Californial Recall almost here [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

Excalibur

10-07-2003, 01:44 AM

I don't see what the problem is with having a recall. Everyone makes a big deal like it is some great injustice, but it wouldn't be happening if it wasn't in their constitution in the first place.

Now, trying to halt it would be unconstitutional. The people have spoken. They want the recall, and saying that they are going to use out of date voting methods is a riot. It worked to elect Davis before.

All these things Davis and others are trying to use to discredit Arnold is hilarious. The same things that seem to be a credit when linked to a democrat, all of a sudden are terrible when linked to a republican.

Every day democrats make me more and more glad I'm not in that group.

NetxMan

10-07-2003, 06:07 PM

Yeah, the people have spoken. They are getting sick and tired of being used by that party. I would to.

Just like the Drivers License Law, that he didn't pass 2 times then he did at the last minute.

up2date

10-08-2003, 12:32 AM

Looks like California will have "The Governator." I don't live in California and I will admit to not knowing all their issues, but I just hope they don't come to regret their choice...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?0cv=CA01

america

10-08-2003, 07:10 AM

Yes Arnold won. I was rooting for him just because of the way he was attacked, I get tired of the media trying to shape the country, before that I didn't really care.
In some ways I felt sorry for Gray Davis at that moment, how embarassing for him.
glad I did not have to deal with the issues and only had to watch.
It will interesting to see how Arnold handles politics. (or maybe his wife will help him?):confused:

JD3

10-08-2003, 09:54 AM

. . . Can someone with no experience, no plan, and no clue get elected to public office. California has serious problems. Most of which have to with the the sily laws they that were passed by the voters.

So, an actor will save them.

God bless California.

Excalibur

10-08-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by america
I get tired of the media trying to shape the country...

I know what you mean. The liberals in control of the media think they are they only ones smart enough to make any decisions, so they only let us hear what they want us to hear so we will be led in the direction they want us to go.

Thankfully not everyone is as stupid as they think, and a good share of us can see through them.

I think they have gotten so desperate that they have actually started hurting themselves. The things they say to attack someone will be proven false and then those blindly following them are getting a wake-up call.

I'm just sick of it being OK for democrats to brake laws, lie to the American people, do nothing but hurt the country, and yet they are treated like heroes, while the real heroes have lies made up about them that couldn't begin to come to the level of audacity that the democrats have come to, and yet they are looked down up on, while the democrats and all their flaws are put on a pedestal.

NetxMan

10-08-2003, 05:29 PM

Excalibur

10-08-2003, 07:05 PM

I'm sorry I can't remember her name, but on the way home, I heard a sound bite that was just hilarious.

This women was saying "This is a sad night for the state of California, and the country. Elected officials should not have to watch their back in fear of being recalled." or something very close to that. I laughed, because that is exactly what elected officials should be worried about.

If you can't do the job the people have hired you to do, then it's the peoples' right to kick your @$$ out of office and vote in someone else to try to do better.

There are to many people out there who have forgotten that the government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.

I'm not saying that Arnold is the best man for the job, or even the right person, but the facts show that Gray Davis was definitely the wrong person, and the people have the right to take back the government.

up2date

10-09-2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by Excalibur
I know what you mean. The liberals in control of the media think they are they only ones smart enough to make any decisions, so they only let us hear what they want us to hear so we will be led in the direction they want us to go.

Thankfully not everyone is as stupid as they think, and a good share of us can see through them.

I think they have gotten so desperate that they have actually started hurting themselves. The things they say to attack someone will be proven false and then those blindly following them are getting a wake-up call.

I'm just sick of it being OK for democrats to brake laws, lie to the American people, do nothing but hurt the country, and yet they are treated like heroes, while the real heroes have lies made up about them that couldn't begin to come to the level of audacity that the democrats have come to, and yet they are looked down up on, while the democrats and all their flaws are put on a pedestal. The liberals are not the only ones doing this, nor are they in sole control of the media. Both sides pretty aggressively spin stories in their favor, and twist facts which often hurt innocent people to forward some agenda. Sorry, but this is not a liberal characteristic, it's unfortunately a political one.

Excalibur

10-09-2003, 01:51 AM

I understand that, and agree, but unfortunately the media is controlled mainly by liberals.

That's why they do everything they possibly can to discredit Rush Limbaugh. He tells it like it is, and they can't control him and it really drives them crazy.

Liberals have tried to steal his thunder, but the lies they use makes it hard for anyone to stick around and listen.

I occasionally listen to Rush, and he makes things easy to understand, but all these media guys seem to love the sounds of their own voices, and can't seem to let anyone else get a word in. That drives me crazy. If you are going to ask someone their opinion, let them speak, and then point out how stupid they are. Cutting them off so they never get to finish, just irritates me.

MrZero

10-11-2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by JD3
. . . Can someone with no experience, no plan, and no clue get elected to public office. California has serious problems. Most of which have to with the the sily laws they that were passed by the voters.

So, an actor will save them.

God bless California.

I guess a seasoned politician who has a track record of denial, inaction, panic, and screwing everything up from top to bottom didn't work out so well either.

I think the fact that the citizens of CA turned out enmass to boot Davis out of office and elect a non-politician to office is a clear indication that the people are sick and tired of the tax and spend mentallity that seems to run rampant in Sacramento.

Will Arnold do any better? I guess we will have to wait and see but I can't see how he could do any worse.

gopman

10-11-2003, 12:00 PM

If you recall the Pendleton civil service act, public offices are designed to be held by any American, given they can pass a basic proficiency test. Being a professional politician has nothing to do with being a good leader.

KWJams

10-11-2003, 12:40 PM

What I saw on the news yesterday has me concerned.

Davis was going on a blitz campaign signing every special interest bill on his desk and appointing his hand picked judges for every open position possible.

Really is an immature attitude in my opinion. It really shows the right thing to do was to get him out of office.

It is just really going to be a huge mess to clean up when he is officially replaced.

JD3

10-11-2003, 12:55 PM

Davis was a bad politician. Fair enough. He should have lost the last election then.

As for qualifcations, I am talking about some ability to run a large governmental budget, no know everything you need to know to run a state, to demonstration by resume that you have done the things required and can demonstrate that you can do them in the future.

Arnold presented no plan. He provided no qualifications. Even in California polls the people said that they thought The other republican, Mc?, was more qualified, more trusted, and more capable of doing the job. He came in third.

And if you look at the structure of California government with all its mandate spending, it will be difficult for any governor to do anything.

So, I repeat, God Bless California.

NetxMan

10-11-2003, 01:42 PM

The Mc, guy was more qualified, but so was DAVIS supposedly right?

I am just glad we got someone else in there.

JD3

10-11-2003, 01:48 PM

But that doesn't translate to anything of importance. Replacing a qualified person with an unqualified person on any job I can think of will most likely make things worse.

Miricles happen, but isn't it bad policy to hire unqualified people. If it isn't than I think we can quit the arguement in the work place that qualifications matter. Let's just hire whomever and skip the check for credentials.

MrZero

10-11-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by JD3
But that doesn't translate to anything of importance. Replacing a qualified person with an unqualified person on any job I can think of will most likely make things worse.

Miracles happen, but isn't it bad policy to hire unqualified people. If it isn't than I think we can quit the argument in the work place that qualifications matter. Let's just hire whomever and skip the check for credentials.

There was another actor turned Governor in CA for those of you who may not remember. His name was Ronald Reagan and he went off to be the President. Oh, and then there was Jesse Ventura and if I recall he turned Minnesota around. So, yes miracles can happen.

As for McClintock, I agree that he was more qualified from a political experience stand point, but like I sad before, we are sick and tired of politicians running our lives into the ground. So, if veteran politicians can muck it up that bad, why not take a chance with a non-politician... It has worked out pretty well in the past.

I think that a blanket statement that Arnold is unqualified is rather unfair. He is a self made millionaire, a businessman, he is married into the Kennedy clan and lets face it, to be a Republican and schmooze your way into the Kennedy's is quite a feat and in some sort of twisted way that has to count for something.

So, I guess a better question is, what qualifies you to be Governor?

JD3

10-11-2003, 02:38 PM

Reagan was involved in politics his entire life. Arnold admited he didn't even vote often.

Running a business and being successful do not mean you can run a state. These things are not comparable.

By becoming governor, Arnold is now the politician who will be running your life. That is want the job is. The state just chose to let someone with no experience do the running. The idea is a fallacy.

Just as mandating spending by popular vote is. I will be interested to see how Arnold handles that. The options he has as far is what he can do is limited.

I am also not sure Jessie did that good a job. I haven't followed Minnesota politics, but just because he was elected doesn't mean he did a good job. And Minnesota wasn't in the fix California is in. I am not sure the two situations are comparable. MAybe Minnesota could afford more show than substance.

NetxMan

10-11-2003, 02:38 PM

Honestly, JD3, it takes more than qualifications to get any job? Correct?

Lets take presidency. Honeslty, I would rather half the people I have seen in that office, not even be there. I think some of the more qualified and better character people, get weeded out because of money, and not having any name recognition.

But, I when I (and millions of others) vote, we have to look at what there is, I am not gonna vote for a guy that isn't gonna win period. That's called a wasted vote. Which in turn would help whomever a dislike the most. So I most vote for whom I think would do the better job, and has the best chances of winning.

This is what the people did in Cali.

Also, JD3, like has been pointed out 10 other times in this thread. Davis was qualified right? So your logic is broke up in that very point.

JD3

10-11-2003, 02:45 PM

That is why we get such poor congressmen, sentors, and presidents. The good and qualified people are elimanated early. A professor at the University of Iowa once said, "Pick a pretty face for a canidate because the voting public is just too stupid to understand the issues anyway." I was offended, but I have since seen the reasoning behind the comment.

Dole was more qualifed and the better man and he lost. There is no reasoning for that.

I feel the same way about Bush and Gore, but I think my posts make that obvious.

Pick any race and I think an argument can be made that the people went with show and not sustance.

And I really hate the idea that we shouldn't vote for someone who won't win. How do we know that person won't win? If everyone stopped listening to polls and went with what they thought was best for the state and the country, maybe, just maybe, the right person would be elected. By right I mean the most quailfied and the best man for the job.

MrZero

10-11-2003, 02:48 PM

JD3, I ask again.

What makes one qualified to be Governer?

I mean, I understand your point, but I have to agree with NetXMan. Gray Davis has been in the game for the past 20 years in one way or another and he was a complete and utter failure. So, perhaps someone with little or no Political experience and a lot more business sense is just what is needed, because the Politicians ARE NOT getting the job done.

MrZero

10-11-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by NetxMan
That's called a wasted vote.

I have to say I disagree with you whole heartedly on this one. I have been a registered Libertarian with the exception of the first election I voted in. With the exception of the Recall, I have always voted a straight Libertarian ticket knowing full well that the candidates were not going to win. A wasted vote is when you vote for the lesser of two evils and you do not vote your conscience. If more people voted there conscience, we wouldn't be where we are today.

JD3

10-11-2003, 03:04 PM

You second post was well stated and I agree with you whole heartly.

As for Davis, he is my point. He has a record and isn't qualified. Apply for any job and demonstrate that you can't do it well, you don't get the job.

A governor should have to prove that they worked with budgets, that they understand the issues and the laws that apply. They should have a documented record of how they stood on issues and where they might stand on them in the future. As I said, Reagan was a life long political junkie. He voted and took stands long before he became governor. Arnold has not.

He is a complete novice. We can hope that he knows enough to hire good people and that his handlers are wise and experieinced. But he himself isn't qualified. And he wouldn't get the job if he went throught the same process most of us have to.

KWJams

10-11-2003, 03:27 PM

For the most part, it could be argued that most-any political office is held by a figure head that is not empowered to act on their own will but the will of the supporters who fund them.
That is why special interest groups have done so much damage.
Arnold's lack of experience will be balanced by the team he surrounds himself with.

NetxMan

10-11-2003, 04:36 PM

I think that is an important point. "the team he surrounds himself with"

Excalibur

10-11-2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by JD3
Davis was a bad politician. Fair enough. He should have lost the last election then.

But didn't Davis do all he could to cover-up the budget problems, denying them just long enough to get himself elected again. I mean it only has to be truth until he gets elected.

But California brought this on themselves for electing such a mistake of a politition in the first place, how they could have been so stupid to do it twice, always confused me.

Davis is doing the same thing Clinton did as he was leaving office. Seeing how much more he screw things up before he goes down in the history books for the joke he is.

ScummyD

10-12-2003, 02:05 AM

Joe we finally agree. You said: "And I really hate the idea that we shouldn't vote for someone who won't win. How do we know that person won't win? If everyone stopped listening to polls and went with what they thought was best for the state and the country, maybe, just maybe, the right person would be elected. "
I completely agree.
If you vote for a person just because you think they have a better chance at winning over the candidate you prefer, then you elevate victory over your principles, and victory then becomes the ends. If victory is the ends, then why bother with all the different political parties? Why doesn't everyone combine to create one party and then we could all win every election. Victory is the means to the ends. The ends being the implementation of your agenda.

ScummyD

10-12-2003, 02:09 AM

As a life long Californian, I would say that the fact that Arnold was elected demonstartes the political desperation of the majority of the people in my state.

JD3

10-12-2003, 12:56 PM

But they also must look at themselves and the mandated spending they voted for. And they should also note that Bush didn't help when asked. If he helps now, what does that say?

gopman

10-12-2003, 01:17 PM

Bush can say that he didn;t help when Davis was in office because Davis was a bad governor who would have squandered it.

Apparently I need to reiterate the fact that being a professional politician with "qualifications" doesn't translate to being a good leader. ALL civil service jobs are made to be held by ANYONE, given they pass the civil service test. Arnold is an intelligent person and a hard worker, and he has experience as both a businessman and a citizen of the state. And there is one additional qualification- he has no ties to any special interests. He is what the state needs and that is why he was elected. Call me overly optimistic, but i trust that people are generally rational, and i believe I supported that in another thread.

I would also like to say that I am totally opposed to the Idea of a "wasted vote."

JD3

10-12-2003, 05:54 PM

I suspect if he helps Arnold it will be political. He needs help in California, a big electorial state. Arnold looks good; republicans look good.

I understand your point. BUt I have submitted that if he was a poor politician, don't elect him for another term. The record should work both ways. I don't hire an employee with a bad work record. And I don't hire a novice over a proven commodity. Both must present their resumes and work history. Arnold's was lacking. And if the team is the important part of all these equations, I want them there during the debates and I want to see their resumes as well.

ScummyD

10-13-2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by JD3
But they also must look at themselves and the mandated spending they voted for.?
Joe, I couldn't agree more! Sometimes the "ballot initiative" method of policy implementation bears sour fruit. According to George Will, something like 60 to 80 percent of california's budget is untouchable by the governor or legislature.

JD3

10-13-2003, 10:40 AM

Good to agree with someone on something.

It is a problem.

gopman

10-13-2003, 01:54 PM

You would fire a bad employee, and that's exactly what happened. The people of California exercised their constitutional right to recall Davis as soon as enough people realized that he had been concealing what he had done. And I wouldn't say Arnold has a bad work record. He is a citizen of the state and an experienced businessman. That is all it takes. I keep referring to the Pendleton Civil Service Act. And I wouldn't consider Davis a "proven commodity," except in the sense that he has been proven to be a bad governor.

JD3

10-15-2003, 10:43 AM

But Arnold has no positive experience running a state. I sumit that business and state affairs are two separate jobs requiring completely different skills.

The ballot had successful canidates with proven positive work histories. It can be easily argued that the most quaified and best man for the jobs came in third.

How long would a business be successful if its goal was to take the least qualified?