Jacques Chirac and Grey Davis

[RogueTrooper]

Early last year Jacques Chirac won the French Presidential election with 83% of the vote. A magnificent landslide, you might think. However, behind that landslide figure lies a story and a fabel.

The story is that Jacques Chirac stood against a Fascist and all France rose up to vote against this evil man. Jean-Marie Le Pen was heavily defeated. A great portion of Chirac's vote came from the French left. The reason they voted for a man they loathed was to defeat fascism. Some of them showered after they voted, such was their disgust. Some of them had a couple of glasses of France's most famous export, to steady them through the dreadfull dead. Some of them looked at the fascist alternative and just went out and voted.

Grey Davis is the victim of a Republican conspiracy. Whatever you think of Grey Davis, remember this; he is not a fascist. The people he is fighting for his political life, are. I have seen a fair few posters, on DU, campaigning for a yes vote on the recall. I would say this to you: Remember Jacques Chirac and what the French left had to do defeat fascism.

On the 7th of October, when you vote, remember who we fight.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Thanks and nice to see you posting!

Were you away for a while?

[RogueTrooper]

2. Hey NMSA!!!

Nice to hear from you :hi:

Not realy away but due to some technical problems unable to post. DU has been a window shopping experience for the last couple of weeks.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Lord that would frustrate me to no end.

Reading but unable to comment.

[RogueTrooper]

4. Twas the rtials of Job himself

However, you can do this now...

:yourock: nmsa

[mitchtv]

5. to those that post such bilge-yes on recall

I try to slap'm down each and every time. treachery thy name is ------. No liberal in his right mind would be pulling this shit.It's getting too late in the game for disruption. Get with it or get out of here, I say.

[Kellanved]

6. The French left did the right thing in the end

But going to the first election and sending Jospin against Chirac would have been far better.(they believed it would be Jospin vs Chirac regardless of them voting or not)
Why do more left voters stay at home than right/centrist because of weather and/or the perceived unimportance of the election?
AFAIK it's an international phenomenon.

[Joseph Conrad]

7. This is why.

Leftists are either more poor (cannot afford to leave work) or more cynical (believing their vote doesn't mean jack, which most of the time, it doesn't in this "democracy").

Speaking of socialism, why are there no significant socialist international parties in America? Sure, the Democrats are OK, but I would trust a party that is member of the Socialist International more. How about you?

[Cocoa]

9. some left rhetoric contributes to it

people like Noam Chomsky offer very valuable critiques of our government, and very validly and honestly include both parties.

But when they suggest the idea that there is no difference between the parties, even though they're "correct" in theory, when it comes to leading people to decide not to vote it's counterproductive.

[eleny]

19. Cocoa

I'm not in California. But I wanted to weigh in on your other point and do agree that not voting is counterproductive. Guess I'm not a nihilist.

In recent days, I've been researching and have seen evidence of what Chomsky is saying in central Europe. In Yugoslavia, daddy Bush started their disintigration into civil war but Clinton finished it. So under the skin, the parties are willing to be on the same page.

I don't go along with the "well, we're into it so we have to stay the course" philosophy. Reversing course may be difficult in any scenario. But I have to wonder and ask the question that if it's the same price to wage a reversal of policy and fix messes as to continue a conflict, why not do it? Both parties seem more interested in shedding blood than waging peace.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with the Cal recall.:dunce:

[Cocoa]

26. regarding Yugoslavia

I have not researched this but speaking as an extremely casual follower of that war, it's basically over now isn't it? For years it seemed to be a totally intractable situation, people were saying that the ethnic hatred was so great that there would never be peace in Yugoslavia. But it's over now, and Milosevic is on trial.

[AP]

22. Were you aware of the media coverage of this election...

...they spent a year trying to keep people home.

This, I'm sure, was part of the plan with Arnold in CA. The first strategy was to make everyone think it was joke, hoping people wouldn't want to participate in the circus. I think the right has been taken by surprise by the interest the left has taken in the recall. I think they've had to try a plan B as a result.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. The Chirac election is a fascinating topic.

And it merges well with the Cali recall. It also merges well with the 2000 election. "The lesser of two evils." Davis/Simon. Chirac/Le Pen. Chimp/Gore/Nader. Fascinating. Now I have to do more thinking, damn you. :(

[wtmusic]

10. I support the recall

and am only willing to listen to those who can admit a Democrat can screw up.

Jacques Chirac won with 83%, Grey Davis with 44% (a 5% margin). Where's your comparison? 25% of California Dems are for the recall and it has nothing to do with right-wing propaganda--it has to do with our governor running the state into the ground.

I don't give a damn who started it. The recall can only help Democrats here and nationwide as well. Are you aware many Republicans are now against the recall? Check this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=288636

In CA we happen to have a law that allows us to remove the governor for basically whatever reason we want. Ya don't like it? Then change it, but that's the way it is. That said, are you prepared to tell me why Davis deserves to be governor? I mean specifics, not that he was elected, which is a done deal. Are you prepared to tell me what in the hell would prevent it from becoming a landslide for Bustamante--a responsible, respected, minority voice? If so, I'm all ears. If you're going to spout on about fascism blah blah blah you're just another idealogue who doesn't live here and you don't know what you're talking about.

[madfloridian]

11. Doesn't matter if he has not done a good job...he was elected legally.

That recall is going against a democratic society.

[wtmusic]

15. Really? Is there something undemocratic about a vote,

or being responsible to your electorate? Please explain.

[AP]

25. Actually, more and more -- LA senate '02, Chirac '02, and CA '03 --

the right is taking advantage of running multiple candidates to upset democracy.

I guarantee you that more than 51% of the French population would consider Jospin closer to their politics than Chirac.

The only reason Chirac won was because the media kept people home for the first round vote (it's true that they thought, why vote in this round, I'll vote for Jospin in the final round), and the fascists were able to covertly organize their base in that environment.

Look at LA too. The right knew they just needed to get the Dem below 50% and there'd be a runoff. Perhaps 42% of the voters would show up and vote for the democrat no matter what. The next 12% probably would vote for Republican if they found one they liked. So what did the Republicans do? They kept throwing in another candidate until the peeled away enough voters to get their runoff. If the runoff would have swung control of the senate, you know the Republicans would have put all their forces together and would have won that race (but it didn't, so they only put togehter 2/3rds of their forces and lost).

So, more and more, the Republicans are exploiting the mechanisms of democracy to come to undemocratic results, and the media is helping a great deal.

They're doing the same thing in CA -- they're combining many strategies -- and the media is helping a great deal.

[wtmusic]

32. I totally agree with you this is a manufactured ploy

by the right, and it is about to blow up in their face.

Arnold is a joke and I wouldn't vote for the recall if I thought he had any chance of winning (again, if this changes, I may vote no). But CA needs Cruz now. Keeping Davis will ensure the real possibility that the state could go Republican next year.

[AP]

hoping that Davis looses is an implicit endorsement of these underhanded..

tactics. For the sake of democracy, I hope the results of the last democratic election stand. If I want someone else to take over, I'll take it up in the next democratic primary and election.

[wtmusic]

36. I agree with you in principle

You could apply the same argument to TX redistricting. There needs to be a constitutional amendment that prevents redistricting more often than every ten years--if they have to go through this bullshit every year nothing else would get done.

The same is true of California recall laws. I actually think they're a bad idea. But in this particular case--they are legal and they will backfire. I think we need to look beyond the source to the result.

[AP]

34. hoping that Davis looses is an implicit endorsement of these underhanded..

tactics. For the sake of democracy, I hope the results of the last democratic election stand. If I want someone else to take over, I'll take it up in the next democratic primary and election.

[mitchtv]

54. what's undemocratic is that Davis needs 50% or more to

prevail what will happen is a minor candidat with perhaps millions of votes less than davis will getin with say 30% of the votes versus Davis'43%- that kids is UNDEMOCRATIC. and you sound like someone intend on disrupting our campaign to keep California Demodratic

[mitchtv]

55. what's undemocratic is that Davis needs 50% or more to

prevail what will happen is a minor candidate with perhaps millions of votes less than davis will get in with say 30% of the votes versus Davis'43%- that kids is UNDEMOCRATIC. and you sound like someone intend on disrupting our campaign to keep California Democratic.

[sangh0]

60. Yes, there is something undemocratic about THIS vote

Davis requires 50%+ to win, while everyone else just needs to beat the others.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Recall.

I'm torn between direct Democracy(Recall) and Representative Republic. If ChimpCo wasn't involved, I'd probably lean Recall.

When I was 18, I met Davis on a television set, in the Greenroom, during his early years in Cali politics. He was a pathetic joke, even then. In 1999 I met a pathetic joke named Chimp. Chimpy wants California to be a Red state so that he can launch an assault on the Electoral College for his "re-election." Now I have to decide between "the lesser of two evils." Easy call. Davis just became less of a joke.

[RogueTrooper]

13. Then you support fascism

it is as simple as that. ( not you RiF, sorry, the reply is ment for a poster upstream ).

[wtmusic]

14. Please explain?

or is this just the spouting I referred to in my post (maybe you didn't read it).

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. I believe the burden is on you to prove that the governor is who ran the

state into the ground. I will adress you point by point as soon as you prove that to be true.

If not, you are an ideologue spouting nonsense as well.

[wtmusic]

30. Quote me accurately NSMA

if you're going to quote me. I said the governor is "running" the state into the ground. We're still solvent. But we're somewhere between $8-$38 billion dollars in debt depending on whose numbers you believe. Although I have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman his figure of $8 billion is the annual deficit which doesn't include bonds which have already by floated to pay off part of the mess. Who pays for the bonds? My kids, and their kids, etc. When I voted for Davis I didn't expect deficit spending ala Shrub.

Davis is not the root of the problem. But his inaction at a critical time turned a serious problem into a disaster. In the power crisis of 2000-01, when Pete Wilson's awful 1996 energy deregulation bill allowed out-of-state energy congloms like Enron charge basically whatever they want, what did Davis do for six critical months while power rates went up by a factor of ten?

Nothing.

Oh I'm sorry, much later--he did provide 4000 documents to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission purporting to show that wholesale energy providers 'took advantage' of CA consumers (they did what they could get away with, while Davis sat idly by, until rolling blackouts were the only way to keep the state's power grid from basically self-destructing). All documents are sealed.

Being a governor means taking the initiative, being a leader, inventing creative fixes for spontaneous problems. The governor has more power than any individual, and hence more responsibility for the condition the state is in. He has shown zero leadership and as a result the size of my kids' classes are twice what they were last year, state parks are closing, and state aid to local fire departments and police departments is being slashed. Go to his website:

http://www.governor.ca.gov

and you will find all kinds of wonderful information about designs for the new state quarter, test scores, etc.--and not a WORD about the deficit or what he plans to do about it.

Bye bye.

[David__77]

44. A reply: why we support "NO/YES on Bustamante."

I think that there are legitimate criticisms of Davis. However, the people who may indeed land into power if the recall succeeds are anti-people and anti-labor and racist. Arnie is a Pete Wilson zombie sent to destroy the state on behalf of big business and revoke protections for workers. Whatever the "populist" and progressive underpinnings of the recall, this is a reality. Davis is amenable to pressure by progressive forces, which is borne out for instance by his promise to sign domestic partnership AB 205, and signing the driver license bill. This is infinitely preferable to open the floodgates to a Pete Wilson II administration.

That's why I vote to block the GOP by saying no on the recall, and also positively vote for Cruz Bustamante. We win with a defeat for the recall or with a Cruz victory. Howard Dean, whose avatar you display, knows that very well. We may disagree, but I urge you to reconsider in the coming days.

[wtmusic]

47. Well taken

and as I said in another post if things are looking pro-Arnie I'm a No-Bustamante kind of guy again.

[David__77]

49. Well then, I say "thank you" to you!

I still would urge a "no" on the recall out of principle. I don't say this because I'm opposed to recalls or think them undemocratic (if Arnie's elected, another recall would be just fine!) but because... well, I already said my piece I suppose...

[David__77]

50. Another point... polls are volatile.

I would err on the side of "no/yes" if there is any question at all. We have LA Times with a 13-point Bustamante lead, and SurveyUSA with a 16-point Arnie lead. I think the former is more credible, but this is unprecedented, and as such, we have fewer effective tools to judge the outcome in advance.

[Joseph Conrad]

17. How can you support Davis?

Davis is a crook. He gets so much money from special interest, it's a joke. He has done NOTHING for California. He's the typical state-government "Democrat" sleazeball.

Cruz Bustamante is just an opportunist. No better than Davis.

Give me John Christopher Burton of the Socialist Equality Party. YES on Recall.

Give me Kucinich for President.

[RogueTrooper]

18. Davis is a Democrat

under attack from Fascist Republicans. It is not Davis we support but the fascists we fight.

[Joseph Conrad]

20. George Wallace was a Democrat too

as was Lyndon Larouche, Ezola Foster and other Fascist loonies.

The Democratic Party contains a variety of different caucuses and sub-organizations. Some are repressive and regressive, some are progressive. I tend to prefer the latter.

[RogueTrooper]

23. Whatever

:eyes:

[David__77]

46. But Lyndon LaRouche was (is?) a Trotskyite...

why don't you support him along with the SEP?

[Character Assassin]

28. Just google for CALPERS, davis and corruption or conflict of interest

He and his cronies are, in my opinion, dirty up to their goddamn eyeballs.

Or, if that isn't good enough, there is his questionable fund-raising history and dalliances with/favors to the Prison Guard Union that stink to high heaven.

Then, there's his accounting smoke and mirrors bullshit right before the election. Or his flip-flop on the licenses for illegal aliens bit.

[AP]

29. CALPERS and prison guards

The NYT ran a story about CALPERS about a year ago. Basically, it described a pension fund totally run by democrats which is getting a great return on its investments, and is throwing its weight around with its votes by insisting that corporations are both responsible to the public, and compete fairly in the marketplace.

Compare those stories to the stories about public pensions in FL, CT and OH which are run by Republicans who bought Ernon stock on its way down so that they could bail out other friends of the Republican party.

I read that article about CALPERS, and thought to myself, what a fucking pot of gold and a real market force. No wonder the Republicans want to control CA so badly. Man, am I glad the Democrats are standing betweeen the Republican Party and the infinite riches control of CALPERS would lead to.

As for prison guards, I ask that everyone read the chapter in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and tell me honestly whether you'd prefer that the party in control of the state has questionable ties to Enron or to prison guards.

And in a system in which money dominates, I just can't imagine a scenario in which the Democrats wouldn't have a single blot on their record in terms of how they raise money. To make this a sin qua non support issue is like, well, it's like letting Republicans totally run the game. They make the rules (that the most money wins) and then they call you out because one blot is exposed, while nobody talks about how they're totally dirty with corrupt money.

[Character Assassin]

35. You evidently didn't read enough, or the NYT is flat-out lying

The NYT ran a story about CALPERS about a year ago. Basically, it described a pension fund totally run by democrats which is getting a great return on its investments, and is throwing its weight around with its votes by insisting that corporations are both responsible to the public, and compete fairly in the marketplace.

A great return on investments? Responsible corporations? Are you kidding? Is this the same CALPERS that now has been raided three times by Davis? The same one that invested almost $760 million in companies owned by Ron Burkle, a major campaign contributor to Davis? The same one that has secret, behind-closed-doors meetings? The one that has fallen in value from a high of $177 billion in October, 2000, to about $149 billion less than a year ago. The one with investments in companies with no increase in value for over 10 years?

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/special_packages/venture_capital_survey/5195737.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
http://bodurtha.georgetown.edu/enron/.%5Ccalpers_enron_deals_a_mistake.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20021117-9999_1b17calpers.html

Compare those stories to the stories about public pensions in FL, CT and OH which are run by Republicans who bought Ernon stock on its way down so that they could bail out other friends of the Republican party.

CALPERS stacks up worse.

I read that article about CALPERS, and thought to myself, what a fucking pot of gold and a real market force. No wonder the Republicans want to control CA so badly. Man, am I glad the Democrats are standing betweeen the Republican Party and the infinite riches control of CALPERS would lead to.

You have an a unique defintion for what a pot of gold is.

As for prison guards, I ask that everyone read the chapter in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and tell me honestly whether you'd prefer that the party in control of the state has questionable ties to Enron or to prison guards.

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an excuse for engaging in cronyism and corruption?

And in a system in which money dominates, I just can't imagine a scenario in which the Democrats wouldn't have a single blot on their record in terms of how they raise money. To make this a sin qua non support issue is like, well, it's like letting Republicans totally run the game. They make the rules (that the most money wins) and then they call you out because one blot is exposed, while nobody talks about how they're totally dirty with corrupt money.

One blot? I've got plenty more. Would you like it?

[AP]

38. What you've got is an agenda.

[Character Assassin]

40. What I've got is dispassionate observation of facts.

What you seem to have is an aversion to dealing with actual data.

A: Did the fund increase or decrease in value?
B: If so, why, and by how much?

A: Has the fund been raided at least three times by Davis?
B: Is so, why?

A: Does the fund meet behind closed doors?
B: If so, why?

A: Is the board stacked with Davis cronies?
B: If so why and who?

A: Has the fund invested, with no oversight, in companies of big Democratic contributors?
B: If so why?

Hint: The answers to all 'A' questions is 'Yes'.

[AP]

52. Why do you aim so low?

A fund lost (and I'm not calling up your post to check), what was it, 15% of its value from 2000 to 2002, and you're blaming whom? This was a period when all equities investments tanked. As far as I know, CALPERS still doesn't require employee contributions to their pensions (and haven't for years) because the return on investment is still so good they don't need anyone paying in. Hey, maybe that's why their pension lost more value than others during those shitty years (if it's even true that they lost more money than most).

So, who do we blame on a rip off of everyone in the equities markets? We blame Gray Davis???? How 'bout blaming the republicans who set America up with years of legislation all geared towards eviscerating publicly held corporations of their equity value and transferring it to company insiders. I still say the rip off of pensions in OH, FL and CT are the ones you need to look at. And you need to aim higher. Who enabled all this?

It is so obvious that the Democrats are barricading this HUGE pot of gold (yes, huge -- it's worth billions and has the power to sway markets) from the Republicans and they're pissed. I'm happy CA is doing this. Look at FL, OH and CT -- imagine what they could have done for Enron et al if they had CALPERS to steal from.

Oh, and we know to whom the Republicans want to shift wealth -- Enron, Alcoa, Haliburton and ExxonMobil. Now, who are the Democrats paying off? Oh, yeah. The prison guards.

[Character Assassin]

58. If the target is low, aim low. If it's high, wait for it to sober up.

Inherent to your statement is the assumption that, somehow, republicans are more dirty, or dirtier to a greater/deeper/worse degree than the democrats. I reject that notion.

A fund lost (and I'm not calling up your post to check), what was it, 15% of its value from 2000 to 2002, and you're blaming whom? This was a period when all equities investments tanked. As far as I know, CALPERS still doesn't require employee contributions to their pensions (and haven't for years) because the return on investment is still so good they don't need anyone paying in.

You know not very far at all. Employees are required to deduct from each paycheck. Where the hell do you think the base capital for the fund comes from, thin air? http://www.calpers.ca.gov/retire/contribution-faqs.htm

Hey, maybe that's why their pension lost more value than others during those shitty years (if it's even true that they lost more money than most).

If it's true? Christ, how about lifting a finger and finding out for yourself instead to trite little brush-offs that serve nothing other than laziness.

So, who do we blame on a rip off of everyone in the equities markets? We blame Gray Davis????

He is partially responsible for foolish/dirty investements, not variables and/or fluctuations in the equities markets.

How 'bout blaming the republicans who set America up with years of legislation all geared towards eviscerating publicly held corporations of their equity value and transferring it to company insiders.

I'm sorry, but to attempt to blame such a wide-ranging, over-the-top, inaccurate generalization soley on republicans is, frankly, pointless.

I still say the rip off of pensions in OH, FL and CT are the ones you need to look at. And you need to aim higher. Who enabled all this?

The electorate of CA, Davis and lack of oversight by disinterested third parties.

It is so obvious that the Democrats are barricading this HUGE pot of gold (yes, huge -- it's worth billions and has the power to sway markets) from the Republicans and they're pissed.

That is utterly false.

I'm happy CA is doing this. Look at FL, OH and CT -- imagine what they could have done for Enron et al if they had CALPERS to steal from.

Why do I even bother?

Oh, and we know to whom the Republicans want to shift wealth -- Enron, Alcoa, Haliburton and ExxonMobil. Now, who are the Democrats paying off? Oh, yeah. The prison guards.

Just for one moment, think about what the prison guards, with the ear of the governor, lobby for vis a vis pending legislation. It's not for shorter sentences, legalization of MJ, etc....

[AP]

59. It's the UCRP which requires no contribution...

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/retirement/ucrp/who_pays.html

My slip up. But, I suspece, we still have Democrats and a committment to education, and good management to thank for that. Oh, and I guess you can make money out of thin air.

You know what prison guards lobby for? They lobby for laws that require two-way radios with panic buttons and laws that require the prisons to keep a reasonable minimum of guards on duty at one time so that they're not outnumbered in a prison riot. They're the people who are standing between Wackenhut and outrageous profits caused by cutting costs to life-threateningly low levels.

The only reason you want to paint the picture that Democrats are as bad as Republicans is because you hope that, from the ashes, the Liberterian Party will rise. I think your bias prevents you from being honest.

The notion that Davis is worse that the Republicans is laughable. Electricity deregulation, anyone? I'm not saying Democtrats are great, and beyond reproach, but, really, this one's obvious. At least the Democrats are trying to shift wealth and political power to the masses rather than the minority of super powerful corporations.

[Character Assassin]

61. Keep taking babysteps towards objectivity.....

My slip up. But, I suspece, we still have Democrats and a committment to education, and good management to thank for that. Oh, and I guess you can make money out of thin air.

And one big grown-up step backwards, it seems.

You know what prison guards lobby for? They lobby for laws that require two-way radios with panic buttons and laws that require the prisons to keep a reasonable minimum of guards on duty at one time so that they're not outnumbered in a prison riot. They're the people who are standing between Wackenhut and outrageous profits caused by cutting costs to life-threateningly low levels.

If that's the sum total of what you think they lobby for, you've got a lot to learn.

The only reason you want to paint the picture that Democrats are as bad as Republicans is because you hope that, from the ashes, the Liberterian Party will rise. I think your bias prevents you from being honest.

Utter, total bullshit. I do not support the Libertarian party and am not a member. Perhaps it escaped your notice, but I am a libertarian, not a Libertarian.

The notion that Davis is worse that the Republicans is laughable.

Perhaps to a partisan Democrat, but not to anyone who cares to objectively review the evidence. Let's see here....

A. His questionable fundraising
B. His bungled energy strategy.
C. His deceptive accounting methods before an election.
D. His influence on CALPERs. Since 1998, every board member - the governor appoints four and influences the election of six others - has been either a Democratic Party or labor union official. Oh, and did I mention that they invested in Enron?
E. Driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
F. In-State tuition levels for illegal aliens

Shall I go on, or perhaps you've got some tidbits about the republicans that magically wipe the democrat's slate clean.

Look, I don't like republican's in the least, but that doesn't prevent me from see corruption and the venal nature of an elected official.

Electricity deregulation, anyone? I'm not saying Democtrats are great, and beyond reproach, but, really, this one's obvious.

Please support that contention.

At least the Democrats are trying to shift wealth and political power to the masses rather than the minority of super powerful corporations.

No, they're not doing that in anything more than the most cosmetic of ways.

[AP]

62. Did Calpers invest in Enron when it was tanking, or when

it was clear that they were going to make millions off of California. On the one hand, a sensible investment. On the other, fraud.

I encourage people to do a Google search on Calpers. The media definitely presents two stories. There are the objective, short business articles noting that Calpers is using its proxy vote to hold corporations accountable, and then there are the stories from the conservative press trying to create scandal over the fact that all the peopel appointed to run it are Democrats.

Again, so few stories on FL, OH, and CT public pensions buying Enron on the way down, days before trading stopped, while Enron employees were locked out from selling their shares. So much outrage about Calpers.

If Republicans are greedier, more evil, less fit to govern, and not trying to undo everything that FDR did (which, incidentally, produced the strongest single year of the US economy in, was '49?? -- check Wealth and Democracy) then this whole board is full of shit.

[Character Assassin]

63. A sensible investment? Are you kidding?

Did Calpers invest in Enron when it was tanking, or when it was clear that they were going to make millions off of California. On the one hand, a sensible investment. On the other, fraud.

So, let's see here....

It would be OK to invest in the company when incredible, windfall profits were predicted, coming at the expense of the state, due to publically known pricing that was so sky high that it just begged for investigation (and that eventually happened)? There is such a thing as ethics in investement, but, of course, there's no accounting for that with cronies on the board, no oversight from outside parties and meetings behind closed doors, now is there?


The media definitely presents two stories. There are the objective, short business articles noting that Calpers is using its proxy vote to hold corporations accountable, and then there are the stories from the conservative press trying to create scandal over the fact that all the peopel appointed to run it are Democrats.

You need to get the timeline in order; "holding corporations accountable" is a wonderfully cosmetic jesture after the horse is out of the barn, but that's all it is and to pretend otherwise is to blind oneself willfully.

[AP]

64. Enron seemed like a great investment until it crashed.

That's how they were able to complete the scam. Duh.

As for that timeline, I'm telling you what I read in my google search. Calpers putting pressure on AOL, was one of the big ones. How is it cosmetic to vote your shares in a way which binds the corporation to certain actions which, say, a liberal along the lines of FDR, might think is economically productive behavior? Are you saying that Calpers encourages these corporations to be bad corporate citizens, and then stages these sham shareholder votes to cover their tracks?

[David__77]

45. Yikes! A Trotskyite?

I just love the Socialist Equality Party and kindred Trotskyites. They sure know how to wage a good ol' fashioned polemic and they know how to grow the nuber of their sects, though rarely their aggregate membership.

Seriously, I have never had anything but disdain for Trotskyism. It's such a diversionary faction with its "transitional programs" and attitude of "the masses are asses." Oh well... enough said.

[AP]

21. Lessons about elections learned from Chirac v Jospin 2002

Chirac won his election in the runoff round in which Jospin, the liberal lost. There was no liberal running in the general election, and LaPen was such an outright fascist, liberals voted for Chirac to send a message that they didn't endorse fascism.

Now, how did Jospin lose to a Nazi in the runoff round? With a big media assist. Beginning almost a year ahead of the election, the media played one note about this election: "isn't this boring?' Months before the election, when nobody would be paying attention, the media did stories saying nobody's paying attention because it's boring. I heard a story about how it was so boring that Jospin and Chirac had written books about politics. It was really unbelievable. But it worked.

I think Clinton once said that one of the hardest things for Democrats is that you you have to walk a fine balance. When things are going well in America, Americans lose their sense of urgency about voting for the people who are making their lives comfortable and happy. But if you start acting like there's some urgent matter, people flock to the right wing candidate, because they think national security is threatened, or they think it's time to bring the Republicans in to run the economy. (This is why Clinton never publicized the threat of terrorism, and is why the Republican lie that Clinton didn't protect America gets so much traction).

In any event, that mood -- that lack of urgency -- was totally exploited by the right wing in France, and the media did their party beautifully and with clinical precision.

Without that sense of urgency, La Pen was able to move in and take second place, using the same tactics the religious right used in 94 to get Republicans into Congress.

[BonjourUSA]

37. Your analysis of Jospin defeat is a little succinct

this analysis existed right at the following day of the election. It was a way of explaining the presence of Le Pen in the runoff round. Today, even the Jospin's friends think that he is responsible for his own failure.

[Joseph Conrad]

48. There are two major networks in France, buddy.

One of them is TF1 (privately owned) which may have contributed to your conspiracy theory. The company is pro-Chirac, but media standards in France are pretty strict.

And then there is FranceTV networks which has France2 and France3. It is state-owned and leftist.

Not every country is like America where the media is a bunch of crap who try to outdo each other with patriotic garbage.

The reason Jospin lost was because about 35-40% voted for other left parties like the Greens, Communist Party, Worker's Struggle.

[BonjourUSA]

57. I agree with you, and also

because French rejected the Jospin's behavior (I'm the best, and shut up) and his mistakes about security and economy.

[Character Assassin]

24. So Schwarzenegger and Uebberoth are now fascists?

You may not like their policies (or lack thereof) or the party they are nominally associated with, but to attempt to equate them with Jean-Marie Le Pen is simply childish.

If this is about 'fighting fascism', please detail precisely how Davis' main opponents are fascist and what their fascist policies are.

[Joseph Conrad]

27. Okay I'll tell you this...

McClintock = Fascist. Wants forced religion, destroy public education, against any social program, wants everyone to be force-fed trinity broadcasting network

Schwarzenegger = non-Fascist, non-Neoconservative. Just an old-school Republican who stands for capitalism.

Ueberoth - Don't know.

Bill Simon - in between McClintonk and Schwarzenegger.

[RogueTrooper]

31. It is the recal itself

the Republican financed recal. The forth assault by George W. Bush and his RW cronies on American democracy. It is not about the candidates who are bottom feeding off of the recal ballot. It is about the recal itself.

How many more times are we going to stand silent in front of their thuggery? How many more times are we going to act like their useful idiots? It is time to stand up to Bush and his merry band of fascists.

[wtmusic]

33. Let's just say the recall helped a Democrat

get elected president next year--would you still oppose it 'on principle'?

[RogueTrooper]

39. Would I like to give the Whitehouse a bloody nose

by defeating this mendacious recal effort? Hell Yes!

Florida, Colorado, Texas and now California. Where next?

That is what no on the recal is about.

[wtmusic]

41. Answer the question

so you would take revenge over victory, is that it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. You are presenting him with a false dichotomy since there is no real proof

for that to go one way or the other.

[wtmusic]

43. I said 'let's just say'

it's a hypothesis. And I believe in it and can support it. Arnold is digging himself into the ground by not showing up at debates and trying to clean 'N-word' laundry; Ueberroth and McClintock are nowhere near Cruz in the polls.

If people want to win a battle to lose a war, then they should just admit it.

[mitchtv]

56. good luck NSMA they're all out tonie

i'll stick to hangn with Dems,not tools-the polls to be released sound dismal.they'll have their puke gov by hook or crook. this sounds like a FR thread ,goodnite http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=301722

[Forkboy]

51. Yes...I would

[poskonig]

53. 'fascist' is a bit over the top, though your point is sound.

Regardless of what one thinks of Davis, he is not guilty of any crimes, is not suffering from mental illness, etc. etc.

Because we *can* impeach someone at will when the polling data is low doesn't mean we should do so. An analogous principle applies to this unethical recall.