Given that choice, I would have voted Davis, hands down, but it never got to that point because Riordan's incompetent attempts at campaigning failed. Simon wasn't a great campaigner, either, but Riordan was a far worse one.
If we had Riordan, we would be in the same mess we are now, with tax hikes and spending increases, but we probably wouldn't be able to recall him. The Davis Recall effort affords the possibility of finally electing a responsible governor.
This time, you get Davis or Ridoran or The Terminator. Those are your choices.
Not necessarily. The recall election allows almost any adult citizen resident of California to run. It's very likely that other people will run. Darrell Issa (R) and Peter Camejo (G) have already publicly stated their interest; McClintock may be interested, depending on the rest of the field. Unlike the regular gubernatorial elections, which usually have just one candidate from each party, the recall election has been called a "free-for-all," because many people can run under the same party label.
For me, the party label isn't as important as the person's characteristics. If Tom McClintock ran as a democrat last fall, I would have still voted for him because I thought he would be a better Controller than the other conservative candidate or the well-financed Democrat, Westly.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger or Richard Riordan were registered as Democrats, would your enthusiasm flag?
Depends on who the Conservative is. I'm not saying electing a Conservative for Conservative's sake is the way to go always, you need an EFFECTIVE Conservative. You need someone who can combine a strong moral platform with an aggressive economic one. Focus solely on one or the other and you're going to have a problem. There were some decent Governors who were solid on moral platforms but then didn't focus enough on spurring the economy. There are people out there who can juggle both issues. But my point all along, setting aside everything else, if we want to take moral issues off the table and deal solely with CA's horrible economic/budget situation, Ah-nold isn't the person for the job because he is NOT a fiscal Conservative. In this case, we can't afford to have liberal spendthrifts, and with Ah-nold's last little prop that passed, it's clear that he is. Even if Ah-nold was squeaky clean in his private life, it doesn't change that above fact. And to address the last sentence, winning elections for the sake of winning elections is nothing to crow about. It's about the best person for the job who has the best agenda. If both the "D" and the "R" have lousy agendas, you (and the people) win nothing, it's merely a win for a party on paper.
"You got your chance at a conservative idealog running for Governor, you got Bill Simon, and he lost to Davis when most people thought a corpse would beat him."
But this is merely a simplistic analysis. It ignores the fact that he didn't lose because of ideology, but because his fall campaign, for lack of a better word, sucked. You can't ignore that there is an absurdly long period between the primary and the general, and it can be difficult to keep momentum going in that timespan. I think the primary should be moved from March to probably July or perhaps even August. Why on Earth a primary for a November election is held 8 months ahead of time is crazy. No wonder it seems like we're in a neverending campaign cycle. No sooner has an election ended, that you've got to file and start campaigning for the next. It's ridiculous.
"Mistakes are only mistakes when you don't learn from them. Ask yourself this: 02 - Davis or Ridoran? Those were your choices. Simon couldn't win, and he didn't. The White House knew it. This time, you get Davis or Ridoran or The Terminator. Those are your choices. Deal with it. Choose wisely."
I'd go 3rd party (AIP candidate) if those are the choices. If it's going to be a liberal, let it be a 'Rat. The GOP shouldn't be tarred and feathered with that failed ideology. Have we learned nothing from Goldwater and Reagan ?