If Grey Davis had reregulated the Power industry he wouldn't be in trouble

[Classical_Liberal]

There wouldn't be as big of a debt, in California. He allowed Enron to extort the state of California into this budget crisis, and I don't feel sorry for him now. It is his fault, because he could have done something about it, and didn't.


The two party system wouldn't be necessary if it weren't mandated by thet Constitution. Their influence on America is a product of he proslavery electoral college, and the winner take all system, and it is just as negative as the 3/5 compromise. It hurts representative government and favors of special interest. Like the clause in thet constitution mandating that blacks only be 3/5 humans, it denies many people the opportunity to be represented in Government. Un- fortunatetly, it would take another damned civil war, to get rid of it, and I am not interestetd in that.

Frankly the Constitutional reform in California is working exactly as it was suppose to, as I see it. It is allowing the state to shake a corrupt system. It is frankly over-riding the two monopoly parties, and forcing them to answer constituants they ordinarily wouldn't care about. I no more value the status quo the two parties have induced on California than I value Plantation slavery. Anything that losens there influence or makes them answer to the lesser humans in the political system, without resulting in civil war, can't be all bad. Gray didn't do anything about Enron, not because he takes "illegal" bribes, but because bribery has been legalized through campaign cash, and lobbying efforts. If this process in California is so bad, why didn't Gray start a movement against it along time ago before it got to this point.

[Capn Sunshine]

1. F**king A!

I maintain some things should be owned by the public for the public good. Utilities are those things.

We paid for the building of the grid, IT'S OURS, g**dammit and Grey should have invoked imminent domain and siezed it.
:nuke:

[tkmorris]

2. I can't follow this

Sorry I just can't. I have yet to see the argument against Gray Davis laid out and supported with facts. I have yet to see it supported that he 'allowed' Enron or anyone else to extort the state of California. He had a choice? What was it? What SHOULD he have done instead?

[Classical_Liberal]

5. Reregulate thet power industry

That option was laid out in the very first sentence. There is no denying, that had he did that their wouldn't be a budget crisis. No payments to Enron mean less debt, period. It is very simple.

[sangha]

41. That's because you're too intelligent

to listen to the fools who think Davis can rule by decree.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Clearly Wilson is superior at governing then.

Wilson by decree put deregulation to the public as a propositon, and they barely got approval. By 1991 the public by margins of 75% turned on deregulation and wanted to reregulate, but incompotent Davis was just helpless to do anything.

[librechik]

3. couldn't happen. RW Repug legislature in CA

Infact there's really nothing Grey can do except try to influence the friends he still has. He doesn't have any power in the state. They should repeal that rule that froze the funding for schools back in 1978 for one thing. But Pukes call the shots there, so they rob the treasury and cut the services and blame it on the Dems.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. Bull, the legislature of California is Democratic

If there were corrupt buggers standing in the way thet Democrats could have campaigned to unseat them and the Californians were so mad they would have done it, and Gray wouldn't be as unpopular as he is.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Davis could have shown more leadership

When San Diego, which was used as a guinea pig in the deregulation, experienced huge rate increases ahead of the program going statewide, Davis should have stepped in and enquired if something wasn't amiss.

He didn't. However, Californians had an opportunity to pass on Davis' performance last year and re-elected him. There seems little reason to revisit the issue now.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Only because the alternatitve was another pro-deregulation republican

. Furthermore, Californians clearly have other options because of this recall amendment.

[gbwarming]

6. Oh yeah, FERC would have backed Davis up when Ken Lay shut off the lights.

NOT!

[shance]

8. LOL!*** You have to be kidding right??

Hellewwww?? Can you say Pete Wilson and deregulation?

Okay so Gray Davis may have been left ALONE to fend for himself, but you better THINK AGAIN before so ignorantly assuming it was Davis that brought this on. Thats a freepers excuse and mentality.

We the Democrats better wake up and start DEFENDING OUR OWN. If we had to begin with we wouldnt be in this problem because we would have faced off these bullies.

Face it. The Republicans cant win fair and square, so they decided to take a bat and hit California with it and are laughing all the way to the bank.

What we have to do now is VOTE NO on the recall. IT was wrong and we Dems must STICK TOGETHER. Our Democracy depends on it. George Bush and the rest want this state. And will do whatever it takes.

DEMS UNITE*********

Thats it.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. He could have reregulated when it proved to be a scam.

He didn't. Because he did nothing, when he could have, he is responsible for it. It is like watching a two year old drown in a pond. "Hey his mother wasn't watching the kid!" Not my fault. It's pretty obvious Gray wouldn't have won if his only opponant wasn't a damned republican. You can extort me into voting for a lesser dem, when I am stuck on the Plantation, but this clause in the Cali constitution frees me from this evil. I will only unite behind the Dems when my only option is is an evil repuke.

[gbwarming]

12. How? Martial Law?

Really, I don't get it.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. That is because you are a New Democrat

and like the republicans, you view government owned utilities as a Communist plot, when clearly natural monopolies should be regulated. If you don't believe that you are a free market fundamentalist, just like the republicans. You graphically illustrate my point about the lack of representation in the two party system. You represent no liberal positions, that are at odds with business interests, even when those interestst are demonstrably harmful to the public.

[redeye]

17. That was a "tad" ad hominem-ish...

...but last time I checked, gubernatorial and legislative regulations weren't martial law.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Well I am not sure who you are talking to actually

the poster I responded to brought up martial law when I spoke of reregulating the power industry as if it was the same kind of thing.

[redeye]

27. I'm talking to you

gbwarming said something with no basis in reason or facts, but not an ad hominem.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. Implying that someone who did that is an dictator is an ad hominem

.

[gbwarming]

31. I think the actual crisis stage developed too rapidly for legislation

that was my thought, admittedly not clearly expressed. Through '99 Davis took some aciton and minor reform to the system. He got more agressive in 2000, but it wasn't public knowledge that the problem was anything but a shortfall in capacity due to electricty consumption growth in the phonomenal economy. Davis took some action to accelerate plant construction. I lived in Sacramento then and I do not recall any contemporary discussion of the system being really broken before 2001.

The Bush Administration was fighting Davis at the end and power that was setting such expensive rates was coming across state lines, under FERC regulation, as I understand it.

Could Davis have gotten rid of the auction pricing system before 2001?

[Classical_Liberal]

33. No, but there is no move to reregulate the industry now either

and California is still being extorted.

[gbwarming]

22. Hogwash. You have no idea what I believe.

Read a little about the timeline before you proclaim that Davis didn't do anything.

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/BriefingBooks/Electricity/cachronology.cfm?&CFID=9275602&CFTOKEN=93786138

[Classical_Liberal]

24. He lowered the rates a couple of times, and paid Enron off.

so what? I claimed he didn't reregulate, and that is truth. I said his response was to pay extortion money to Enron, rather than reregulate, and that is the truth. Your timeline changes nothing.

[gbwarming]

32. Please see #31 for a (hopefully) better explanation of my thinking.

*

[redeye]

11. Right on

I don't directly blame Davis for the crisis, although I do blame him indirectly. He is less like the attempted-murderer who shoots someone in the street and more like the bystander with first aid training who doesn't help the victim but rather walks by as if nothing happened. He's at fault enough, however, to warrant a yes vote on the recall, even if we forget the replacement for a moment.


On another note, I think you're interpreting the 3/5ths compromise the wrong way. Basically, it didn't say that blacks were 3/5ths of a person, but rather, that states with slavery had additional power in the House due to people who couldn't vote and weren't citizens. In the Constitutional Convention, the free states favored not counting slaves at all because they weren't citizens and couldn't votes, and thus giving VA and SC additional power for the slaves was un-republican, whereas the slave states favored countign slaves fully in order to increase their power.

Returning to the original topic, it's so frustrating to try and tell people that recall is intended for the exact purposes it's used now: letting the citizens recall an elected official they've been disenchanted with. I'm a prime example of that; last year, I actually liked Davis and would've probably voted for him had I been eligible then, if only to prevent Simon from taking over. It's ironic that I am a prolific poster in DU and yet my first election will be against a Democrat...

[Classical_Liberal]

18. If the slaves can't vote, they are represented by their masters

That is what the two party mandate does as well. I say bravo to Californians for shaking it off.

[redeye]

25. Okay...

...the slaves couldn't vote, 3/5ths, wholes, or nothing. However, if a slave is not counted, then his master has one vote; if he is counted wholly, however, then his master has one vote plus one vote for every slave he has. AFAIK, in the South the policy was that masters could vote for their slaves - i.e. slaveholders had one vote plus 3/5ths of a vote for every slave they owned.

Anyway, the two-party system is pretty close to that. Libertarians have no one to vote for because economically conservative and socially liberal candidates have little chance to win; Greens and Reformers have no one to vote for, too, because their candidates are only spoilers for the Democrats and Republicans respectively, who appeal mostly to centrists and middle-of-the-roaders.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. In counting the slave enough to give the states they lived in

more representation in the house, but not enough to vote, they enhanced the power of the Plantation masters, not the slaves. Good riddence to such a perversity.

[redeye]

35. Exactly my point

If it had been impossible to enfranchise slaves, then at least they shouldn't've given their masters additional votes because of them.

[benchwarmer]

14. Davis can't reregulate

Not everyone understands california politics. Heck I don't understand it (I've only been here 3 years thoug), but the voters in a referendum approved the partial deregulation of the energy industry. Therefore, Davis had no mandate to re-regulate. He didn't have the power, because the voters didn't give him the power. The truth about California is this: about 40% of the budget is not under the control of the Governor or the Legislature. It is voter mandated money that goes directly to ballot-initiative approved measures.

What has happened in California is that we vote yes on virtually any initiative that we think benefits us but never vote to raise funding to pay for it. In short, the budget crisis is our fault. Recall the california voting public. There's a campaign for you.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. Wrong, he could have reregulated the power industry

The experiment failed and was unpopular therefore people would have supported him. Public opinion had changed, thus he could have reregulated it. He could have even put it to referendum again.

[newyawker99]

36. Hi benchwarmer!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. exactly right - a lesson for pro-corporate Democrats

this is what happens when you screw over your base.

[redeye]

23. Not so much the base...

...as the people; had Davis really screwed up the CA Democratic base, Simon would've now been governor and there would've been no recall. You don't get approval rates below Nixon's at his zenith by screwing up your base, but by screwing up the people in general.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. The people at times in history have been thet Democrats base

now they just care about socially liberal republicans. I like the fact that Gray has to look at the non business people as his base again.

[benchwarmer]

19. What?!

"He allowed Enron to extort the state of California into this budget crisis, and I don't feel sorry for him now. It is his fault, because he could have done something about it, and didn't."

You know, like many people I have no love for Gray Davis. I don't know the guy, he's a distant cold political figure that hides in his office enacting policy, but I voted for him because up untill the dot-com crash, energy crisis, and 9-11, California was doing very well. Also, Bill Simon was a psycho conservative.

California is the victim of all the same economic turndown that the rest of the country is, and quite frankly most of the world right now.

Blaming Davis for Enron reaming the california public? That's complete bull. That's like saying it was the woman's fault for beign brutaly raped just because of the way she was dressed.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. So you had to have an evil republican to vote for Gray

That is the damned point. It is more like holding big Grey responsible for watching a feeble little puke rape a paralysed person, without calling the police or physically defending that person. Grey Davis isn't the victim.

[mix68]

26. seriously, given the stakes

grey davis is a disgrace

his prison addiction and failure to re-regulate the energy industry show how irrelevant the pro-corporate (repug version) right-wing dlc dems are

as we sink and sink

i hope in CA progressives can draw a line in the sand against these batards fiends swine

[Classical_Liberal]

34. I think that there will be a higher voter tunout in the recall than

there was two years ago.

[Classical_Liberal]

37. kick

:kick:

[slackmaster]

38. He should have listened to Senator Diane Feinstein

The woman I love to hate.

She advised Davis to stay out of it and let the market handle the situation.

[MaverickX]

39. they would've called him a socialist..

And still recalled him.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. The public was 75% in favor of reregulation

He would have been enormously popular if he had done that, but I am sure Enron, and Alliant would have called him 'socialist" boohoo! No way would there be a recall if he had done that, and he wouldn't be going down in the recall leastways. He would have 75% popularity rating instead of 20%

[dolstein]

40. How, by waving his magic re-regulation wand?

Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder whether they teach government in schools anymore.

Any attempt to repeal the de-reguation statute would have, at a minimum, required some action by the state legislation (and I believe that Davis tried for a long time to get the legislature to act), and would likely have been subject to numerous court challenges by the energy industry.

[Merlin]

43. How about taking them to court. Again and again.

Don't you believe in fighting against anything connected with the establishment, no matter how wrong?

The energy companies colluded to rip CA off for $34 billion. They have not been held accountable. It was Davis's job to bring them to justice and to get that money back. He didn't want to fight. He deserves the ignominy owed to a coward.

[dolstein]

47. Actually, silly, Davis DID take this to court

He sued the FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Action) for failing to act in the face of obvious market manipulation. He sued to void the energy contracts the state signed at the height of the energy crisis.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. I thought going to court was a bad thing. Make up your mind

anyway, he could have changed things just like Ferc, but he was irresponsible and wanted Enron campaign cash.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. He had a democrat legistature and an angry public that wanted it

He could have also resubmitted it to referendum. Failing to grasp this popular issue was incompetant.

[sangha]

46. You mean

they didn't teach you about the magic re-regulation wand when you were in school?

Boy, the schools really are messed up. Whip out the wand! RE-REGULATE THE SCHOOLS!!

[Classical_Liberal]

49. Given the political climate in California it would have been easy

Davis just didn't want to try it, or the would have tried.

[Merlin]

42. Right on. He should be screaming bloody murder against them now.

They ripped CA off for 34 Billion. They did it illegally. They're being given a pass. That's not leadership. That's cowardice.

He has earned his predicament.