California Recall now that it's over and we know who won... do you think there should have even been one to begin with? rather... should one have been allowed to vote for a recall?Show results
My answer is yes.
I voted yes on the recall, and I think it needed to happen just
to show Davis and future candidates that it can and will be
done.
I think he f-ed up big time on mishandling energy, and his ego
needed to be slashed up a bit as well. If it didnt pass, hed a
been hell to live with for another 3 years.
I also suspect that if Arnie hadnt run for Governator, the
recall may not have passed--it was an end to a means for a
lot of people (translation==pec-fans) said end being putting
Arnie in office.
I didnt vote for Swarzenegger for several reasons, one of
which is his mixed bag of politics--hes a democratic
republican.
I mean come on... he AINT gonna forego gettin laid some
night just cause he doesnt agree with her on some issue.
I also believe hes pro gun contrl, a touchy issue with me.
Ok, I'll cease my filabustering now, and reliquish the floor
with this thought...
"For the memory of a lifetime....
recall....reca-all...recall... all....all....all....all......"
function ShockWaveInducer();
Posts: 1964
(10/10/03 1:53 am) Reply
Re: California Recall
I'm in agreement with you DH, though for different reasons. I believe in the clause which allows for a recall. I only wish every state had that right. In the case of this particular office, I don't think that this clause should have been used. Of course I, living in NY didn't have to deal with his shit (I had Guliani to deal with. ) In the end, I would hope that these types of policies are used to prevent the governer of a state from say, invading the state next to it, or some other nefarious activity. In the case of Davis, I don't think that they proved that he was incompetent, or malicious.
My prediction is that Arnold will not be able to solve that state's problems either, and he'll end up looking like a fool for saying that Davis was neglectful.
Again though.. I'm an outsider on this. I have nothing to gain or lose except the precident set by the action.
"A rose by any other name, would never, never smell the same, and cunning is the nose that knows, an onion that's been called a rose."
Bleeding Admiral L
Posts: 730
(10/10/03 10:02 pm) Reply
Re: California Recall
I haven't followed California politicts, so I really can't say if this case was justified.
However, I think that politicians need to be kept in check. I would like to see more politicans get recalled, and not just Governors. I think that we should be able to recall Congress, Senators, Representatives, the whole lot. There are some who think that once they get elected, they are above the law. They can do what they want, or not do what they are supposed to.
I'm not saying that they are all bad, but not all of them are doing their jobs.
I do think that there needs to be some form of "Grading Scale" set. A way to determine if a recall is justified.
Re: California Recall
Yeah that's the thing. All politicians are WAY too comfortable in their elected positions because they KNOW they will be there for "x" number of years.
function ShockWaveInducer();
Posts: 1969
(10/11/03 10:20 pm) Reply
Re: California Recall
it's not that long. I'm just in favor of making elected limits, without term limits (not in all cases). ie, you're in office for two years to four years depending upon the position, and most positions have long total limits. I like the 10 years presidential limit. If you can't do what you need to do in a decade, you never will. Most Presidents only make 8 anyway. Four years might suck a bit. It's hard to change anything in four years.. Hence this works well for something like the president. Mayors and such should have like 20 year limits, with elections every four.
My question of course concerning recalls is.. Are we ruled by mob rule?, what happens when someone charismatic, but nefarious, gains a hold of public opinion? WWII happens. Keep in mind the lessons of the past, and the reasons why we have a system of checks and balances. Perhaps you are both right in that a serious look has to be made into term limit reforms. We need to make the system work to take care of that problem, rather than mucking up the system with all sorts of precidents which might come back to bite us in the ass later.
"A rose by any other name, would never, never smell the same, and cunning is the nose that knows, an onion that's been called a rose."
Quote:My prediction is that Arnold will not be able to
solve that state's problems either, and he'll end up
looking like a fool for saying that Davis was neglectful.
Amen brother, Im quite doubtful he will.
Hes been interested in politics for a long time, he married into
a family that needs no introductions.
He surrounds himself with poli-lifers and poli-pros,
waits for the perfect time, then tosses his mini-gun
in the arena, as a refreshing,
"new-to-politics-so-he-hasnt-been-corroupted-yet"
candidate with fresh ideas. Then he makes the canned
promises his advisors want and tell him to make.
The objective is still the same and always will be:
Get your ass to Mars--oops er, I mean elected.
Once there, you do what you do, according to your own
agenda.
Quote:Again though.. I'm an outsider on this. I have nothing to gain or lose except the precident set by the
action.
Im happy for you youre an outsider,
couldnt happen to a nicer guy I truly hate what this
states become since I was born and raised here, and
we are working on getting the hell out of dodge before
they burn down the few good salloons remaining.
) In the end, I would hope that these types of policies are used to prevent the governer of a state from say, invading the state next to it, or some other nefarious activity. In the case of Davis, I don't think that they proved that he was incompetent, or malicious.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies 
