have some unusual demographics..but JUST enough votes to get Republicans into the driver's seat! And once there, we see re-districting, new court appointments, new 'security rules' which slowly erode our privacy, changes and weaker enforcement of environmental law, more influence by churches (the 'right' churches) in public affairs and LOTS more loud, brash, glib right-wing talk show hosts assailing the 'liberal' press and allowing very little difference of opinion to be aired....except when they need a foil they think they can intimidate. (Does anyone watch Joe Scarbourough on MSNBC?????)

Whatever happens in California, it is almost certainly to advance the Republican agenda a bit more, even if Ahhnold is not 'exactly' what they want...this time.


Boy, I hope Mudcat is still here 10-15 years from now..(all 143 gigs of it..*grin*), so I can revive this thread and say..."...see!"

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 04:23 PM

I've never seen an Arnold movie. I've never heard him speak. Still photos only. I hope he's not as moronic and incapable of addressing the issues as he is being described.

I just assumed he had some darned good brains to be positioning himself in this manner for nearly a decade, it seems. Maybe not. If you made 20 or 30 million dollars per year, as he does, you'd pretty much have to run for Governor, or something. It would be hard to know what to do with yourself at that level.   

I'll hope for the best but I think I would prefer he find another hobby.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 04:43 PM

Arnold is not a stupid man and has only ever been accused of that by the kind of self-righteous folks who think brawn or beauty is fundamentally incapable of coexisting with more than half a brain.

He may not have any ideas whatsoever for improving California (I sure don't think he does), nor a shred of experience to aid in tackling what is a very tough job, but he's also bright enough not to open his mouth and prove it.

As long as the honeymoon lasts, Arnold will avoid serious journalists, serious questions, and certainly won't agree to a debate. If his overwhelming position in the polls starts to slip... well, maybe then.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 04:56 PM

I agree BillD. Although it has already happened with the judiciary, especially at the national level. That is how the Republicans managed their bloodless coup in 2000, without a peep from the mainstream media or the Democratic party.

But we must also remember, that Democratics have done the same when they were in power. Thing is, the contemporary technologies have now legitimized and institutionalized government graft and corruption so it may well be nigh on impossible to stop it. Which means we just need to find another way than the electoral process of getting rid of the corrupt politicians and repealing and overturning the laws they passed to legalize the contemporary graft and corruption they and their corporate cronies have benefitted so much from in the last half of the 20th century.

Historians aren't going to look too kindly on the post-WWII US political system. Not at all. And when we do look back on the last 50 or so years, we can see the greatest threats to the nation and our democratic political system, have come from the Republicans. I don't know why that doesn't sink in with people. From the McCarthy era to the Watergate era to the Bush 9/11 era, it has been the Republican party that has been the worst for the common welfare.

The worst that truly can be said about Democrats is they get caught with their whores in comprimising positions too often--like Wilbur Mills and the fountain, JFK with Marilyn, Clinton with Monica, etc.

I much prefer the latter to the gutting of the Bill of Rights. Nothing pisses off the contemporary neocon, take no prisoners Republicans more than the Bill of Rights.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 05:41 PM

BillD and GUEST, this is exactly my concern. We get so dazzled by the fancy footwork, the fireworks, and the foolishness that we don't notice the dark uniforms slipping into the back of the room.

The "election" in 2000, the bogus, off-season attempt to redistrict Texas, and now this California farce. All of this seems, to most reasonable people, as the height of stupidity and an exhibit of general stumble-bum-ism, but if the RepubliNeoCons bring these Machiavellian machinations off, they will pretty much have the country sewed up on into the forseeable future.

As someone once said, "Don't bother to examine the details of a folly, just ask yourself what it accomplishes."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Aug 03 - 07:39 PM

"... Democratics have done the same when they were in power"

ummm..not exactly. There is a big difference between putting in YOUR party and maximizing YOUR opportunities and the level to which the RepublicanNeoCons are taking it. They are trying to change certain fundamental ways the system works so that they cannot BE dislodged..elections would still be held, I suppose, but with the deck stacked in interesting ways.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 03 - 10:45 AM

The worst that truly can be said about Democrats is they get caught with their whores in comprimising positions too often...

If you actually check the record, it's readily apparent that the Repubs are right up there in the philandering sweepstakes with the Dems. No statistically significalt difference. e.g. the Sainted Newt had several bits on the side, and presented his wife with divorce papers on her death bed.

As far as Republicans are concerned these sorts of things are all perfectly acceptable behavior--- for a Republican.

Its the canting hypocrisy of these people that's the most galling.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 03 - 11:47 AM

I'm so overwhelmed by politicians' behavior, I can't really decide which behavior is most galling. It's all pretty damn galling!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Aug 03 - 02:22 PM

>>>>meeting with former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay in *May 2001* in Beverly Hills. The Los Angeles Times reported at the time that Lay gave Schwarzenegger and other business and political leaders a four-page plan detailing his solution to California's energy crisis.

"I don't remember the meeting," Schwarzenegger said Thursday.<<<

What the ??? I'm voting for Arianna again.

(She even understands the tax code.)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Aug 03 - 06:01 PM

They've been listening to you, Bill D:

Speaking to supporters at the University of California at Los Angeles, [Davis] dismissed the early October recall vote to oust him as a right-wing plot aimed at hijacking the most populous and richest US state.

"This recall is bigger than California," he told cheering supporters. "What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort by Republicans to steal elections they cannot win."

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7010695%255E1702,00.html

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 01:56 AM

I heard that my favorite spiritual mentor, Father Guido Sarducci, will be on the ballot. I'm away from home and typing on my dad's primitive WEBTV, so I can't look it up. Could this be true? What will the Pope say? Will Guido have to give up cigarettes if he wants to govern anti-smoking California?
All I can say is,

Go, Guido!!!

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 11:27 AM

Final list of candidates here.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 01:08 PM

Except Scott W. Davis, Independent, has tried to remove himself from the list, since it's been revealed that he is a "top suspect" in an unsolved Atlanta murder.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 02:17 PM

Since that should ensure he get a bit more press attention than the rest of the mob wouldn't that mean he'd be likely to get more votes?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 02:48 PM

Heck no. Gary Coleman got him beat to heck on notoriety. Any lameass in any State can be a mere criminal. You aren't appreciating the high levels these characters are playing at.

That said, I see that Ueberroth is a mere 5%'r or less. I was quite serious about voting for him. Isn't anyone else worried about ahnold's back room dealmakings?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 03:53 PM

With that number of candidates a candidate getting 5% could well be a winner. (Leaving aside the present governor, of course, who would need to get 50%)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 05:01 PM

One thing about Ueberroth -- he's proven he can organize a profitable orperation!

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 07:18 PM

Of all of the candidates, I think Arnold is the one who is in the best postion to NOT make deals. He doesn't need financial help. He is said he is not seeking it for that very reason, so that he can be his own guy.

The argument that this is a gigantic Republican plot is one of the funniest things to come down the pike in years. Davis is the Charlie McCarthy to Bill Clinton's Edgar Bergen on that one. Or perhaps to Hillary instead of Bill. It is she that announced the "giant right-wing conspiracy" while explaining away her husband's tendancy to wander from the corral.

DougR

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 07:44 PM

As to paragraph 1, that was my original thought, Doug. But it's not that he wants to make money, he wants to succeed, is smart enough to figure out the system, and the system sucks. Two years ago he was hanging around in private home meetings with people like Kenneth Lay, who was making presentations to (political) power brokers in Beverly Hills. He doesn't remember it. Shulz? Wilson? Nothing grass roots going on here, by all appearances. Maybe they just all belong to the same country club, but it would be nice to have some light shed on it.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 08:33 PM

"a gigantic Republican plot "...nope..just a smallish Republican plot. Some Republicans merely want to win...a few (like that poor fish who started this recall!) are thinking up ways to 'push' the winning a bit...

and, some, like Karl Rove and his ilk, certainly have long term plans and ideas FAR beyond a fair competition on ideologies and platforms. There used to be a term, Doug, which I'm sure you remember.."The Loyal Opposition"....what some very clever conservatives are striving for is NO opposition. Meaning, of course, no viable opposition, because the demographics of redistricting and the loaded courts and the influence of right-wing Christian organizations and the unbalanced tax laws will eventually make the voting system like Las Vegas gambling...the house ALWAYS has an edge!

If you want to see this on a slightly smaller scale right now...look at Utah! You simply do NOT do much in that state that is not approved by the LDS church! Orrin Hatch is one of the cleverer products of that system, and he scares me! Gradually, there are people like Rove and Hatch and others who don't make the stupid mistakes of a Newt Gingrich and realize they can't just SAY exactly what they are going to do...until they have done it. I didn't approve of Ronald Reagan, but he was 'mostly' guileless...these new boys are something else!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 09:13 PM

Personally, I regret giving up my California residency this year, as I'd love to cast my ballot for Arianna Huffington (Whom I've met a handful of times at book readings and rallies and have grown to respect). I had to leave L.A. because the 40k per annum job I was offered was not enough to sustain life in my car-payment-high-insurance-hollywood-rent situation, but in my near three years there (longest Ive spent in any one place since reaching the ripe ole age of 16 and venturing out) I became a real Californian and once I have teaching certificate in hand, I will be moving to SF to teach what will hopefully become a vastly improved constituency. (I only pray Arnold isn't governor when I make it to that point. Even though I have a feeling teachers' pay might be higher if he were.) And thats all I really have to say..

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 09:21 PM

Anyone able to tell me what Miss Huffington believes?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 09:55 PM

The bulk of her views circle around the economy, as she holds a Masters degree in Economics from Cambridge.

She's ardently against tax breaks for corporations, proposing a full closure of corporate tax loopholes and a reduction/illimination on state-oriented tax shelters. (Despite reports to the contrary, Ms. Huffington has released her tax returns and full financial records to the public. (Arnold was vague and avoided a similar request). I, myself heard her earnings, spending and taxation on Bill Maher last night hehe)

She proposes stricter regulation of commercial property assessment, in effect increasing commercial property taxes to allow a reduction for homeowner's property taxes. (Commercial prop. taxes used to contribute 14% of the state's revenue, and currently contribute 8%)

She is strongly in favor of reducing proposed budget increases in the state prison system, in favor of boosting the budget for school construction/revitalization and book/supply purchases.

Pro-Choice. Across the board.

She supports a full moratorium on capital punishment, citing reasons such as racial disparity in sentencing, and numerous overturned guilty verdicts demonstrating the presence of a number of innocent citizens on death row.

She fully supports full rights for same-sex marriages, including medicare, insurance, family leave, taxation, credit and other benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

She stresses the undeniable need for a "sane energy policy that protects the environment, stresses fuel efficiency, and invests in clean and renewable energy," and personally owns a hybrid car (that being her only vehicle).

She supports unions and especially local living-wage ordinances (Such as is present in Santa Monica, CA which pays $9+ min-wage per hour to standard hourly workers, and $5.25 min-wage per hour to tipped workers (who in other states average 2.35 per hr)

She supports affirmative action, stating that racism continues to play a powerful role in this country and that A.Action helps to level the playing field.

She opposes Prop 54, (Racial Privacy Initiative), which would prevent the state from collecting racial/ethnic data and she believes such a prop' would allow racial discrimination to continue, only now with no traceable papertrail by which to track and prosecute it. As well as hindering community-need assistance, such as additional sickle-cell anemia treatment in predominantly African-American communities.

She (a greek immigrant) supports immigrant rights including driver's licenses which is apparently a key issue in the state INS dept. But I'm not certain how she defines the disparity between legals and illegals, and the rights afforded each group.

Hope that helps! (And sorry for a lengthy post, butcha asked for it! :) )

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 10:11 PM

well...she certainly has a 'decent' set of views. Now, whether she could be a competent administrator of a big state is another question.
I know a lot of people with whom I agree, but whom I wouldn't trust to get the sun to rise in the morning!

Arianna has an ummm...'unusual' image to be a serious politician, and that accent is distracting...but she seems to have thought about things (or has someone clever feeding her thoughts)

I'm just glad I don't have to VOTE on this crowd in my state.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 10:21 PM

There's a silver lining to this dark cloud. They are expecting one of the highest voter turnouts EVER in California for the recall election, on the order of 85%!

Judging from the recent gubernatorial election, not that many people give a rat's behind about Davis, or they would have already voted him out.

Could it be -- just possibly -- that because the recall legislation is written so that because it eliminated the kind of ridiculous hurdles to running for public office normally seen, and because the pack of candidates is so huge, there are candidates on every point of the political spectrum?

There's a candidate for EVERYBODY! Nobody needs to hold their nose and make the kind of nasty choice you usually get between a sleezy professional Democrat and a sleezy professional Republican. I'm starting to believe, despite the ridiculousness of some of the candidates, that this is probably the first truly democratic election American has ever seen in the era of mass media. Maybe ever. Circus?   Maybe -- but damn, there's an actual CHOICE!

I can't WAIT to get the sample ballot with all the candidate's position statements. It should be fun reading!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 11:24 PM

There is no silver lining in this turkey. Nope, you just need to hold your nose, period. This whole absurd circus stinks to high heaven. And Americans wonder the world considers them to be buffoons and worse.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 03 - 11:42 PM

I think you're gonna need to bring your own magnifying glass, Nicole -- kind of a hidden voter qualification--you have ot be able to see the ballot. :>) We don't care if you can read English, but you gotta be able to see the names...

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 12:06 AM

I take it you've never had to decide between "Simon" and "Davis," Greg, or you'd really know what holding your nose in the polling both means.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 12:11 AM

Gee, doesn't anybody care about Guido? Apparently, Don Novello had to drop out of the race on August 15 because he failed to report his annual income on the candidate forms. Novello played Father Guido Sarducci, and appeared on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, on Saturday Night Live, and on Letterman and a host of other programs. He would have made a great governor.
Well, better than many of them.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 09:43 AM

Well, Nicole, the present problems were launched by folks holding their noses and voting for Reagan & his cronies, who sowed the whirlwind that's being reaped in Califormia now. Credit where credit is due....

Shame Guido got eliminated, Joe- at least he's a professional clown
compared to the amateur clowns on the ballot.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Peg
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 05:35 PM

I think Arianna is pretty cool, I enjoyed her on Politically Incorrect (what channel is   Bill Maher's new show on?) where she was a frequent   guest.   She   is very savvy about politics, if not government.

I am distrubed that BillD. finds her accent "distracting." HUH??? One could say the same of any number of politicians (including several in this race, Mr. Schwarzenegger for example, also a   "foreigner.") I personally find the Kennedys to have "distracting" accents. The mayor of Boston is a mealy-mouthed Italian-American. Our own President Dubya sounds like a slack-jawed yokel.

If someone is inarticulate, fine, then say so. But to criticize their "accent"??? Excuse me, but since when is there a proper   way to pronounce things in America? What sort of "accent" would NOT be "distracting"???

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 05:44 PM

I read somewhere that she left England precisely because her accent held her back in that society. (But then again, I also remember reading long ago that the only reason ahnold took up bodybuilding was because he was incompetent in all other sports endeavours. He seems to have dropped that line.)

Arianna got much to close to the contract on america, but she apologizes for it unambiguously. (But then again, she also claims to have voted against 187, even while serving as a champion on its behalf. . . .)

I like her a lot, but I think its got to be a Ueberroth vote for me. (After voting no on the recall.)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 05:50 PM

It wasn't the accent that put people off the lady when she was on the telly all the time when she was in England. It was that everything about her came across as self-seeking and phony. Mind you, that should fit her well for political office.

It's great to think she's such a long way from here.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 06:31 PM

Peg: Bill Maher's new show is called "Real Time" and its on HBO (not sure which night though cause they run tape of it about three times per week.)

Think of it as Politically Incorrect, uncensored. :)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 07:38 PM

Kelly:

Thank you VERY much for that work!! I am enlightened. So far, she has more going for her in my book than Ah-Nole, whos epositions seem to be centered around Ah-Nole. My take anyway...

\
A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 10:43 PM

Well, I think I'd say Arianna's accent is distracting, too - but not in a detrimental way. It is a very engaging and attractive part of her personal image; and it distracts me from her sordid, right-wing past, the part of Arianna I do not trust. I'm afraid she's just another opportunist, but that accent sounds so sincere and genuine...
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 03 - 10:56 PM

" to criticize their "accent"?" *sigh*....good grief, Peg, that's hardly criticizing! There is a BIG difference between criticizing and describing...I was trying to be as easy as possible in simply listing pluses & minuses..Yes..Schwartzenegger's is also distracting...and everyone in the media is making fun of it! I actually said some good things about her!

" since when is there a proper way to pronounce things in America? " (italics mine)

there is not, of course....there are just 'standard' ways. The guide to the most 'neutral' would be the news anchors of the major networks. I find some accents from southern states in the US to be FAR worse that Arianna...but it doesn't change the face that some WILL judge her, as well as Arnold, for not being native born.

There are always social and political judgements made based on language..England has them, the US has then Canada has them, France has them, and the Japanese REALLY have them....etc. (There is a thread about a German song going right now where where the point is made that so & so would never have used a word like that, for fear of being mistaken for another group!)

I, myself, have a funny midwestern twang that is a mixture of Texas, Kansas and living some early years in New Orleans...and I KNOW it distracts people sometimes. I'll bet that if I were to run for national office, I would need to control it and practice a more neutral sound!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 02:55 AM

Amos, I fully understand apprehension at her oh-so-vocal conservative past, but I laugh every time I recall a recent quote of hers. She said she felt there should be a statute of limitations on people's past political persuasions coming into play. She said, when she was a Republican, Dennis Miller was still a liberal and still funny. (hehe) Then she stated that there is a name for people who age, but never change their opinions and beliefs no matter how much evidence is shown them. Republican.

I think what really convinced me of her change in beliefs was either when I read her book "How to Overthrow the Government," or more recently when the leader of the Green Party (and a fellow recall candidate) openly encouraged her to run for the recall, saying that the Greens and Arianna together could do much to effect change in California.

(Though, in truth, Id much rather Medea Benjamin was the main super-left candidate for the recall. hehe.)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 02:57 AM

Erm.. apologies, boys.. that response was intended for both Amos and Joe Offer. 2am and my congnative skills are failing ;)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Peg
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 08:43 AM

BillD: your statement was a very simple one; you did not offer   any indication that you were merely "describing." It sounded like a provincial, xenophobic comment to me. I am still not sure what you mean by "distracting" in any case; her   accent would distract   from what she was saying? her accent would distract by reminding one she is not a "real" American? It was a pretty inexact comment. But thank you for clarifying what you meant. You make a good point re: "neutrality" (of looks, ethnicity, voice, etc. if not policitcs) is what voters seem to find most comfortable. I call it "blandness."

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 01:09 PM

I had no idea she was all over the television even before she came here. Opportunist I guess it is. My dreams are crumbling. (I love her accent.)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 01:18 PM

and her self confidence and her poise. Hell, if she were Governor, I might even buy a television.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 01:27 PM

yes..perhaps, sadly, 'blandness' is a semi-useful attribute, in so far as it avoids being categorized too much.

"I am still not sure what you mean by "distracting" in any case; her   accent would distract from what she was saying? "

well..*wry grin*..I cannot deny that when I first heard Arianna, I had this brief flashback to Zha Zha Gabor, who used her accent as a tool to emphasize her image... It is refreshing to see ANY pretty, blond woman with that sort of an accent who is able to converse on a wide variety of subject matters, and I still maintain that any woman of that type has her work cut out for her to overcome stereotypes. That is simply how society works. I work VERY hard to judge people by the quality and coherence of what they do & say, but I still have to take a little extra effort to look at Cruz Bustamonte fairly. *shrug* (at least I *DO* make that effort) (and I would have voted for Barbara Jordan of Texas in a heartbeat a few years ago!)

Many people just find it easier to trust and vote for tall, svelte, Caucasian males with 'interesting' hair and simple names...like John Kerry. Why? You tell me! (I am halfway convinced that Dick Gebhart's slicked back hair and 'different' face works against him as a presidental candidate!)

It is not an easy issue to discuss these days, with such wide diversity in the population...everyone is prickly and/or prejudiced about what is right and even discussions are rated for 'political correctness'. I kind of like Mudcat for allowing me & you to compare views and ideas this way...but it sure would be easier if I could issue disclaimers and clarifications a bit faster, hmmm?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Peg
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 02:46 PM

well, it is just a bit scary to me that voters, in this media-saturated culture we live in, feel more "comfortable" with blandness or with familiarity (some ethnic groups may prefer their "own kind" for exmaple).   It reminds me of times when presidential candidates with "ethnic" names had difficulty: like Dukakis, or Tsongas. Voters seem   to prefer short, easy-to-pronounce, WASP names...like those of our founding fathers, who wrote their constitution for preserving their own interests (by the rich white male people, for the rich white male people). Despite lip service paid to the idea of "diversity" we really have not come very far...and I fear we are   moving further   backwards everyday...so sorry if I am sensitive about this! But I thinkhaving some leaders in government who aren't rich white men might be a refreshing change of pace...

At least Arianna would do something about all the damn needless   SUVs.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 02:55 PM

Rich white ladies aren't really all that better are they? Maggie Thatcher certainly wasn't.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 08:30 PM

I think my biggest overall fear is that when we do make that bold ethnic /gender based step in our highest offices, that it will be simply to get a different demographic into those offices. Even I, who am relatively anti-military and -certainly- far from conservative would've had a hard time voting -against- Collin Powell if he had run for Pres or VP.

Honestly, as far as the California recall goes, I just am excited to see a truly democratic system at work. A rainbow of candidates in the ethnic, gender, religious, and political sense. I wholeheartedly agree with NicoleC on that point.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Alba
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 08:47 PM

Well I am wondering if Arianna might not just be the best Woman for the job. I know I am going to try to have her look at my taxes before I file next year!:>) see here: numbers
JD

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 09:12 PM

I do know I would sure rather see Arianna in there than Arnold!...I am not sure she'd be my first choice, but not the disaster that some of the loose cannons running would be.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Peg
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 09:25 PM

Margaret Thatcher is a woman?????

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 10:11 PM

Alba: See, its biased mainstream media like that which gets me so angry. Notice how they only mentioned the last two years? Well, thats because in 2001 and 2002, Arianna's average income was $175,000. Nice number, right? Well, her outgoing expenses were over 400k each year, financing research for her new book, (and work expenses are deductable for one and all). She made three million this year from the sale of that aforementioned book, and will pay appropriate taxes. And she made over a million in 2000, and likewise paid a large sum in taxes. She's a writer, its a cyclical business.

She paid considerably more in property taxes and employer taxes than the few hundred noted by the two-party-system-financed press (which quoted only fed tax, 2002 Fiscal Year)

Oh, and her house was a divorce settlement. She married well, you can envy someone for that, but not fault them for it.

hehe, i get riled.. sorry :)

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Alba
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 10:43 PM

Kelly I did mean it when I said that I thought she might be the Woman for the job. Bill is dead right when he points out that Arianna would be a far better choice than Arnie.
I have no knowledge of Arianna's financial position at all at. That part of the post was meant to be tough in cheek:>) A friend of mine that lives in California sent me the article when I complained to her about my taxes!! Sorry it got you all riled up:>)
JD

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Kelly
Date: 23 Aug 03 - 11:55 PM

LOL no worries, JD, I like getting riled ;) Im overly suceptable to political provocation due to spending 40 hrs a week working for the Bush Administration (blah) here in Dallas lol.

*teasingly* Whatever you do, dont send your taxes to Willie Nelson for input!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 24 Aug 03 - 07:56 PM

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
~ Will Rogers

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 25 Aug 03 - 01:59 AM

About a dozen or so years ago, a very consevative carpetbagger named Michael Huffington moved to our area from (where else?) Texas and was immediately elected to the House of Representatives. He was a gazillinoaire so there were countless TV ads during the campaign. Many of them showed him with Arianna and their two beautiful children but only Michael spoke (her accent would have been distracting).

The day after he was elected he began to work on his campaign to be elected Senator from California and, ultimately, President. Since that left no time for him to represent his constituency, he was not re-elected.

In the meantime, Arianna caught him having sex with someone else. Now in politics that's pretty normal, especially if he had his eye on the white house, but in this case the other woman turned out to be a man. She promptly divorced him and will never have to work again if she doesn't want to.

But, she began writing and making TV appearances and was very conservative. For a while she was making a regular appearance on Saturday Night Live with none other than Al Franken in a very clever skit called "Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows". They would always appear in bed together and argued about politics. He would always introduce her as "the beautiful but evil Arianna Huffington".

The next thing we knew she was on the left espousing all those things Kelly says she stands for. It's never too late to learn!

Personally, we're torn between voting for Gary Coleman and Larry Flynt. Although the stripper (what's her name, anyway?)could get our vote. Just kidding.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 25 Aug 03 - 02:03 AM

Now it seems to us that this is a recall election. So, republicans or somebody should be pointing out one or more things Grey Davis has done since the last election (less than a year ago) that are illegal, immoral, or maybe just plain dumb. If it's just plain dumb, we should be hearing what others would have done instead. We are not hearing that so maybe this is not a recall election but an attempt to reverse the results of the last election.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Aug 03 - 08:09 AM

maybe this is not a recall election but an attempt to reverse the results of the last election.

NO! Say it aion't so! Can't be! The Repubs. wouldn't stoop to that!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Aug 03 - 01:29 AM

Of course not. Neither would the Democrats!

DougR

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 26 Aug 03 - 08:49 PM

Dear Bev & Jerry: The constitution of the State of California does not allow for deficit spending. Not one dollar! Under Davis the state is in-the-red by $38 Billion and the accounting tricks he is using make Enron look like a bunch of amateurs. He spent money from the tobacco settlement before it arrived, and borrowed againt the same money after it was spent. He allows illegal aliens to vote and get social services, and the energy crisis was mis-handled (and that is polite). Need more?

As far as Republicans go, they are not doing a good job of explaining things. True. But they are not the people who started the recall. We the people are behind it , as we are behind the US and CA constitutions.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 03:13 PM

pdq:

Which of these things were done since the last election and what would you have done differently?

The recall was started and funded by Darrel Issa, a republican.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 07:36 PM

I suppose the response was to "why is he being ousted" and not as directly to your question as it should have been. The movement to recall Davis is as much a "grass roots" movement as was prop 13. Issa may have used some organizational skills to get the job done. If so, good for Mr. Issa. The Calif State constitution is being followed in the recall and that is all that matters, because it is not being obeyed by Davis is operating the state.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 09:07 PM

Yep, just like Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting coup d'état attempt is a grass roots movement. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 27 Aug 03 - 09:26 PM

I don't know who released this about Schwarzenegger, but it's making the rounds.

Ahnold and Sex

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:31 AM

pdq:

We do not deny any of the charges against Davis you made in your first post. We don't particularly care for him either. You clearly didn't vote for him last time and neither did a lot of other people. Nevertheless, he managed to win the election.

What we're objecting to is the recall. It's definitely legal and conforms to the California constitution but we think it's unethical and unwise. First, less than one million signatures were required to cause the recall to happen. In the last election there were about eight million voters. In California you could get one million signatures on a petition to secede from the union.            

Second, the structure of the recall is ridiculous. One theoretically possible result is that Davis gets 49% of the votes and someone else gets elected with 1% of the votes. Another is that Davis gets 51% of the votes and remains in office while somone else gets 100% of the votes. It's really a stupid law.

Also, Issa contributed a lot more than organizational skills. He contributed over a million dollars or about one dollar per signature.
Then, he apparently got forced out of the election by the Republican party bosses.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 28 Aug 03 - 12:32 PM

Bev & Jerry: You seem like very nice young folks. Enjoy the good things about California. My family did from 1852 to 2003. Good luck.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 02:49 PM

Forwarded from a friend:

[In the course of some renovation work at England's
Canterbury Cathedral, a wall broke open to reveal a hollow cavity, in
which was found a parchment manuscript, since dated to the later 14th
century. It appears to be the work of the English poet Geoffrey
Chaucer.
However, the text is much faded and barely legible in places, so
that the work of deciphering this manuscript is proceeding very slowly. The first few pages have now been transcribed, and their content is given below. Not all of the references can be understood at this distance in time, but the manuscript appears to concern a miscellaneous party of pilgrims who have come together with the common desire to reach a holy shrine at a place named "Sacramento." The front page of the manuscript, though much defaced by damp, seems to bear the title "The Sacramento Tales."]

---

             Whan that Septembre with his shoures sote
         Summers droghte hath percéd to the rote,
         And bathéd Napas vynes with swich licour
         As makéth Gallo Brothers shayre price soare;
         Whan al vacacioun tyme is used and gonne
         And beaches emptye lye beneath the sonne,
         Whan freeways clogge with workers offys-bounde
         Whyl scole-buses mak roade rage all arounde.
         Whan harlots on the Strippe crye to be payd
         By Englishe heart-throbbes crusyng for rough trayd
         (Whom Nature hath anon depryved of braynes!)
         Than longen folk to run polityckal campaygns
         And pollsters for to scanne ye publick moode
         By telephoun and questionnaire intrude.
         And specially, from every countys ende
         Of Golden State, to Sacramento wende,
         The Governour's fyn castel for to wyn
         And dwel with powre and glorie ful therein.
         INCUMBENT was ther, gilty (so they seye)
         Of budgets fals. And he was clepéd Gray.
         His teethe bryght capt, his heer lyk helmet fixt
         Grande master was he of lowe politycks.
         Non intrest grupe had he disdaynd to schmuse,
         Ne ATLA, CALPERS, Latynos, ne Jewes.
         At fund-raisyng ther wiste no wight so wyse,
         The governourshippe than becam his pryse,
         And hem that to him had obeysance mayd
         Saw al hir outlays manyfold repayd.
         He seith not ones "nay" when they seith "ye."
         "Do this," seith they; "al redy, sire," seith he.
         Whyl worthy folk of lower midel kynd
         Wyth U-Haul hytched fled east and north to fynd
         Som place wherin hir litel wealth might growe
         Insted of into state tax coffers flowe.
         Yet even swich as staid wer ful appalled
         By car-tax hyk, so Gray shal be recalled.
         Among us was a TERMINATOR bold,
         A player who on many a stage had strold.
         Ful big he was of braun, and eke of bone
         A manly man, ful wyth testosteroun.
         On TV he declayrd his wille to run
         His candidacie than was fayr begun.
         At ones began disputes upon his lyf
         Wych, ere he toke a Kennedy to wyf,
         Muche marred had been with lecherye and syn,
         And eke was ther some matter of his kin.
         His fader, in the German empyrs warres,
         Had worn that emblem evry man abhorres,
         The twysted cros. To wych his frends replyd:
         "Lord Kennedy was eke upon that syd!"
         But natheless dispute continued hotte
         To knowe was he conservatyf or not.
         Of policie he vauch-saifed next to nonne
         Save only: "Al for children must be donne!"
         Til sore complaynd those membyrs of his factioun
         That first applauded this bold Man of Actioun.
         And so, to soothe hir rancorous complaynts
         The Terminator call'd upon two saynts:
         St. Milton and St. Warren. They both blest
         His enterprys, and sanctiond thus he prest
         Ahead, as al perceived, on victoryes tracke.
         (Or if not, reste assuréd, he'll be backe.)
         Latynos had hir man, with mustache speyr
         High domed his hed, with fast receding heer.
         LIEUTENANT to the Governour was he
         And Spanish spak ful faire and fetisly,
         After the scole of Ciudad Mexico
         For Spanish of Castile he did not knowe.
         In Englishe ones, amid a goodlie throng,
         His mynde did cruellie betray his tonge
         Whan he, addressyng Moorish clerks conven'd
         To glorify hir history, had seem'd
         To greete hem with the N worde - wych, wel note,
         Is deeth to hem that seke the publick vote.
         And folies mor lay lurking in his past.
         Whan clerk at Fresno he his lotte had cast
         In wyth a wilde and heretickall order
         Wych ful denys oure nations southren border!
         And preche vil crede, wych he refused to shunne:
         "For oure race al, for other races nonne!"
         The Terminators fader wolde have blushd
         To say swich wordes, and spinmystres all rushd
         To parse hem to som softe and gentyl sens,
         But whyte and blacke alyk had toke offens.
         And hard-corre gilty liberalles asyd,
         No non-Latyno folk colde him abyd.
         And greate as Latyn votyr count maye be
         It lokés lyk: Hasta la vista, babye!
         A WYF was ther, of Athenes cameth she
         And eke her campaygn started on TV.
         Of polles and raisyng fundes she knew perchaunce
         For she coude of that art the olde daunce,
         Her housbonde havyng troden paths polityckal
         Before he turned to lifestyl sodomityckal
         And lefte her. Yeares befor, whan she was yong
         In London towne had somtyme dwelt among
         Commentatours, pundittes, and swich kynd.
         Wyth one of hem, a much admiréd mynd,
         She lyved; but than despayrd, becaus, she said,
         Her lovyere was not any gode in bedde.
         Forsooth, in al oure mery companye
         Ther was none fyner drest than she,
         Rodeo Dryves fyn wares she knew ful wel:
         Versace, Gucci, Tiffany, Chanel.
         Ne fell her heer one lokke out of place
         Ne wrinkel one, ne blemishe mark'd her face.
         Allas, whan she did speken on TV
         Ne man colde folow but one worde in thre.
         . . . . . . . .
         . . . . . . . .
         [This is as much of the manuscript as has been deciphered to
date. We shall bring you further passages as they become available.]

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 04:45 PM

Howling and rolling on the floor!!! MORE! MORE!
(Is there any more, or is that it?)

Back in the mists of antiquity (but not quite as far back as Chaucer) I had an English prof who could speak that particular vintage of English quite fluently, and she read long portions of the Canterbury Tales to the class. There's nothing quite like hearing it read that way to really grasp the feeling of the thing.

This is too funny!! It'll have me cackling for days! Thanks, Amos!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:12 PM

Don,

So glad you enjoyed it!! There's no more that I know of but if my informant provides a second installment it will be yours instanter!


A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:41 PM

Clever, witty, hysterically funny! AUTHOR!! AUTHOR!!

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 08:05 PM

It really is a delight to hear someone wield the tongue as it was writ, innit?

I'll enquire and see if I can trace it back to an author.


A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 09:13 PM

Absolutely briliant, Amos. I want some more, please.

-Tom-

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 11:03 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire.asp

3.2 seconds *grin*

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 11:08 AM

something that clever HAD to be online..and recent.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 02:49 PM

Thanks, Bill! I have written John Derbyshire to confirm. Appreciate the research!

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 03:05 PM

John Derbyshire confirms it was all his work, the fruit of an idle afternoon!!

Send you applause to him at Bill D's link up above if you wish.

A

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 02:59 PM

Three judge panel stops California recall election. Anyone surprised?

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:54 PM

It's not stopped, it's postponed until March 2004 to give time for a) all 100% of the precincts to be ready instead of just the 75% that can be ready by October and b) time to finish replacing the punch card machines, which are now illegal according to California law.

Of course, the Supremes may still get into this. The elections offices report that they are still preparing as much as they can for October, just in case.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:14 PM

Davis had his people ban punch card machines just months after those same machines elected him last November???????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 01:21 AM

Davis claims he had nothing to do with it. Would a politician lie?

Actually, it was the ACLU that led the charge.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 01:53 PM

NicoleC stated that the punch card system is "Illegal". Laws are passed by the legislators. Therefore, the machines were banned "by statute" or the origional statement is in error.

BTW, one member of the three judge panel was a big shot in the ACLU at one time.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 02:09 PM

Just because a law gets passed by statute doesn't mnake it legal. Lots of legislation get overturned as unconstitutional. That means it wasn't legal all along.

But, unless the law banning something is unconstitutional, once it's passed, that thing is illegal.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Sep 03 - 10:50 PM

Short memories! The punch card thing was all about Florida's botched election count, remember that little thing?

The 9th Circuit of Appeals had conflicting laws to consider. The Oct 7th date was just arbirarily picked by the Secretary of State to comply with the recall; it's not as though there's a big incentive to have it exactly that day. On the other hand, punch cards aren't technically outlawed until March 2004, when the next election was supposed to be. (Ironically, one of the things on the ballot for March is a bond referendum to pay for voting machine upgrades.)

In the court's opinion it was in the people's best interest to have (the best chance for) a fair election instead of the fastest possible election allowed. NOT just because of the punchcards (which almost half of CA voters would be using), but because 1 in 4 polling places would be shut that day.

Why this decision? During the 2000 election controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bush vs. Gore that it is a violation of the equal-protection law to value one person's vote over that of another. After that case, voting rights organizations challenged punch-card voting in four states, including California.

California settled its suit and agreed to phase out punch-card voting by March 2004. Illinois did not settle, and a federal district judge held that the use of punch-card voting indeed constitutes an equal-protection violation under Bush vs. Gore. (LA Times)

For those overseas, the 9th Circuit is a US federal court. The CA Supreme Court refused to review the case for it's merit under the CA constitution. The federal court can only review it as a US constitutional question under the equal protection clause.

--------------------------

GASP! A constitutional judge who belongs to an organization devoted to upholding the constitution?! How outrageous!

And actually, Common Cause originally started the punch-card decertification movement in California in 2000.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 17 Sep 03 - 02:08 PM

Nicely supported NicoleC, once again. One or two points. The State of California constitution requires that the voting be done within 80 days of completion of the other requirements for the recall. March of 2004 is way past the 80 days and is very much unconstitutional. This is also a state's rights issue, in my opinion. There are no federal offices being up for grabs in this election and therefore the FED judges are completely out of bounds.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: NicoleC
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:48 AM

Well, I'd agree entirely that CA would be mostly better off without the US government, but state constitutions are subservient to the US Constitution and have been since the Civil War. The federal courts do have jurisdiction under current law; some may disagree with that being the case (and I'd lean in that direction myself), but that is not a point of law in question. The equal protection clause is a superior law to the CA recall election law, so when they conflict, the superior law takes precedence.

I think, given the choices, the Appeals Court made a wise decision. It was not a decision that CA Supreme Court could make, because they are mandated to consider the CA Constitution primarily. Probably the best indication that it was fair is that neither side got 100% of what they wanted. After reflection, I suspect the the US Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case. They've covered it quite clearly very recently, and there is no overriding federal issue that would suggests it merits special treatment.

But we shall see...

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 01:12 PM

I see on the front page of my newspaper that arnold has won the endorsements of both Kelsey Grammar and Jim Belushi.

Subject: RE: Anyone Here for California Governor?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 02:13 PM

Poles show Davis is going one way or another. Rumors are that when voted out he will refuse to leave, and will file law suits continually until the end of his four year term. He could resign and give the job to Bustamonte. Should he quit???