Camejo is the only one who can fix California

[waldenx]

How would you have handled last year's energy crisis differently?

"First of all, what Davis did was utter incompetence. He went and wrote a $43 billion check to a whole bunch of energy companies. It’s unbelievable. In six months, was worth about $11 billion. That’s a world record. That’s the worst investment ever made in the history of humanity. I would never have done that without hedging. Now hedging means you buy insurance on it. That would be very easy to do. ... Something I have been saying that I would have done, which neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have said anything about, would be to call a meeting of the owners of these companies, which is the pension funds. And I would have proposed to the pension funds that every one of these companies, the four or five key ones that were creating the problems, that we simply vote out their boards, replace their management and put law-abiding citizens in charge. That would have solved the problem immediately. And we wouldn’t be now negotiating contracts with them. In fact, we could do that today. We don’t have to just look to the past. If I become governor, we will do that. We will kick out the board of El Paso and of Reliant and of Calpine, and we will put law-abiding citizens in there, and we will rip up those contracts."

[NJCher]

1. where did you find this?

Cher

[waldenx]

3. link

http://www.votecamejo.org/issues/energy.php

[Iverson]

2. overstatement

I'm sure that Camejo would be fine. There are also other Green candidates on the ballot; Arianna Huffington is on it, and there has been plenty of talk of endorsement by Camejo; in theory, any candidate could advocate sensible energy policies that don't include letting Enron et al fleece the state.

There is nothing magic about Camejo that would make him the only competent one.

[cherryperry]

4. That's exactly the problem!

The recall will be voted "yes"; the democrats will then vote for their personal favorites and we will be rule by the terminator. I'm just pleased as punch aaaaaaaaagggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

The ocean and the climate and the mountains and the San Francisco Bay Area vs. this craziness. I don't know if it's worth it anymore . . . I'm telling you; I've about had it!

OK: Father Guido Sarducci for Governor!


:argh:

[Warpy]

8. Aw, let the dumb robot win

Nobody will be able to fix California's mess, including Ah-nuld, while the lege refuses to raise taxes on movie stars and sports hasbeens and real estate barons. Ah-nuld will undoubtedly get all sorts of "advisors" who will pressure him to raise sales taxes, real estate taxes, and everything that hits working folks disproportionately. Do you know what this will do to the GOP in California, especially when cuts in services still increase every month?

Those SOBs will be lucky to win offices in Palm Springs.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Oh yes and that would have happened.

:eyes: Camejo sounds like he has been taking governing lessons from Arnold's movies :eyes: Yeah he would have done that all in the time frame that Davis secured the contracts in order to create stability for the business environment.

Frankly the contracts signed were too high but the true evidence of the FRAUD was not available until nearly a year later.

Our bond rating had already been lowered indicating the cost of borrowing money alone was going to be a built in tax based on any deficits...there's more that's Green about Camejo than his party affiliation .

[Julien Sorel]

11. It's actually a little scary.

He's talking about getting the pension funds to force a change of the boards of directors for these companies. How incredibly naive and pointless. Pension fund managers have a responsibility to run their funds, not to get involved in political squabbles. The pension funds own shares in the energy companies that are profiting from all this, so when the companies prosper, their funds prosper, but Camejo expects them to play along with his idiot plan? What the hell has he been smoking? They would have laughed in his face. This is the best the Greens have in California? And Greens actually take this ignoramus seriously?

[Pepperbelly]

21. and, on top of that ...

where does this guy get the notion that with some pension funds, he could leverage control of those huge companies? Give me a break.

[Julien Sorel]

27. Pension funds have, by far,

the most money invested in the stock market. It isn't a majority, iirc, but it's a plurality. The problem with his stupid plan is that, like everyone else, pension funds are in the market to make money, but by going along with his plan, they would lose money. It is probably actually illegal for some of them to do something so obviously adverse to the interest of the money they manage.

A perfect Green scenario:

Camejo gets elected, goes to the pension funds, gets them to buy into his scheme. Their funds lose money as a result, and then Camejo and the Greens turn around and attack the pension funds for mismanaging the retirement savings of the little people, yet another example of corporate mismanagement. And it would happen, if the fund managers were just half as stupid and naive as Camejo and his supporters are.

[Pepperbelly]

28. this guy doesn't control the pension funds and the ownership of the ...

different companies is each different.

He is blueskying.

There are other words for it but I will try to contain my contempt.

[Julien Sorel]

32. Exactly. See my post #11.

I still can't believe there are people on this earth who take Camejo seriously. This little plan alone should be enough to get him laughed into lockup until he starts taking his meds again.

[David__77]

6. That's from 2002. Now we have Bustamante.

And I think progressives have good reason to support him, not because it's pragmatic to do so, but because of his stand on the issues--for paid family leave, civil unions, higher taxes on the wealthy (instead of the working poor) and so on.

[eablair3]

10. Bustamante is Lieberman's campaign chair - and he's "progressive"?

If Cruz Bustamante is so "progressive", how is it that he is the State Chair for Joe Lieberman's campaign for President? that, .... is inconsistent to say the least. explain that one.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/lieberman/lieborgca.html

http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5297&JServSessionIdr009=i0n0l4ezca.app2a&news_iv_ctrl=1001

actions apeak louder than words, ... and Cruz B is behind Lieberman. Unbelievable. The only choice is the DLC backing Cruz B. I'd rather have Larry Flynt. The Greens and Camejo keep looking better.

[David__77]

17. Why not post more on defeating recall...

Not to be too shitty, but at least a couple of your 18 posts have been simple repetition of this fact. So what? Yes, on the policies, he is a progressive. He supports paid family leave, civil unions, abortion rights, supports affirmative action, increasing the relative tax burden on the wealthy, and on and on.

This is not the presidential race. This the CA governor's race.

Please, I urge you to contribute to defeating the recall or presenting a positive viewpoint.

[eablair3]

37. i'll post what I want to post

I'm not going to post on defeating the recall, as I haven't decided yet. I may and probably will vote to get Davis out of office. I don't blame Davis for the budget crisis and the state of affairs in California generally.

But, I do blame him for the big money, DLC-type approach he has taken in California. Davis has been bought by special interests. People pay him money and they quickly get their coastal development permits that are pending before the Coastal Commission. People pay him money, and they get certain lucrative contracts. People like lobbyists representing banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions pay him money, and he vetos consumer financial privacy legislation. Over 90% of the electorate (perhaps 95%) are in favor of this financial privacy legislation being pushed by democrats like Jackie Speier, yet Gray is bought out and opposes, or doesn't favor it, after getting paid off. Geez, even "60 Minutes II" did a segment on it a week or two ago interviewing those dems who said the guy has been paid off.

you post the way you want. I'll post what I want.

screw Gray Davis.

[Alexander]

49. You sound like a Republican

So I'm not surprised you're trying to get one elected in California.

[eablair3]

51. one is already in office

we already have a Repug in the Governor's office in California masquerading as a "liberal Dem" and fooling everyone while he backs the banks, insurance companies and big financial institutions against over 90-95% of the people.

[ronnykmarshall]

22. Some one check the needle!

This record is stuck!

Can you PLEASE move on? Cruz supports Lieberman? Big f'ing deal! Here's a newsflash, I support Cruz and don't support Lieberman!!!

So please let me know what catagory you place ME in!

[eablair3]

38. Lieberman should be a Repug

well, that's good that you don't support Lieberman, and therefore I wouldn't put you in Cruz Bustamante's category. But, unfortunately, you're not running for Governor in the recall (or are you?)

95 Democrats are running, ... that's the last I heard.

[sangha]

7. Typical Green propoganda

Blame the Dems and ignore the Bush* crimes

[waldenx]

14. wrong

I am not a Green, I am a communist.
And Davis deserves the blame or the recall wouldn't have happened.
It is interesting that the Democratic Party feels that winning is more important than solving problems. In every case, your party DEMANDS people vote for them while standing for nothing, never having solutions, trying to please the corporate pirates and ignoring the working class.

Voting for a Democrat in this recall is the same as "Ignoring Bush crimes."

[sandnsea]

9. Support the overthrow of democracy, good plan

I swear I do not understand people at all. I would never want to be in a bunker with an awful lot of people on this board, they'd be too busy arguing while the bomb falls right on their head.

This is simple. No on recall, Yes on Bustamante. Period. If you believe in Democratic elections and believe that you had one last November, that's all there is to discuss. This recall is a fraud against the people of California and it needs to be rejected. Splitting the Democratic vote or even acting as if this is any sort of *real* election is letting Republicans win. It's not an election, it's a coup. Reject it. No on recall, Yes on Bustamante.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. You might not like it

But it IS an election. It IS legal.

I'm OK with your vote choices, but I disagree with your diatribe. True, this is an unusual use for the recall, but it's legit and it represents about one million people. Nowhere does it say that the previous election didn't count. People simply get to vote again. Vote correctly and none of the cast of thousands gets elected.

[Julien Sorel]

18. Yet another progressive position of yours.

That makes, let me count them -- zero.

People simply get to vote again. Vote correctly and none of the cast of thousands gets elected.

Wooohooo! People get to vote again! It's an honor, an opportunity, not the result of a fuckup, the political manouvering of a wealthy few people who were able to buy the signatures of a million people. The ultimate in silver-lining thinking, but this cloud doesn't have one. The recall might have been legal, but that doesn't make it 'legit.' The law wasn't meant to be used this way, and this recall is wasting millions of dollars, and the energies of a lot of people, for the purpose of subverting, yet again, the electoral process. That might be 'legit' to you, but it's absolutely il-'legit' to me. I feel fortunate I don't live in California any longer; I'd have busted a blood vessel over this charade by now.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Holy Crap

That's two we agree on, Billy. Two in one day. Must be a sign of the impending apocalypse. ;-)

DTH

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Thank you

This is not democracy. This is yet another example of a well-financed organization subverting democracy.

[sandnsea]

26. NO it is a coup, bought and paid for

If a gas station attendant in Oakhurst had begun a campaign, raised funds, gathered signatures and the movement grew; I'd agree with you. That's not what happened.

Money paid people to stand around and gather signatures. Money paid to spread propaganda about the deficit and never included the fraud or the little fact that George Bush's own state has a deficit almost as bad as California's and with no similar Enron fraud to blame it on.

Legal doesn't make something right. This is not right and should be rejected by anyone who wants their vote to count and wants their vote to be secure from overthrow by whoever has the most money.

[Skinner]

15. Agreed.

This is simple. No on recall, Yes on Bustamante. Period. If you believe in Democratic elections and believe that you had one last November, that's all there is to discuss. This recall is a fraud against the people of California and it needs to be rejected.

Thank you.

[cherryperry]

31. This will be the way I ACTUALLY vote, however,

all the choices, the democrats not getting together to have all dems except Bustamante remove their names, the several-page non-alphabetic ballots with CHADS all conspire to go down in history as a big fat mess scares the whatever out of me! (ACLU is suing for delay until punch cards can be replaced, ie March 4.)


:hi: :shrug: :kick:

[Terwilliger]

20. I'm not arguing about anything...vote for the better candidate

not for the party, the cause, or the perceived threat of fascism

I know that doesn't sit well with the sheep crowd, but if being American teaches me anything it teaches me this...there's nothing in the constitution that decrees two parties shall be the only representation available, NOR does it say that our democracy and our republic rely on voting for one party or another.

Only thing I can figure is that liberals and progressives have been married to the idea of two parties for so long, it hasn't even occurred to them that these parties might not truly represent them. I would hope, for the sake of a progressive populace, that that turns out to be true.

Funny, we HAVE to be Dem or Repuke, but WOE IS ANYBODY WHO TAKES UP SIDES. Makes sense to me :nuke:

[sandnsea]

24. It's NOT an election

The election was held in November, the Democratic candidate won, the Governor should remain Democratic. It's not appropriate for every third party to use this situation as an opportunity to steal something they didn't rightfully earn.

No on recall. Yes on Bustamante.

[Terwilliger]

30. Im not asking a third-party to steal it

I'm thinking that the Democrats can't hold on to it.

[sandnsea]

46. Everybody votes Bustamante, how can they lose it?

If you believe a Democratic governor was elected in November, then it's your responsibility to democracy to vote for Bustamante. There isn't anything else to discuss.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Wrong

I agree that this is an abuse of the recall process and that alone justifies a No vote.

However, it is still a recall election. Anybody registered to vote in California who forks over $3500 and turns in a petition with 65 valid signatures may run as a replacement candidadte. It is an open election.

I will vote for the candidate most likely to deny the Republ;icans a victory in the replacement vote. Right now that looks like Bustamante. In eight and a half weeks, it might be Camejo or Arianna or Georgy Russell.

[sandnsea]

45. Only if you decide to be part of the fraud

If the Democrats in California would quit pretending this is really a legitimate election, maybe the people would finally understand.

You play their game, you've already lost. There's no legitimate 'field of candidates' to choose from.

No on recall, Yes for Bustamante.

[eablair3]

39. do that and support fascism

everyone has to fall in line. Vote "no on the Recall. Yes on Bustamante." If not, you're not supporting democracy? What a bunch of crap.

There are not democratic elections now. Gray Davis didn't get a majority of the vote last November. That's the problem. He's governing when most of those who voted, actually voted against him. A minority of the voters put him in office. There needs to be reform so that those in office are actually elected by a majority of the voters. The Dems have had the chance to push for this but they have not. Why have the Dems not promoted a democratic reform that includes the winner of an election being required to get 50% of the vote?

You say that a recall is against democracy. I say it is democracy in action. If more than half the electorate want the politician out, the politician is out. The people speak. To say a recall is anti-democratic or a fraud is hypocritical.

I will say that I am not entirely comfortable on how this got on the ballot in that it was by the use of money and paid signature gatherers. But, why don't the Dems who are in power outlaw the use of paid signature gatherers? I noticed that the Greens have advocated outlawing paid signature gatherers in initiatives, referenda, and recalls. It's in their platform, iirc. Why can't the Dems do this since they hold every state elected office in the California? Where is this in the Dem platform? Why are the Dems not promoting this type of democratic, populist reform? please tell.

you know why the Dems won't push for these reforms? it's likely because, as Willie Brown said, ... if the recall succeeds for the Repugs, then the Dems will pour money into their own recall of whomever wins. money talks. principles be damned. democracy be damned.

[Julien Sorel]

42. Sloppy reasoning.

There are not democratic elections now. Gray Davis didn't get a majority of the vote last November. That's the problem. He's governing when most of those who voted, actually voted against him.

They didn't necessarily vote against Davis, but for their own candidate. It's an important point, particularly for this recall, and one that anyone should have picked up on.

You say that a recall is against democracy. I say it is democracy in action. If more than half the electorate want the politician out, the politician is out. The people speak. To say a recall is anti-democratic or a fraud is hypocritical.

You talk about making it a requirement that 50% of the people support a candidate, but then support this recall, where a plurality of only 25% could end up picking the next governor of the state. What happened to your preference for the majority?

The rest of your post is pretty much equally shitty; I'm not going to waste my time ripping it up. Davis won the regularly scheduled election against all comers; that's democracy, as the system currently works. This recall is a few well-connected and well-financed people abusing a loophole in the system to reverse a democratic decision, which amounts to plutocracy -- or worse. You have the right to support it (for now), but at least put more thought into the reasons why you support it.

[eablair3]

43. avoiding the issues

a recall takes more than 50% of the voters to vote the politician out. what is more democratic than that?

you avoid the fact that Davis was elected by a minority of voters. The majority voted for others, not Davis.

and, most importantly, you avoid confronting the questions I posed. Why do the Dems not support a reform to the system of voting requiring a candidate to get more than 50% of the vote to win an election? (i know that is hard for some to comprehend -- to actually have a true majority pick a winner.) And, then you completely avoided confronting why the Dems are not advocating doing away with paid signature gatherers in initiative, referenda and recalls. What's a matter?

your post is pretty much bankrupt, ... just like Gray Davis.

"to heck with principles, good government and good democractic reforms .... as long as we can stay in power."

[Julien Sorel]

44. You're just saying the same things.

They didn't vote against Davis; they voted for other candidates. And it wasn't a 'minority' who voted for Davis, but a plurality; in the system in place, that's what counts. Please make certain you even understand the way the system works, something I doubt with each of your posts.

and, most importantly, you avoid confronting the questions I posed. Why do the Dems not support a reform to the system of voting requiring a candidate to get more than 50% of the vote to win an election? (i know that is hard for some to comprehend -- to actually have a true majority pick a winner.) And, then you completely avoided confronting why the Dems are not advocating doing away with paid signature gatherers in initiative, referenda and recalls. What's a matter?

I didn't 'avoid' confronting your proposals; I ignored them because they are totally meaningless to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about the benefits of requiring >50% to conclude an election, start a thread on it; this thread is about the recall. The two have nothing to do with each other, unless you want to play some kind of masturbatory 'what if' game. I have better things to do.

As for 'doing away with paid signature gatherers,' to do so would actually be anti-democratic, since there is certainly a place for that sort of thing in a democracy, and few people can do it for free. The problem isn't the signature gatherers; it's the law that was abused to start this recall. This was another example of you fixing on the irrelevant, and one of the reasons your post was so awful.

[eablair3]

50. Recall -- democratic, legality and "abuse"

>>>As for 'doing away with paid signature gatherers,' to do so would actually be anti-democratic, since there is certainly a place for that sort of thing in a democracy, and few people can do it for free. The problem isn't the signature gatherers; it's the law that was abused to start this recall. This was another example of you fixing on the irrelevant, and one of the reasons your post was so awful.<<<

If you are okay with paid signature gatherers which allow those few or one individual or entity with lots of money to get these things on the ballot, how do you contend that "the law ... was abused to start this recall"? Is it that paid signature gatherers are okay as long as you agree with what they are being paid for and are doing? But, if an individual of another party uses paid signature gatherers on something you don't agree with, then "the law is being abused"? Now, I see your position. You fit right in with the hypocritical, establishment Dems that back Gray Davis and have no or few principles.

Doing away with paid signature gatherers so that big money can't pay for getting issues on the ballott and have recalls is "anti-democratic"? yeah, right. thanks for exposing your position so clearly.

Please do tell how outlawing paid signature gatherers paid by one or two wealthy interests to get what they want on the ballott is "anti-democratic".

>>>I didn't 'avoid' confronting your proposals; I ignored them because they are totally meaningless to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about the benefits of requiring >50% to conclude an election, start a thread on it; this thread is about the recall. The two have nothing to do with each other, unless you want to play some kind of masturbatory 'what if' game. I have better things to do,<<<

The reason a reform of having a majority (more than 50%) be required for someone to win an election is directly related to the recall issue. With the rise of the Greens and other third parties in California, neither the Dems' nor the Repugs' candidates are likely to get a majority of the vote. With candidates winning with less than a majority (i.e. plurality as you like to call it), there is going to be increasing opportunity to use the recall as the majority of voters will have actually voted for others and not for the "winner". It'll be the never-ending recall. If the Dems would pass a good reform like requiring a winner to get a majority of the vote, then the use of the recall is substantially less. If the system stays like it is, then the few with money will pay signature gatherers to get the necessary signatures to get continuous recalls on the ballott. Willie Brown even said that this is next if the Repugs succeed with this recall.

Seems like it would be in the Dems interest to pass a reform to require a majority to win. It would deter recalls.

[sandnsea]

47. Buying a recall is democracy in action?

Why vote at all. To hell with it. Auction each office off to the highest bidder and be done with the whole damn thing.

You do not deserve a democracy.

[eablair3]

52. agreed, paid signature gatherers need to outlawed

see my posts above to BillyBathtub or whatever his name is. I don't want to repeat them. BillyB says that there is a place for buying recalls, as he thinks paid signature gatherers are okay, as long as they do what he wants.

why are the Dems not making a needed reform like this to promote more and better democracy and limiting the big monied interests?

I noticed that the Greens have this in their platform. Why are the Dems not getting behind something like this if they think the process is so anti-democratic?

[sandnsea]

53. They are in Oregon

I have no idea why not in California, but I bet they will pretty dang soon!!!

[dolstein]

13. If Camejo is this dishonest, why are Greens supporting him?

What alternative did Gray Davis have to entering into long-term contracts with the energy supplies? Please, somebody explain this too me. Davis first sought to get the FERC to intervene, but it refused to do so. Davis even took them to court. Meanwhile, the state utilities were going bankrupt, and the spot market prices were soaring. While Davis instituted a massive program to bring new power generators on-line, as well as an aggressive conservation program, it wasn't enough to stabilize the energy market. The ONLY way to do that was to enter into long-term contracts, which would remove the incentive suppliers had to game the system. Of course the price went down after the state entered into the contracts (Paul Krugman predicted as much) -- once the state's long-term energy needs had been satisfied, naturally there wasn't any more demand to drive the prices higher.

And sorry, the pension funds may have owned stock of PGE (stock which was rapidly becoming worthless as PGE headed towards bankruptcy), but they certainly didn't control the energy suppliers from whom the utility purchased the energy.

Sorry, but his Camejo guy sounds like a real idiot. It's also obvious that he's a lying bastard to boot.

[StopTheMorans]

16. If Camejo is this dishonest, why are Greens supporting him?

answer is contained in your question;)

[Terwilliger]

40. yes it is contained in his question

his question is the reason

[RichM]

23. The orig. post contains the exact answer to your question.

Camejo is saying that instead of JUST buying the energy contracts, he would ALSO have hedged them, which means either buying a "put" option on them, or some similar maneuver. Davis was clearly well aware he was being forced to buy the energy contracts at a price that was a result of market manipulation, thus he might easily have suspected that the price was unsustainably high.

Suppose you buy 100 shares of IBM but you really suspect the price may drop within a few months of your purchase. If you buy a "put" on the shares & the shares do indeed decline, you lose temporarily on the stock but the gain in the put option offsets this loss.

That's the kind of thing Camejo is suggesting. Incidentally, he was an investment banker, earlier in his career -- that's who you are calling a "real idiot" for his views on things financial. He's probably a lot less of an idiot on these matters than you are. (Interestingly, Camejo was a Trotskyist member of the SWP before entering the financial world!)

[Democat]

25. Green party supports the bullshit Bush backed right wing recall?

Did anyone expect anything less?

[Iverson]

29. correction

Your question, which you treat as a proven statement for the purpose of indulgent Green-bashing, is not borne out by the evidence.

I posted this earlier on another thread:

""Our voice must be heard!," asserted Camejo, who acknowledges that the recall was engineered by wealthy Republicans.
"Some Democrats and a few Greens have suggested we should not run, and instead oppose the recall. To do so, in my opinion, only helps the Republicans. We say no to the Republican anti-democratic special election maneuver, as well as the Democratic Party betrayal of its social base. We favor holding the recall election in March 2004, not November 2003. In March, millions more will participate.""

While this is not exactly kissing Dem butts, it is a clear and direct opposition to Republicans.

I expect nothing less.

[Capn Sunshine]

35. Well, that's a sure fire path to hard money ,Camejo

Hard money charges 15-22% for bond financing when the traditional banks view the credit risk as too great. I think fucking over a bunch of connected energy companies just MIGHT ppiss off a few folk in Wall Street.

Davis is pursuing this in court. He already obtained a decision from FERC stating that the companies acted in bad faith.

Everybody is guilty of believing the worst about this guy because he didn't feel the need to respond to disinformation.

[xequals]

36. let me get this clear

Some of you are advocating the defeat of Democrats ? .. on a Democratic website ?

The Greens are an opposition party, as much as the Republicans. No difference to me.

IMO, all Green disruptors should be banned as quickly as conservative disruptors.

Vote NO on the recall, YES on Bustamante.

[robbedvoter]

41. Oh, goody, I just finished this cream pie...

Does any of you LaLa Land citizens remember the voluntary black out on June 21, 2001? Davis went on Leno to announce it. I remember it, cuz I participated in it.
Does anyone remember when Davis confronted Cheney when he came to give the finger to Cali? You should, because , just like your patron saint, Cheney got pied too.
Do you remember when Davis got FERC to investigate Enron and renegociated the contracts?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. Yes and renegotiated contracts the FERC should NOT have

upheld which they later did and will get challenged if DAVIS IS IN office pursuing it.