Bustamante gives up 'no on recall' angle

[Freddie Stubbs]

FRESNO -- Faced with a rising unfavorable rating driven in part by his reliance on Indian casino contributions, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's campaign said Tuesday it was abandoning the "no on recall" part of its platform.

From now on, Bustamante will shift his strategy to emphasize his campaign for governor, not opposition to the recall, consultant Richie Ross told The Associated Press.

Asked whether this was a conscious change in strategy, Ross said, "That's exactly what it is."

The move follows a gradual shift by Bustamante in campaign appearances to distance himself from his original slogan of "No on recall, yes on Bustamante." It comes the same day the latest Field Poll showed him leading among candidates to replace Gov. Gray Davis on the Oct. 7 ballot, but also showing his highest unfavorable rating to date.

more: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1622296,00.html

[liberalnurse]

1. Dosen't this now make him an accomplice to the

right wing pricks who started this mess?

[dofus]

2. No, this doesn't make him an accomplice.

It makes him more likely to be California's next governor.

[liberalnurse]

3. By excluding the No on Recall vote...

that renders support to the scam. I always go back to square one....The recall is nothing more than another mode to steal an election by the right wing. Bustamanti can wait until there is a traditional election and respect the voice of the people who went out and voted Davis for govenor.

Cruz is nothing more than another opportunistic parasite if he turns his back on the Vote No on the Recall.

Plain and simple....

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. So if you were a California voter...

...who would you vote for? Would you vote for the "opportunistic parasite?" Would you rather had Arnold as Governor (which is what would likely happen if a significant number of people who are currently supporting Bustamante were to drop thier support)?

[Democat]

7. Bustamante could be dooming the Democratic Party

If he starts to break ranks right now, it may be over for us.

He has to work with Davis to make sure we have the best chance of winning no matter what happens.

If Cruz strays off course for personal gain, all U.S. Democrats may have to pay a dear price.

He already fucked up by not giving the Indian tribe money back right away. Anyone paying attention could see that was going to become an issue in the media and probably hurt him with undecided voters.

[wtmusic]

15. Democat, check your facts

The Indian tribe money was 100% legal. The ONLY reason Bustamante gave the money back was because of the 'appearance' of wrongdoing, an appearance which you seem to feel is appropriate to perpetuate.

'He fucked up'? I think it's pretty generous, considering he's up against big money and can use every penny he can get.

[David__77]

32. I disagree.

He gained points by shifting the Indian money into the no on 54 effort. It's blown over. Plus, the negative is balanced by the fact that he actually NEEDS millions of dollars to compete and win.

Cruz is certainly NOT breaking ranks or straying. This weekend, the Democratic Party will hold a convention and will endorse his candidacy. The party is saying "No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante." Davis is mainly focused on the recall and Bustamante is mainly concerned with making sure a GOPer does not get the most votes among the candidates.

Makes sense to me. Things are trending our way, we need to work hard and work together on both questions.

[liberalnurse]

8. I would just vote No to the Recall...

Thats it....

[slackmaster]

22. And if you don't vote for SOMEONE on Question #2

You are surrendering your vote to those of us who do, including Republicans and independents.

[slackmaster]

21. Both statements are true

There is no inconsistancy between Cruz being an accomplice of the RW and placing himself in a more likely position to win.

[WindBreak]

47. Huh?

It is nothing BUT inconsistent! Either he supports Davis or he doesn't. There is no "magical" third way.

[DemVet]

45. Yes, sadly...

...I believe it does. :-(

[WindBreak]

46. He and Davis hate each other.

Bustamonte was never really behind the "No on the Recall" movement.

[Democat]

4. What the hell?

The support for the recall is dropping and Cruz may abandon fighting against it?

Is there something fishy going on here?

Could Cruz be worried that the recall might actually fail so he's worried he might not become governor?

This should cause his unfavorable percentage to skyrocket if it's true. He will be seen as an opportunist and Republicans will see weakness in the Democratic strategy.

What Demcorat will think this is good news?

Cruz is supposed to be fighting the right, not fighting Davis.

We have two chances to win, and Cruz pissing off Democrats and helping the recall isn't going to help either one of those Democratic chances.

Everything is working, why the shift?

I'm confused as to what's going on.

[liberalnurse]

6. Correct.....

I say, just vote No to the Recall Californians....It's the party that matters..... We will continue to suffer at the hands of the right if we behave like we are just selecting lunch off the menu.... There will be consequences....Regreatable, painful consequences...We may ultimately give them the power to excel.

[wtmusic]

11. Easy to say that

'it's the party that matters' sitting at home in Ohio where state aid to local libraries hasn't been slashed by 99%, where state aid to gifted child programs hasn't been cut by 54%, where state parks aren't being closed because your governor waited 6 critical months and turned a serious budget problem into a disaster through sheer inaction and ineptitude.

25% of Democrats in CA support the recall. Maybe in your wisdom on the matter you could provide me with some DETAILS about why Gray Davis shouldn't be recalled, since he's about a hair's breadth from bankrupting the state? Or if you don't have DETAILS, you might want to learn some before you jump on a convenient bandwagon...

Gray Davis isn't giving my kid the 'power to excel', I'm not going to give him the 'power to be Governor'.

Yes on recall, Yes on Bustamante.

[liberalnurse]

17. Ohio is in deep deep debt.....

Our schools are in shambles, city and county. Private schools are the only ones that prevail. We are not any better off. I'd do the same thing....Vote No on the Recall. Ohio you know is polluted with republicans...We have truely suffered from deregulation, privatization and overcharged credit....Farms are evaporating, and the plasma centers now take appointments!

[wtmusic]

24. Every state is different

and I disagree with anyone who claims that the root of the problems were with Davis.

But the guy is incompetent. We now have a chance to elect a smart, respected (yes, he's an opportunist--what politician isn't?) minority leader who, if he has half the sense he appears to, could get California back on track and seal *'s fate in CA next year.

A tide of Republicans is now turning *against* the recall. Why? Because they understand that a guy like Cruz spells trouble for the GOP for a long, long time. Ditto for Ahnold.

[fob]

27. Why Gray Davis shouldn't be recalled by FOB

The recall lists the reason for Gray Davis' removal as the budget deficit. The budget deficit is in large part due to the gaming of the system by Enron, Duke Energy, Reliant and other Texas-based energy companies. It was deregulation by Gov. Pete Wilson (R), that set the stage for the faux "crisis" that reared it's ugly head in 2001. Gov. Davis tried to get the FERC to impose price caps, which is their responsibility, to no avail. bush*cheney said it was a State problem and the lack of power plant permits was the main issue. Basically saying that "liberal" policies had hurt ourselves by being too strict regarding the environment over big business and that they were not going to help. The problem with that, as has been with so many other things that come out of bush*s mouth, was they were lies. There were several power plants built during the Davis years and in fact a large plant was due to come on line shortly after the "crisis" started.

Given the situation, the best Davis could hope for was to negotiate long term contracts with the mafia, I mean energy traders, to stabilize pricing. Remember that during this time Davis is fighting the energy companies that are using a rigged system with the cover of the bush* administration and WITHOUT the power to direct FERC to do it's damn job.
SIDEBAR: After the "crisis" subsided, FERC issued a report saying the energy companies did overbill(cheat basically), but declined to rebate the billions Davis had asked for. they did approve a rebate of around $1.5 billion, iirc. This also meant that they did not do their job in the first place.

ECONOMY: bush* voodoo economics has ruled the land with millions of jobs lost, a large part of that the dot com bust, and Governors in 47 or 48 states facing a deficit. As if that were not enough, Gov. Davis had to contend with a budget that requires a 2/3 majority to pass, which has normally not been a problem. But this year the budget season had the added wrinkle of a "threat of recall" wherein the repubs found they could wield more power if they simply stymied the budget process to Davis' detriment. Their warcry became "No new taxes, period", which seems pretty silly in a $38 billion deficit in a $100 billion dollar budget. I am not saying that the thing to do was raise taxes until the deficit was gone, but let's look at all options for crying out loud. In the end the repubs rode the budget "crisis" to the recall finish line.

RECORD: I will not list it here, but please spend some time and review Gov Davis record. If the goal nationally is to get a progressive liberal in office, or as close to it as possible, then you owe it to look at Davis record. He has signed some fairly progressive legislation over the years along with some major support for the education system, especially the community colleges. There will always be things you won't like, but I ask you, "With a pretty good overall progressive record, why throw that away because the other side has framed the debate?"

[Proud_American]

29. Kudos to you FoeOfBush! Very well stated!

It's not right to blame Davis and Davis alone. Sure, he's admitted he's made some choices he'd like to do differently. But hindsight is 20/20 and is certainly NO reason to be recalled. This is a power grab and Davis has been successfully setup as the fall guy by the repukes.

I ask the naysayers this: if deficits are grounds for recall why have there been no movements to recall any of the others? The obvious answer is because CA holds a lot of electoral votes that the Bush Cabal would love to get their hands on and if they can install a repuke as governor (by any means necessary) they know The Idiot's that much closer to getting reelected.

I don't say "no on recall." I say "fuck the recall."

[wtmusic]

31. Deficits are not grounds for recall;

$38 BILLION deficits are grounds for recall. You want help winning CA for Shrub? Leave Davis right where he is.

[Proud_American]

36. Wrong wtmusic

If Davis had spent the $38B on family vacations, you'd have a point.

Let's break down the causes of the deficit:

1. Energy "crisis." CA was strongarmed by TX energy corps and he did what he thought he had to do in order to "keep the lights on." CA got screwed twice. First by the energy corps for shutting down one supply line and gouging us for the other and then again by the feds for refusing to intervene when it was their job to do so.

2. Dot com bust. I won't even defend Davis here since nobody is trying to pin this on him.

3. Bush's economy. Let me repeat with emphasis: BUSH'S economy.

4. Illegal immigration. Should the Gov'r alone be responsible for securing a national border? Isn't it the ultimate responsibility of the Feds to protect our borders? Likewise, isn't CA's (and other border states') problem and costs associated with illegal immigrants really the United States' problem? Seems to me that the Feds need to either cover the costs or secure the freakin' border.

If I've forgotten anything, please remind me. Now look at the causes (objectively) and then tell us again how this equates to the need to recall the governor.

edited to add #4.

[wtmusic]

30. If your argument is

that Davis is basically a 'good guy' you will find none here.

To be a governor requires more than being a 'good guy'. It requires someone who can think on their feet; who creates innovative solutions to tough problems; who can rally not only legislators but his constitutents around him when necessary; who is vigilant and keeps a sharp eye on the state's finances. He's the most powerful man in the state, and he thus has more responsibility for the state's welfare than any other individual.

You call energy rates going up by 900% a 'faux crisis'? Yes, Davis did request price caps from the FERC but only after we were $9 billion in the hole. Asleep at the wheel.

To me that negates a 'pretty good record'. That's my money and my kids' money down the drain ($20 billion in all in long term debt). And Davis remains in denial (go to his website--you'll see wonderful information about traffic safety, his wife, the new state quarter--and not a word about arguably the biggest issue to face CA in history).

See ya later Gray.

[robbedvoter]

9. So he is a weasel after all. Too bad.

I thought he talked on both sides of his mouth before, but tried to ignore it before. If he gets it, it'll be ill gotten now. It's his legitimacy he is screwing right now. I'd probably still vote No on recall and yes on him if I were in California - but only to prevent the GOP grab. But he's an ass.
Hey, Cruz, "No on recall" is not an angle, is the will of the people the last election. Democracy, remember that?

[hang a left]

10. TRAITOR!

[mike_c]

12. Bustamante is, and has always been...

...a political opportunist.

[rock]

13. I believe it's fair for Bustamente to do it this way

It's still a case of swaying the voters. It's their choice.

[wtmusic]

14. thank you

and I hope he does. I've been hearing all kinds of remarks about this being 'undemocratic'...and I have yet to hear anyone explain to me what is undemocratic about a vote.

[paulk]

18. a scenario where the recall happened with, say, 49%

oppossed, and the next governer (even Bustamente), gets "elected" with less than that number would certainly qualify as less than democratic.

California's recall law is a stupid law. Stupid. Voting for the recall supports that law and opens a can of worms. If you don't like Grey Davis, vote him out in the next election. Like they do in democracies.

[wtmusic]

19. Yes, the recall law is a stupid law

and it should be done away with. In this circumstance we're lucky to have it.

Guess what? Davis got elected with 44% of the vote. Was that undemocratic too?

[paulk]

25. as long as that percentage was higher

than the second place finisher, no.

California could have a situation where someone could become governer
with - 25%? of the vote. I don't see how that can be justified.

Grey Davis won the general election. He pretty much sucks. Now California wants to cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

[wtmusic]

26. No spite involved

And you're oversimplifying the odds in this case. Davis still has to lose by a majority. THEN we pick from the field by a majority. That's not 25% of the vote; Davis is losing by a clear mandate.

The recall, in the long term, can only benefit CA and Democrats nationwide.

[paulk]

33. you're completely missing the point

The recall could go through by a vote of 51-49. Right now it's running, what? 55-42? something like that. So 42% would be voting against the recall - in effect, voting for Davis.

So what are the the numbers for the 2nd part of this process? Bustamente at 25% - Arnold at 22% ? If these numbers hold true, then a candidate could easily win the governership polling at 25% - far less than the 42% who oppossed the recall. Where is the mandate in this? Last time I checked, Democracy was pretty much defined as the will of the people being reflected as a majority, not a minority!


"The recall, in the long term, can only benefit CA and Democrats nationwide."

Come on. This flies in the face of what EVERY Democratic party official , in California and nationwide, is saying. How can you possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously?

ps - I would feel the same way if it was a Republican being recalled - this recall is a disaster.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. You just disproved your point

Davis did not garner a majority last time. He only got 44% of the vote. He won by a plurality. And whoever wins the recall election will likely only win with a plurality also. You want majority rule? If a majority of voters choose to vote against the recall, Davis stays in office.

[paulk]

37. plurality/majority, whatever

He got more votes than the runner-up.

The point I'm trying to make is that the "winner" of the recall could concievably get fewer votes than the "no" vote on the recall. And to go back to the original post - how that is democratic is beyond me.

And how that is a good thing is beyond me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. I agree that it may not be a good thing

But it is democratic. Democracyis sometimes a messy process. Having a runoff election would probably make the situation better.

[wtmusic]

38. You're comparing apples to oranges

I see your point--but you're assuming that 42% would vote for Davis *in a field* of 135 candidates.

That's simplistic, because there's a huge fear factor. If Davis does indeed get 42% it will come not from support for him, but ignorance of Bustamante, fear of an inexperienced actor being our next governor, and fear of a process that has never happened in state history. Votes against a recall cannot just be blindly assigned to being 'for Davis' but against an unknown as well. Put Davis up against Bustamante and Arnie in a 3-way and (this is just a gut opinion) Bustamante would win hands down.

Democrat party officials have another factor to contend with that you're not acknowledging--party unity. They're taking that stand because they have to publicly, and it's a good one. But regardless of public pronouncements Davis will be a liability in 2004, and we have to look at practicalities if we're going to win next year.

[paulk]

41. you're comparing pears to grapefruits...

If someone is voting "no" on the recall, they are voting to keep Davis in office, right? They are, in effect, voting for Davis to be governer.

I'm not assuming 42% would vote for Davis in a field of 135. He's not running in that field. If someone wants Davis to remain as governer - they vote "no" on the recall! That's not simplistic, that's pretty damn simple!

A Republican as governor would be far more of a liability in 2004 than Davis. Geez!

It is hard to defend Davis, but he WAS elected. And this recall sets a horrible precedent, not just for CA, but for the whole nation.

[wtmusic]

42. ...kumquats to watermelons

Imagine a similar election where we have a vote first for * against Everyone Else, then a second part of the ballot for who Everyone Else might be, including porn stars, actors who can't talk, etc.

A huge part of the swing vote will go to * because of the incumbency effect (a well-proven phenomenon) most likely exacerbated by the current situation: 55 days to decide, Larry Flynt declaring himself to be the 'smut peddler who cares', etc. I will flip and agree with you that this is not democracy--but I would argue that it is unfair to a Davis challenger, not to Davis!

The only 'pub who has a chance is Arnie. And I don't think he realistically does have a chance. He's proven himself to be a complete tool by not answering questions and the far right is flipping out about his outspoken support of gay rights.

The Pragmatic Democratic Party says Yes on Recall, Yes on Bustamante.

[The_Counsel]

48. Not Quite Right....

"And you're oversimplifying the odds in this case. Davis still has to lose by a majority. THEN we pick from the field by a majority. That's not 25% of the vote; Davis is losing by a clear mandate."

True, Davis would have to lose a majority in order to be recalled; but 25% of the recall electorate is NOT a "majority". It is a "plurality" in that it's more than the others but not more than half...


"The recall, in the long term, can only benefit CA and Democrats nationwide."

Agreed. When it's done the right way and for the right reasons.

Neither applies in ths situation, IMO...

[Kahuna]

16. He just lost himelf any chance of winning.

Nobody likes a turncoat.

[joeybee12]

20. As soon as Bustament entered this farce I knew he was a worm

All his talk about a "safety net" candidate was just talk. The ONLY way to defeat this was to have NO Democrat run, and paint it as the right-wing power grab it is. Bustamente is a conniving, evil, filty little worm who saw an opportunity, just like Issa, Ah-nuld and the other toads. I hope he loses, and I hope we never hear from the putrid scum ever again.

No on Recall and nothing else!

[Wednesdays]

23. Um...could it be the press screwed up? Read the whole article, people!

This article is distorting his position! Look!

Ross backpedaled later in the day, denying that Bustamante had lopped off the first half the slogan he has carried since he announced his candidacy. He said his remarks were misinterpreted.

"To have gone all the way to the conclusion that that means we're abandoning 'no on the recall' is inaccurate," Ross said.

"Backpedaled," my ass. They took what probably was a minor off-the-record comment, and blew it way out of proportion.

(snip)

However, Bustamante never mentioned his opposition to the recall during the debate with Green Party candidate Peter Camejo and independent Arianna Huffington in Los Angeles, but insisted afterward that he was still promoting the "no recall" message.

On edit: We all know how the American press NEVER makes mistakes or distorts the truth now, do we? (Wink, wink).

[robbedvoter]

39. Then he needs to go out there and correct it or they will both fall

This is CRUCIAL.

[rocktivity]

51. Lies get halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on

...Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's campaign said Tuesday it was abandoning the "no on recall" part of its platform.

From now on, Bustamante will shift his strategy to emphasize his campaign for governor, not opposition to the recall, consultant Richie Ross told The Associated Press. Asked whether this was a conscious change in strategy, Ross said, "That's exactly what it is."

...Ross backpedaled later in the day, denying that Bustamante had lopped off the first half the slogan he has carried since he announced his candidacy. He said his remarks were misinterpreted.


Originally posted by Wednesdays:
"Backpedaled," my ass. They took what probably was a minor off-the-record comment, and blew it way out of proportion.

Notice that while the quote "That's exactly what it is" is directly attributed to Ross, the story's opening paragraph is not--no "source close to the campaign;" not even a "source speaking on the condition of anonymity". Are the person who gave the reporter this story and Mr. Ross one and the same? And they are, why doesn't the story say so?

This has the makings of a political dirty trick--and some of us fell for it.



rocknation

[David__77]

28. Bustamante opposed the recall. The media is hyping this matter!

Bustamante is campaigning as a candidate because this is a race. He is still uring no on recall, but just as Davis is focused on question one, he is focused on question two. They are not running against eachother;;Davis and Bustamante support eachother.

[Frances]

34. I live in California

and I will vote No on recall, Yes on Bustamante

Think about it. The real estate section is a big money maker for the newspapers. The newspapers want to keep this source of money.

I have a relative who works in the book keeping department of a Knight Ridder newspaper. The paper is under enormous pressure to increase ad revenue.

Knight Ridder owns the San Jose Mercury News.

Bustamante will support the Indian's rights not to have their sacred lands developed.

How could you expect the Mercury to be objective in its reporting?

[Xithras]

43. It's about time!

Nor more spineless toads in the statehouse! No more fake Democrats! No more Gray!

Vote Yes On The Recall!
Vote Yes For Bustamante!

¡Va Bustamante!

Oh, and the campaign supporters can try to "backpeddle" all they want to keep the moderates from jumping ship. I've heard Cruz speak...while he may not have "officially" abandoned his 'No On The Recall' position, he certainly isn't pushing it anymore.

[Beam Me Up]

44. was Bustamante coauthor of electric deregulation?

That got us into this mess? That's my understanding. If so, I think he may be a 'back door' candidate for the bought and paid for neocon agenda.

As a Californian I will vote No on the recall--but I have no liking for Davis (I voted for Steve Kubby, Libetarian) and I do not trust Bustamante.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. I have never heard that

Do you have a source on that?

[Beam Me Up]

50. Yes

"He (Bstamante) was, for example, one of 42 Assembly members listed as coauthors of the 1996 legislation that shaped deregulation of California's electricity industry."

Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-cruzmoney21aug21,0,2453918.story?coll=ny-nationworld-nation-utility

Google cached of above link:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:EzyofoSQCmcJ:www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-cruzmoney21aug21,0,2453918.story%3Fcoll%3Dny-nationworld-nation-utility+Bustamante+electric+deregulation&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. I'm surprised that this has not been brought up in the campaign

But with a little less than four weeks to go, I am sure that it will come up.