Posted on 07/25/2003 1:34:44 AM PDT by Elle Bee
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:49:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The recall of Gov. Gray Davis is heading for a fall election. "It'll be covered like a mini-presidential race," says GOP consultant Joe Shumate -- and watched like a thriller movie. Part of the reason will be Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, his campaign advisers believe, will be running -- or starring, to put it in Hollywood idiom, in a political sequel to his "Total Recall."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
![]() |
|
![]() |
||
|
|
July 25, 2003 |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Governor Moonbeam
California Governor Gray Davis will now officially face a recall vote, but he's still in denial about the reason. The Democrat is blaming a "hostile takeover by the right" and "partisan mischief." Introspection is not his strong suit. The world is supposed to believe that the 1.4 million voters -- 500,000 more than required -- who signed petitions were all manipulated by a few rowdy Republicans. And that his 26% approval rating has nothing to do with the energy crisis he helped create or the $12 billion surplus of five years ago that he's turned into today's $38 billion deficit. Voters also aren't supposed to care that in last year's campaign Mr. Davis misled them about both the magnitude of the state's fiscal problems and how he planned to raise taxes. This is the same sort of buck-passing that got the Governor here in the first place. Far from a "coup," the recall is entirely constitutional, put in place in 1911 to remove "dishonest, incapable or unsatisfactory" public servants. Mr. Davis has earned this honor. The election itself, slated for October 7, is bound to be messy. Voters will decide if Mr. Davis should go, and if so who should replace him. Potential candidates are still sorting themselves out, and the threshold for qualification is low. Which means a small number of voters could ultimately elect the next state governor. So be it. The fate of Gray Davis is a powerful lesson for unresponsive political elites in both parties.
Updated July 25, 2003 |
||||||
| Copyright 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your Subscription agreement and Copyright laws. For information about subscribing go to http://www.wsj.com |
.
Click Logo to go to:

.
The fate of Gray Davis is a powerful lesson for unresponsive political elites in both parties.
... but I doubt they will notice
.
I think that's too shallow a read on the proposal
I believe it is keyed to revenue increase ... it's not an entitlement with a life of it's own
.
Do people think because he kills lots of people in his movies that he'll make a good conservative?
Anyone have any facts they can share on this man's thoughts on conservative policies? So far all I've seen convinces me that he's not the choice people need in CA.
I'll reread the above posts, but from what LITTLE I've heard, Arnold is NOT the man for the job.
But I finally decided to sign a recall petition because Arnold said some terrific funny things chiding Democrats. A spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. As long as we are going to suffer through this correction of our course, we might as well be entertained and have someone open the eyes of voters to the failings of Democrats and the good points of Republicans.
Arnold is a Republican. He is not a conservative as defined by Jim Robinson. But he can be a bridge to a more informed electorate, and a better run State.
I hope he is going to run.
One advantage to Arnold running (and I am trying to think of this dispassionately, as I am not a Californian) is that his election would give Republicans time to get their act together out there. If he can pull some Hispanics into the party and browbeat the Assembly into a reasonable budget, it would help the state's Republicans get a toe-hold and develop a wider base.
No, he isn't conservative, but the issues in which he is NOT conservative are also issues in which he has zero influence, since they are all addressed by federal legislation or court decisions.
Plus, he would get media coverage and he wouldn't have to get name recognition.
Actually, for some, yes. Ever wonder why more Hollyweird types refuse to run for office ? They can't afford the loss of income which would seriously crimp their style. If Ah-nold doesn't run (and we're getting conflicting info), one reason he'd decline is over the salary issue. He may have millions in the bank, but most of these people need to have those millions keep coming. Win office and that stops.
"One advantage to Arnold running (and I am trying to think of this dispassionately, as I am not a Californian) is that his election would give Republicans time to get their act together out there. If he can pull some Hispanics into the party and browbeat the Assembly into a reasonable budget, it would help the state's Republicans get a toe-hold and develop a wider base."
And it's a reasonable conclusion, but it won't work. Why ? Because RINO Governors prove devastating and divisive to the primary and to the base. I just had 8 years of a RINO Governor and his parting gift to us was the loss of a Congressional seat and a brand new 'Rat Governor and a seriously fractured base. No RINO Governor in recent memory anywhere in the U.S. left their party in better shape leaving office then going in, and I can go over that state by state. Since you're in Indiana, and it's been almost 20 years since a Republican was last elected there (and hopefully we'll get in Mitch Daniels), do you think someone with the voting record of Baron Hill or Julia Carson running as a Republican would do much for the state GOP ? Even Frank O'Bannon would be better than Ah-nold.
"No, he isn't conservative, but the issues in which he is NOT conservative are also issues in which he has zero influence, since they are all addressed by federal legislation or court decisions."
Some, meaning he couldn't sign into a law an outright ban on abortion, but as for other issues, he could conceivably worsen the situation on other issues that are clearly wrong-headed and anathema to the party. I submit he is not a fiscal conservative in the least, which, at the moment, is an absolute necessity. We can't just elect an "R" for the sake of an "R", they have to stand for the principles we hold dear, otherwise they just enact the other party's agenda and destroy our integrity.
"Plus, he would get media coverage and he wouldn't have to get name recognition."
We could run a pig for Governor, dress it up real pretty and get tons of media coverage, but no matter how you slice it, it's still a pig. Tom McClintock is the only one who fits the bill.
I think Arnold is smarter than people think...if you will notice in the article it talks about his real estate holdings. Thus, I don't think that money is a prime motivator for him.
As I said, it is just my idle, uninvolved comment.
Indiana needs Mitch Daniels to be governor, and I wish McIntosh would drop out of the race. Instead I see he is going to start running ads now. He is not suitable for the governorship, as I consider him a poor administrator. He ran a poor campaign and had no way to connect to the swing voter.
I am certain he will lose in the primary, but I don't like to see the party go through any divisiveness, especially because the Rat running will no doubt be that poisonous little dweeb Joe Andrew, last seen heading the DNC during the Gore campaign. UGH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.