If Arianna and Camejo really believed in Democracy

[mitchtv]

they would be saying NO on Recall. Isn't it time for those two to throw their support to Cruz?. Maybe we can get Judy Woodruff to badger them to quit, like she did to Mc Clintock.

[Room101]

1. I have heard them both publicly say the recall is not right

Isn't it time for Cruz to throw his support to a real progressive Arianna?

[Procopius]

2. YES! n/t

[pasadenaboy]

3. really?

neither said that in the debate, and its not a position I've heard or seen in the media, print or their website. Are you sure they oppose the recall?

[Room101]

5. They said

Camejo said in the debate it is not right to elect a Governor with such little votes.

Arianna has spoken more than anyone about the hypocrisy of the recall, pertaining to what bush is doing nationally. She has also called the recall a right-wing coup.

[mitchtv]

8. right arianna's big 3%

we could use that. Besides i still don't trust her if she ends up a spoiler , I will hate her. Camejo, well i don't expect much. When is Arianna going to apologize for her part in M huffingtons campaign? It was Vile, and she knows it- I told her so.

[Room101]

12. mitchtv - you are now on my ignore list

:)

[mitchtv]

21. my first time , I believe

that calls for some champagne

[VOX]

111. Neither Arianna nor Camejo mention one word about the recall...

In the printed Candidate Statements, as provided by the California Secretary of State in the Official Voter Information Guide, sent to all registered voters in California.

In contrast, Cruz Bustamonte and numerous lesser Democrats urge a NO vote on the recall in their statements.

[Terwilliger]

4. I will not tell them they can't draw support

I'm voting NO/Bustamante, and I encourage everybody to vote

[Paragon]

6. Curious that you capitalized Democracy

They obviously believe in democracy, or they wouldn't be running. It's Democracy (the Democratic party line) they disagree with with.

[mitchtv]

7. davis must get 50% they can win with 20%

sorry can't make me believe that is a democratic election. Minority wins??

[Clete]

9. Yes, anyone who is party to this,

has only proved that s/he is an opportunist and doesn't really care about our state or the people of this state. It seems the $3,500 registration fee could have better been used by donating it to charity or even giving a housekeeper or nanny a well earned bonus.

[Room101]

14. Clete - can you be more specific on who is an opportunist?

please with sugar on top:)

[Clete]

16. It's all of them really,

except Bustamante, who was expected to. I get mad at the money because it does little to off-set the cost of the election yet if I had $3,500 I could buy my husband a used golf cart he could use to get around the place instead of huffing and puffing with his emphysema. I think of all the people who could probably use the money for something they need but can't afford.

Now every single person on that list that plunked their own money down no doubt have servants. I think a loyal housekeeper or nanny could probably have used that money as a bonus to get something they need but can't afford. But it shows how self-centered these candidates are. It shows how they don't care about the state, the people who labor for them or anything but attracting attention to themselves. You can put me on ignore too, if you like. :-) This is the way I feel.

[AP]

10. ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!!

It drives me crazy that they praise democracy and then tell people to vote yes in this undemocratic purchased oligopolitstic BULLSHIT election.

And they claim the Indian Tribes own Bustament but they don't say shit about the media owning this election and pushing for Arnold.

[AP]

11. Arianna asks what's going to save California. I say CA should marry some

rich republican state and then get a divorce and get a lot of money in the divorce settlement.

[Room101]

13. AP - you are now on my ignore list

:)

[AP]

17. Your loss.

I'm a little shocked that it took a comment about Arianna and the Recall BS to do it.

Is B.T. even a Democrat. Anyway, I see I'm in some good company.

If pro-Arianna pro-recallers have an ignore list, I guess I want to be on it.

[ShaneGR]

15. LOL!!!!!

I'm sure Arianna would concur.

[Tinoire]

18. I hate to break this to DUers

but a lot of California Dems are going for NO / Arianna.

Frankly, I have no idea why but I noticed this at a recent event where lots of tabling was going on and the crowd there was very progressive/liberal.

Maybe some objective person could explain to me what her appeal is.

I do know that a lot of people are skeptical of Bustamante because what many DUers call smears are unfortunately things that aren't sitting well with many people out here.

I just hope this all works out but I have a very bad feeling about it.

I just want to vote NO/HELL NO and am livid about the mass confusion they are causing with this double vote. This allows too much partisanship and too many opportunities to vote YES / (your guy's name here) just because you want your guy over Davis.

Never thought I'd be defending Davis one day, but as a Californian I will tell you that he did one hell of a job trying to fight Enron while good Dems like Lieberman whose pockets were lined with Enron money totally abandonned him and the California voters.

Davis was left, totally abandonned but came out swinging for us.

This recall is a crime and a total sham. Just another form of grand theft election.

[Clete]

19. As long as they do the NO first.

eom

[AP]

20. I saw an A.H. thing with a liberal student crowd, and when she criticized

the Dems at the beginning, there was lots of hissing, which was encouraging.

As she went on, they stopped, but I think it's because they decided she was a harmless loon.

About half the stuff she says make sense. The other half is totally logically inconsistent with her message.

[Terwilliger]

22. REALLY?!

Please give examples.

[AP]

23. It was a crowd full of college students, who tend not think

very historically, and many of them were very energized by her anti-establishment talk. however, you could see that there a few more sophisiticated students who weren't very impressed wtih her attacking the Democratic party and hissed when she strayed into that territory.

AH seems loonier the longer you listen to her, so they stopped after a while, but I think it was becasuse the realized she wasn't a threat. I imagine that Cruz in front of the same audience would have been able to sway them all to his side.

[Terwilliger]

77. OK, you just repeated what you said above

I asked you for examples of her "loony" talk.

[AP]

82. Read below.

[Terwilliger]

98. I read through the thread

there is no example of your charge of self-contradicting statements.

Then you say "I've heard her stump, I've heard her stump" well isnt that special...do you have any specific examples of her self-contradicting statements?

[AP]

104. Yes there is. Keep reading.

I believe I used the word "collapse" in one of the posts in which I tie strands together.

If I were worried that there were others in your boat here, I'd spend 10 minutes summing it up again. I think I've done my job though.

[Terwilliger]

110. nope

You've said nothing about Arianna's condracticting statements, except that YOU THINK those statements speak for themselves :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

24. Check your facts before posting next time.

Both Arianna and Camejo are following Bustamante's strategy of asking supporters to vote "No" on the recall and "Yes" to them.

The socialist candidate John Christopher Burton says the same thing on his website:



John Christopher Burton

Socialist candidate for California governor

Candidato socialista para gobernador de California

Vote “no” on the California recall. Vote John Christopher Burton for governor, for a socialist solution to the crisis

Jobs for the unemployed! Billions for education, health care and housing! US troops out of Iraq!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/cali-a30.shtml

About John Christopher Burton

John Christopher Burton, 50, is a well-known civil rights attorney in the Los Angeles area and supporter of the Socialist Equality Party. He has specialized in defending victims of police abuse and discrimination. Married and the father of two children, he has actively supported the policies of the SEP and contributed articles to the World Socialist Web Site.

California voters who go to the polls on October 7 will have the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” on the recall of Governor Gray Davis, and at the same time vote for one of the candidates running to replace him, should the recall receive more than 50 percent of the votes cast. If the recall succeeds, whichever candidate receives the most votes will replace Davis as governor.

Burton is opposing the recall effort, which has been financed and organized by right-wing Republican forces in California. He is calling for a “no” vote on the question of recalling Davis, a Democrat who was reelected nine months ago.

While opposing the recall, however, Burton is giving no political support to the policies of Davis or the Democratic Party, who are collaborating with the Republicans to place the burden of the fiscal crisis in the state on the backs of the working people.

Burton is running in order to put forward a democratic and socialist alternative to both parties of big business. He is calling on Californians to vote for him in order to express, in the event of a successful recall of Davis, their support for the building of a genuinely independent political movement based on the working class.

http://www.socialequality.com/about.html

[AP]

25. Huffington isn't saying 'no on recall'

Or at least, that's not the impression I got

[Dookus]

26. it's so easy to look this stuff up....

www.votearianna.com

Not a mention of voting no on the recall.

www.votecamejo.com

Not a mention of voting no on the recall.

Both opportunistic whores.

[noiretextatique]

29. opportunistic whores?

i am not particularly happy about the recall or the circus atomosphere it has produced, but this type of rhetoric is a bit much. they had an opportunity to run, they took it. personally, i don't have a problem with either of them. i probably won't vote for either of them, but i don't think they are any more opportunistic or whorish than bustamante, or any of the assorted freaks in the running.

[Dookus]

31. Well....

you're certainly free to disagree with my assessment. But I live here in CA and I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

I like Arianna - she's a fun talking head. But I think she's utterly unqualified to be Governor of California, and I will never trust the sincerity of her beliefs, especially after trying to foist her ex-husband on us with such vigor.

And they ARE more opportunistic and whorish than Bustamante, whose STATED position is NO on the Recall!

[Classical_Liberal]

33. Judging from the Debates she is the most qualified of them all

.

[AP]

35. I think she's half OK and half totally full of shit.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. Well you are a "third way" person

and I feel the same way about most third way types. The Third Way isn't necessary in California, like perhaps the South. A democrat can't be a real liberal in those states. He has to be economic conservative, social liberal or social conservative, economic liberal to win. I want a real progressive elected somewhere, and there it can be done.

[AP]

38. I have no idea what you're talking about. Huffington spent

a few years as the most disgusting type of conservative there is, and now she says a few things that are true about Bush, and she fills her recall speehese with self-cotnradicting messages, and she's a progressive?

Uh, uh. And I promise you, any progressive who takes power undemocratically is going to set progressivism backwards. It'll be worth way more when it's earned. Most CA'ians believe what Davis believes. After that, it's Bustamante, After that, Camejo. At least Davis and Bustament represent the interests of a majoirty of CA'ians.

Whenever people are ruled by someone who represents less than the majority, it ends up in tears, as it did in MN and with Bush now.

[Classical_Liberal]

41. This isn't undemocratic.

any more than any other election in the US is. If Davis looses the recall we can't say most people agree with him unless you don't consider those who vote to recall him "people.

As for Arianna having been a conservative at one time. People change. She is more liberal than Davis now.

[AP]

42. She doesn't say anything about Energy companies buying off Republicans

and she doesnt' criticize media (the hand that feeds her too) for shamelessly supporting Arnold, and she doesn't say anything about progressive taxation (especially viz property taxes), so she's no libera, in my mind.

I've said enough about why this 'vote' is undemocratic. If you don't see it, I'm sorry.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. She doesn't criticize the media or energy companies

buying off republicans? You have just showed that you are completely uninformed and have never read her columns, and haven't heard a thing she has had to say on the campaign.

http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_4410.shtml

"On May 11, 2001, in the midst of the so-called California energy crisis, Enron's Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay held a secret meeting with prominent California Republicans at the place right behind me, the Beverly Hills Hotel, to discuss the state's energy policy.

Among those attending the covert gathering were Richard Riordan, Michael Milken, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Given the billions of dollars Lay, Enron, and the other crooked energy companies ended up looting from the people of this state, there are a few questions about that meeting and the state's energy fiasco I'd like to hear someone ask Arnold -- if he ever agrees to take questions.

But before I get to those questions, let me tell you why I think they are so important:

[AP]

48. I saw her in person last week, and she was very weak on the anti-Republica

arguments, because she doesn't want to help Dems, and she exaggerates the anti-dem arguments.

You know what, I hate gambling, but I'd rather have the Indians have influence on state gov't than the energy companies, and this whole election is BECAUSE of the energy companies desire to control state government. She won't say much about that. That is NOT liberal.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. here is what she said about Enron just recently

http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_4410.shtml

"On May 11, 2001, in the midst of the so-called California energy crisis, Enron's Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay held a secret meeting with prominent California Republicans at the place right behind me, the Beverly Hills Hotel, to discuss the state's energy policy.

Among those attending the covert gathering were Richard Riordan, Michael Milken, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Given the billions of dollars Lay, Enron, and the other crooked energy companies ended up looting from the people of this state, there are a few questions about that meeting and the state's energy fiasco I'd like to hear someone ask Arnold -- if he ever agrees to take questions.

But before I get to those questions, let me tell you why I think they are so important:

[AP]

53. I think I characterized accurately how she's stumping now.

She underemphasizes Enron because it's inconsistent with her criticism of Bustamante's fundrasing. She can't acknowledge the millions her ex-husband got and the Repubublicans gereally get from interests way more insidious than Indians.

Of coiurse she's gong to mention it, but, to me, if she's really the progressive, then she should be pounding this issue at least as much as Camejo and Bustamante are.

Also, she may talk about progressive taxation, but I haven't heard any of it. Camejo and Bustamante both do a much better job on this issue.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. Her ex husband

I thought you wanted her to blame the repukes for Enron. Those aren't just Indians either, they own untaxed gambling establishments, while many indians are still poor, and benefit more from institutions funded by tax money. I believe in progressive taxation personally.

[AP]

57. Better than Enron running the state.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. Nobody ever argued Enron should run the state, including Arianna

What is your problem? Just because she wants to tax rich Indians doesn't mean she is for Enron running the state of California. Now, you make no sense at all.

[AP]

60. That's not a sentence.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. You don't make any sense.

Are you drinking?

[AP]

65. Even in its edited form,...

....this is an uninteresting point.

My point is that her stump speech sounds hypocritical and has conflicting logic. She won't contront the real issues head on because it hurts her other arguments, and betrays the anti-democratic nature of the whole thing.

It's like in the debates when cruz said, "tell me what you really think, Arianna" and she replied "I'll tell you after."

Exactly, the stupidity of this whole thing means she can't tell the truth. At least Camejo, Bustamante and Davis are in a position in whch they can tell the truth.

[Classical_Liberal]

69. You are an authority on conflicting logic

That I am pretty sure of, at this point.

[AP]

62. However, I'll answer an earlier question.

The central issue of this campaign, to me, is that the Republicans have rigged the tax system and the budget in CA to shift the brudens to the middle class and the benefits to the wealthy. They thought they had rigged the utility companies to do the same. Bustamante and Davis (and Camejo, in his own way) are talking about these things. They are incorporating these things into their message. On August 20, on the Tavis Smiley show Bustamente had a brilliant summation of his liberal, progressive, Democratic identity and message.

Huffington has come nowhere close to hitting the nail on the head the way Bustamante has. In fact, a lot of her rhetoric is unhelpful to the central progressive vs reactionary/fascist issues at stake, adn the rest of it is self contradicotry. When she asks the crowd, "Why does Cruz Bustamente have to take money from the Indians", many well-informed people are probably thinking, "because he didn't divorce a rich republican and get millions of that republican's ill gotten gains" -- and look how she became prominent in the first place, by being a DISGUSTING reactionary. Even if you agree with about half the criticisms that come out of her mouth, how can you trust her?

[Classical_Liberal]

64. Citation?

When did she ask "Why does Cruz Bustamente have to take money from the Indians"

Show me where she said this and didn't include the fact that these were indian gambling interests.

She is obviously opposed the utility companies as well.

[AP]

66. I'm not asking you to believe anything an anonymous internet poster writes

But, it's in at least one of her stump seeches.

[Classical_Liberal]

67. Right!

. I am not asking you to believe I think you are full of it, but you are.

[AP]

68. And I enjoy the pleasure of knowing you're full of it.

Arianna's a progressive candidate. This vote is democratic. Yeah.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. Provide citation please

Doesn't mention gambling interests. That is all I ask.

[AP]

71. Which of her stump speeches have YOU heard.

Which one?

[Classical_Liberal]

73. I don't have to provide the citation I didn't make the claim

. I've seen her on tv and in the debates. She specified indian gambling in both. You made the claim back it up.

[AP]

74. Where are the transcripts of all her stump speeches and we can

go through the speech and discuss the meta-message and the misleading way she contextualizes various facts since she is really trying to take votes from the Democrat and the Green, even though she knows that the real enemy in the fight is the Republican Party.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. You made the claim. You find the transcipt that says

"Why does Cruz Bustamente have to take money from the Indians"

and doesn't specify gambling interests.


Votes don't belong to the Democrats or the Greens. Davis is a part of the problem too. He should have let the energy companies go bankrupt rather than putting the state into debt for a bunch of theives. He could have reasserted state control of the energy industry very easily. He didn't.

Anyway, I doubt your sophistry has convinced one person of anything really.

[AP]

81. AFAIK, no transcripts of her stump speech.

And, for the record, she did mention the casinos. What she didn't talk about after that was where the Republicans get their money and where she got hers, and she didn't contextualize and evaluate all those facts. I'm not saying she has to, but the fact that shed didn't left a gaping hole in the logic of her candidacy.

I think that's about when the democrats in the audience decided it wasn't worth hissing. The expressions of disdain on their faces didn't change. But they did seem satisfied to let Huffington's arguments collapse in on themselves.

If you want to get an idea of what Davis and Bustamante faced, read this Krugman interview at www.liberaloasis.com. You always think these companies couldn't go any farther, and they do.

[Terwilliger]

87. OHHHHHHHH I see......YOUR logic isn't served

Thanks AP :eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

92. She mentioned the Casinos

therefore by not mentioning that tidbit in the first place you misrepresented what she said so you are probably misrepresenting the rest it.

[AP]

93. The issue is what AH didn't mention. I don't think I was alone when

I noticed this.

But I'm not asking you to feel what I feel. You can feel and believe what you want.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. Well I think what you didn't mention shows you are trying to misrepresent`

her. You tried to make it look like she was anti-indian by leaving out the Casino part.

[AP]

99. Pistols at sunrise for defaming my honor. Actually, I think the casual

reader will understand what I was saying, and will understand that you are now grasping at stylistic straws because you've run out of fact based arguments and rock solid logic.

[Classical_Liberal]

102. Until you finally admitted she was talking about Casinos

you didn't present one fact. So you are just projecting again.

[AP]

105. Yes. When you having nothing left, keep arguing about a tiny tiny thing

that I say was shorthand and you charge was intentional misrpresentation.

Ignore all the other elements of this argument.

Who hasn't seen this internet debate tactic.

I interpret it as a concession by you that I'm right on every other charge.

[Classical_Liberal]

107. You engaged in intentional misrepresentation

by not mentioning the Casino part, and making it look like Arianna had a problem with indians. That is very clear and if you want to give me the opportunity to rub it in I am more than happy to take it.

[Terwilliger]

79. oh good...no substance to your claims

isn't that nice

[AP]

83. I'm not asking you to incorporate my emotions into your thinking

but, I'm not lying when I tell you how I felt when I listened to her whole stump speech. And I think I'm pretty good at deciphering the meta-message.

[Terwilliger]

89. how you FELT

Ive never seen you as being so obfuscatory when asked simple questions

[AP]

94. Ask me a simple question and I'll answer it.

Go ahead.

[Terwilliger]

112. What did Arianna say on her "stump" that was contradicting itself?

Now, if you can't remember, then maybe you shouldn't bestow judgements on it. And I don't know that I care if you didn't like what she said...you're completely biased...you probably heard what you wanted to hear through your lens of self-realized political reality.

So...a simple fact-filled, point-by-point (or, even, one point) discussion about where Arianna contradicts herself.

[Terwilliger]

78. Bustamante is NOT "No on Recall"

he couldn't run and say "Vote for me" if he was truly against it.

Sorry.

[AP]

84. Bustamante's message is "I'm giving Democrats TWO chances to win this"

He is most definitely "NO on the recall"

[Terwilliger]

90. He is YES on the Recall

You can't go "on the stump" and say "Vote for ME" without encouragaing the people to question the validity of saying no.

What if some Democrats decide that they'd rather have Bustamante than Davis, and vote YES/Bustamante?

[AP]

97. Terwilliger. This is baffling. Just because you don't get the logic of

"You have two chances to win, vote NO on the Recall and for Bustamante" doesn't mean millions of CA'ians don't get it, and it doesn't mean it's not logical.

It may not be logical to YOU, however, I promise you. It makes sense.

Before Cruz announced, there was discussion here about who should run. My argument was that the only thing that will make sense is if Cruz runs. If any other Democrat ran, it would detroy the NO vote, because it would make the party seem like they didn't support Davis. That would be an invitation to Republican victory.

With the vote so closesly divided on Part 1, it would have been a betrayal of the citizens of CA not to give CAians a Democratic choice on the second part, and, furthermore, the LA senate race 02 was the lesson on the Republican's strategy. The more Republicans and independants and Greens you threw in, the more NO votes you peal away as everyone finds something small they like in each Repulbican (you like porn, sports, movie stars, midgets ... we got something for each of you). Furthermore, you increase the chance that the winner will win by getting it's very small, rabid base out.

I said that the only thing that would make sense to Californians is if the LT GOV ran (and ran on the platform NO on Recall and vote for me on part 2). Who logically follows the Gov when the Gov leaves? The Lt Gov. People would see Cruz as both being loyal to the Democratic Party and as giving Dems a chance to win on the second part of the ballot. It would make sense. And it does.

That, I said, was the logic of the recall vote (which you don't get, but I'm sure you have some company among a small sector of the public). And that is how this thing has evolved.

So if the casual reader wants to trust the opinion of someone like you or C_L (who didn't even know Davis wasn't on the second part of the ballot but felt comfortable arguing why this vote is democratic) or you, they can be my guest. I don't get any money or attention for being right on the pages of DU. But if people want to trust the opinion of the poster who was anticipated the way this election would be fought by the Demographics from day 1, they can trust my opinion.

[mitchtv]

115. not true

Cruz is no on Recall

[VOX]

114. A Bustamonte vote is "insurance." First, vote NO on the recall...

But if the recall should win by, say, 51%, then a Bustamonte vote kicks in and saves the state for Democrats.

If the recall goes forward, the candidate who becomes governor could win by as little as 15% of the vote.

Cruz = Crucial.

[noiretextatique]

119. i am a native californian, i live in oakland

democracy doesn't really bother me, though.

[Red Eye]

30. Officially, she's neutral on the recall

She says she'll vote for the recall, but officially she's neutral.

[Red Eye]

27. No, not at all

Democracy does not necessarily mean pure representative democracy. Direct democracy, or hybrid direct/representative, which is what we have in California, is perfectly democratic. Thus, the recall isn’t any different from a regular election; and I don’t see anyone here lamenting that Clinton in 1992 stole the election from Bush because he’d been legitimately elected in 1988.

So, the question here is not “Are recalls in general good?” but “Should Davis be recalled?” The answer, in my opinion and evidently in Camejo and Arianna’s opinions too, is yes. There’s nothing undemocratic about thinking that Davis sucks, or for that matter that Davis is doing a swell job, or anything in between. I personally would like to Davis ousted for the following reasons:

His recent pay hikes to the prison industry
His recent cuts from UC and CSU’s budgets
His complete spinelessness during the energy crisis
His corporate connections
Three-strikes laws
The deficit (and for the record, I also think that Bush’s fiscal policy sucks, so don’t call me a hypocrite on that because I’m not)

Capisce?

Vote YES on the recall, Georgy Russell on the replacement

Check my forum: http://www.voy.com/101333/

Heil Bush!

[Red Eye]

28. No, not at all

Democracy does not necessarily mean pure representative democracy. Direct democracy, or hybrid direct/representative, which is what we have in California, is perfectly democratic. Thus, the recall isn’t any different from a regular election; and I don’t see anyone here lamenting that Clinton in 1992 stole the election from Bush because he’d been legitimately elected in 1988.

So, the question here is not “Are recalls in general good?” but “Should Davis be recalled?” The answer, in my opinion and evidently in Camejo and Arianna’s opinions too, is yes. There’s nothing undemocratic about thinking that Davis sucks, or for that matter that Davis is doing a swell job, or anything in between. I personally would like to Davis ousted for the following reasons:

His recent pay hikes to the prison industry
His recent cuts from UC and CSU’s budgets
His complete spinelessness during the energy crisis
His corporate connections
Three-strikes laws
The deficit (and for the record, I also think that Bush’s fiscal policy sucks, so don’t call me a hypocrite on that because I’m not)

Capisce?

Vote YES on the recall, Georgy Russell on the replacement

Check my forum: http://www.voy.com/101333/

Heil Bush!

[Classical_Liberal]

32. The recall is in their constitution

so there is nothing undemocratic about it.

[AP]

34. It is undemocratic when Davis could get 49.999999 percent of no vote

and then CA'ians find themselves governed by someone who gets 20 or 12 or 5 percent of the vote, regardless of what the constitution says.

The US constitution used to say that Senators were selected by state legislatures. That wasn't very Democratic. The US constitution says today that a president can only serve 2.5 terms. That's not very democratic.

[Classical_Liberal]

37. Then Clinton wasn't elected democratically

He only won a plurality, and there has hardly ever been a democratic election, in world history. It is also not very democratic that in America so few vote because all they have is a choice between conservative unprogressive Davis and an extreme Conservative Republican like in Davis's last reelction campaign. Davis was only elected by 13% of the population of California. What is going on now can't be any more undemocratic then that. I'll bet a higher percentage turnout.

[AP]

39. In head to head matchups, Clinton was the Condorcet winner

and by a VERY wide margin in 96.

I guarantee you, if Davis loses, the next governor will not be the condorcet winner, nor would they have been the winner if DAvis had been allowed to run in the second half of the ballot.

That ain't democracy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. I've never understood that when you said it

It is also not very democratic that in America so few vote because all they have is a choice between conservative unprogressive Davis and extreme Conservative Republican like in Davis's last reelction campaign.

Please explain what is undemocratic about it. Both parties picked their most popular condidate among the party. Everyone in BOTH parties COULD have voted and other parties put THEIR best candidate forward as well. Please explain what is undemocratic about it.

I agree there are better ways of choosing leaders but truly you cannot agree that a leader picked with 10 or 20 % of the total vote is MORE democratic than a leader picked by 40 or 45 % of the TOTAL VOTE AMONG PARTY CANDIDATES...can you?

[Classical_Liberal]

43. What is undemocratic about the recall?

AP said the recall is undemocratic if a candidate doesn't win a majority Well Davis wasn't elected by a majority, the last time around so by AP's own standard Davis wasn't democraticaally elected. Most people didn't vote for Davis. As for putting forth their best candidates. It is a pathetic showing I think. Davis isn't less conservative than Arnold.

[AP]

46. No, I said Davis could be supported by 49 percent

and lose to someone who could win with12% of the vote.

(and if I didn't, I'm saying that now.)

And you're fooling yourself if you don't think a majority of Californians are closer to Davis's politics than any other candidate's (especially Huffington's or any Republican's).

And we;re not even mentioning the whorishness of the media. I've never seen such a flat out, shameless effort by the media. In many respects it's worse than Bush 2000.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. He can't lose to someone with 12% unless he gets 11%

You are full of boloney.

[AP]

58. Davis ISN"T ON THE SECOND PART OF THE BALLOT

So even if he could have gotten 55% on the second part of the ballot if he were on it, someone with 12% might be the next governor.

You didn't know that?

Does that change your position on whether this is democratic?

[Classical_Liberal]

63. He is losing against all comers. yes

I'm not losing sleep over. Term Limits do the same thing. Rest well.

[AP]

72. You didn't know he wasn't on the second part of the ballot until now

did you?

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Obviously you didn't either or you wouldn't have claimed

he could lose to someone with only 12% of the vote.

[AP]

85. C_L, you have just discredited your entire argument in dramatic fashion

You have no idea how this election is conducted.

This is actually very funny.

And your retort is completely illogical. Davis can loose to someone who only gets 12% of the vote BECAUSE he is not on the second part of the ballot (yet 120 or so others are).

I couldn't say that unless I KNEW Davis wasn't on the second part of the ballot.

[Classical_Liberal]

91. Whatever.

. Spin Spin Spin. You contextualized that he could lose to someone with on 12% of the vote, so I respond to your obsurd context and then you claim he can't because he isn't in the general election. I can see why an ealier poster shitcanned you. You are a dishonest debater.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchtv]

120. example: CL doesn't know what they are talking about

better do some research

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

88. SO what and you answered my question with a questio but since you

asked, allow me to state in bullet fashion what is UNDEMOCRATIC about this recall.

A.) The state constitution's intent was to grant POWER TO THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE POWERFUL. This recall was financed BY THE POWERFUL.

B.) It was not accomplished by a grass roots movement but by people paid and brought in from OUT OF STATE to accomplish it.

C.) IT was challenged on a number of fronts and ALL challenges were rejected by a court stacked by some of the people (i.e. Pete Wilson) behind the recall. Even the Chief Justice who is a Republican wanted to hear some of those cases.


Now I have supported my opinons....please SUPPORT YOURS!

Answer my question ...unless of course you can't with a logical answer which I am about to assume is most probably the case.

[mitchtv]

118. if you think arnold is not more conservative than Davis

Guess again, you must know something everyone else in Calif hasn't seen. He is a stealth candidate , and has backtracked on virtually everything he has said. We will not see the impact til he gets his hands on the PUC and coastal commisions for a start. His immigration stand is impossible to decipher- all double talk. Pete Wilsons minions are running the show, he is afraid to debate without a carefully scripted message in short ,a puke with a friendly face , who advocates do as I say, not as I do.

[AP]

44. I can understand a Stalinist getting excited by the Recall, but a Democrat

????

C'mon folks.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Can't take the heat so you call names

Gee thanks.

[AP]

49. No. I'm taking heat. I'm giving heat. AND I'm calling names.

all three.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. I think you should look in the mirror on that accusation

.

[AP]

55. Personal pronoun "I" -- I was looking in the figurative mirror and I was

writing about myself.

Does this mean you're out of arguments?

[AP]

56. Personal pronoun "I" -- I was looking in the figurative mirror and I was

writing about myself.

Does this mean you're out of arguments?

[Terwilliger]

80. AP

what happened to you? :shrug:

[AP]

86. I'm arguing against people who have no idea what they're talking about

That's what has happened to me.

How else do you respond to a post telling you to look into the mirror in response to a post in which I''ve just characterized what I am doing.

(And the idea that I can't stand the heat...what do I have, like 40 posts with arguments in this thread? That's heat right there. I'm arguing with people who just throw out tag lines and can't engage on the facts and theory. What do you want from me?)

[Classical_Liberal]

95. No you are misrepresenting peoples positions

Arianna talked about Indian Casinos and you left that important part of the story out of the initial telling, and just referred to indians, basically claiming Arianna was anti-indian, then you nitpick spell errors, and responces to unsupported assertions.

[AP]

101. I think it's worse not to have any idea that Davis isn't on part 2 of the

ballot.

At least I know the facts. I can't help it if you're having such trouble with them that you have to grasp at rhetorical straws (and outright lie -- I didn't complain about your spelling...you left out entire words...you were putting question marks after a couple words that didn't make any sense).

I never said A.H. was against Indians. I was using short hand. If anyone besides you missed the context, I appologize, but I suspect you're probably alone on this front.

[Classical_Liberal]

103. If he wasn't on the ballot how could he lose to someone who was?

A claim you made.

[AP]

106. Please keep repeating this, because it's really helping me win this thing

You really don't see how Davis could have the support of 49.99999999% of the voters of CA who don't want to see him go, but vacate the Gov's mansion to a Republican who only won 12% of the vote on the second part of the ballot?

Even AH understands this. That's why she's running.

You're about to give me my second laugh of the day.

If you have a real point to make here, why don't you step aside and let someone else try to make it, because you're totally discrediting yourself by persisting with such a boneheaded statement.

Either you don't know there are two parts to this ballot, and therefore don't knoe what you're talking about, or you do know but you want the casaul CA'ian reader to be confused about this.

[Classical_Liberal]

108. NO she is running because she could win just as easily as the republican

. She would be a better governer than any of them. Besides the worst outcome is Arnold, who is a moderate republican and basically has the same politics as Gray Davis. This is progressive vs moderate not liberal vs fascist. I am progressive and I like Arianna because she is a progressive as well. Neither Gray or Bisumante are progressives. They are DLC Rockefeller republicans like Arnold.

[mitchtv]

122. bwa hahahahahahahah

Davis recall 49.9% no. Replacement: AS 22% winner= GOP Davis to remain as Gov 3 million votes loses. Winner with 1.5 million votes= arnold (or hopefully Cruz) .out of staters go home, unless you know what you are talking about, and like Arianna , you, cl, don't.

[Classical_Liberal]

123. Aparently you are not aware Davis is not on the ballot

but AP won't bring that up in your case. I don't really care actually it just means that 50.01 percent think just about anyone is better than Davis which is true, except for McClintock who will get fewer votes than Arnold. Given that Arnold is a mdoerate it is neither here nor there whether he replaces Davis. You can't get Naral alarmed about Arnold, so this is just a stupid pissing contest of Partisans.

[Terwilliger]

109. You keep claiming that Arianna doesnt know what she's talking about

you've shown no proof, except to say "well, find a transcript of her stump!"

You also claim that I don't know how the Recall works. I know exactly how it works, and I think you're mischaracterizing Bustamante's effect on the outcome because you agree with the strategy.

[Enraged American]

113. Just a quick question.

Can you vote NO on the recall and abstain from the second part of the ballot? Because if I were a Californian, that's what I'd do. Senator Feingold exposed Cruz Bustamante for what he was, an insincere OPPORTUNIST.

[Terwilliger]

116. that is correct

You can vote NO/YES and nothing else...but there's no reason not to use your power on Number 2.

[Enraged American]

117. Yes there sure is.

It's called integrity.

[Terwilliger]

121. well, that and $1.50 gets you a cup of coffee

not voting on 2 assures that Schwarzy will win