Posted 4:45 AM by Blah blah

More on the California Recall (Politics)

I asked Esther and Bich Ngoc, both in Los Angeles, what they thought of my views on the California recall.

Esther wrote: "I, too, was very disappointed in all of the performances except for Camejo and McClintock. I thought their performances soared way above those of their opponents'. I think as a result of this debate I will probably vote for McClintock, since I tend to sway to the right, anyway. Ariana Huffington seemed so trite and any bias I had towards her as a fellow female was just totally negated by her politics of complaining and no real good solutions. Arnold basically gave a just-above mediocre performance as in most of his movies. He learned the bare bones of each issue and learned to articulate in his limited English-speaking ability his true feelings on each issue. And he really does care about the issues--he is just a n00b politician and inexperienced so that passion hasn't burnt out, yet. It is really unknown if that is enough to carry him through his term in office if he were to be elected. Bustamonte was 'above it all' and totally arrogant, thus rude. Any left-leaning tendences of mine came to be ashamed by the snobbery he displayed. Just the fact that he articulated that he grew up with 5 other children and in a working family at the end of the debate didn't prove enough that that experience had even taught him any humility. So that plus soft money's a cover-blow in my mind. Conversely, McClintock is a bit conservative for me but the fact that he was unwavering in his stances made me proud of my *right*-leaning tendencies. The fact that he seemed to know the issues in extreme depth since he could talk about length and stipulate so objectively as opposed to subjectively (like all the other candidates who sounded more like they were whining) made me respect him even more."

I wrote back: "Thanks for your reply. Yes, I also respected McClintock and Camejo the most after the debate. I felt like McClintock was someone who represented a fair and more traditional Republican view, someone who was earnestly concerned with dealing with practical realities.

My problem was with his conservative views.

He's anti-abortion, anti-gun control, against any new taxes, for education vouchers (that I think could make our schools more stratified), and for building more nuclear plants to help provide more energy.

I disagree with all of those views. I do think we need to raise taxes on the top earners. I'm undecided about Prop. 54 (which he is for).

I agreed with what he said in the debate about supporting disadvantaged kids and ignoring race. Also I agreed with his support for giving more local governments a better source of funding and stopping mandated state funding (Bustamante agreed too)."

From Bich Ngoc: "No way in hell would I ever vote for McClintock.
His stance on social issues is way out of step with one of the most
progressive states in the nation."

She sent us this editorial from the Los Angeles Times:
_____________________
Why the Recall Is Wrong

Californians are faced with the most important election in recent memory: the decision on whether to remove and replace Gov. Gray Davis. The implications of this recall go far beyond whether the abysmally unpopular Davis stays or goes.

Davis is a leader of intellect but of no soul. He is a competent policy wonk who can speak at length about budget subventions (don't ask) but can't get legislators of his own Democratic Party to, as he once put it, "implement my vision." For one thing, nobody knows what that vision is. Love them or hate them, former Govs. Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan knew where they wanted to take this state. Davis' modest ideas of where he should steer the ship of state have been those of the overnight helmsman, not the captain. He has spent too much time avoiding issues: not dealing with the energy crisis and not providing relief for small businesses until it was almost too late; not cultivating legislative relationships that could have made him an effective governor.

Davis is, however, a moderate Democrat who has been in step with what most Californians want in environmental protection and personal freedoms. He has been a counterbalance to the more extreme, sometimes downright goofy wing of the state's Democratic Party, the one that once gave the state the Commission on Self-Esteem. But what Davis will most be remembered for is relentless fund-raising from deep-pockets labor and corporate donors. He was hauling in $1 million per month, even at the height of the energy crisis. Not an endearing legacy.

*

No on Recall

So why not replace him? The Times opposes the recall because it doesn't make sense. There were no reasonable standards in calling for a new election. Davis was elected last year with 47% of the vote; months later, political opponents spent millions to replay the election. Now the state will spend $66 million for a special election, with 135 official candidates, come one, come all. If the recall prevails, the winner, with a minority of the overall vote, would replace a governor who got a large plurality. It's undemocratic.

There is another good reason why we oppose this recall. The alternatives — as much as truth hurts in this nation-sized state that deserves better — are not superior to Davis. In fact, they are potentially worse. Consider:

Arnold Schwarzenegger: What a shame that Schwarzenegger, with his power to attract worldwide media attention, failed to lead a serious discussion of what ails California and how to fix it. Instead, he was happy to feed voters predictable lines from his movies: "Let's terminate them. Let's say" [can you possibly guess?] " 'Hasta la vista, baby' to those guys." His outreach to the common man was, shall we say, thin: He told firefighters he identified with them because he had played one in a film. He ran away from a widely respected advisor, investor Warren Buffett, because Buffett dared to suggest that the state's property tax structure was out of whack. A moderate Republican who had a golden opportunity to bring people together, Schwarzenegger squandered that capital by spending most of his campaign ducking the direct and tough questioning that he would have to face as governor. Finally, Schwarzenegger seemed to have only a casual acquaintance with the truth as practiced outside Hollywood. In discussing a controversial 1977 magazine interview about sex and drugs, Schwarzenegger first suggested he was young and foolish at the time, and the next day seemed not to recall the interview. Finally he suggested he had just made it up. His assertions that his statewide after-school program, when it takes effect, will not take money from other state programs — when the truth is that it will — suggests a consistent tendency to, at best, oversimplify and, at worst, shade the truth. Though that may be considered roguishly charming in a high-powered movie star, it is neither appealing nor desirable in a governor.

Cruz Bustamante: Bustamante brings to mind the man who was holding someone else's overcoat when the storm hit; luck and the ability to see the obvious opportunity have served him well. But the lieutenant governor has been a disappointing and an unimpressive candidate. His up-by-his-bootstraps, son-of-a-barber American dream story is nice, but it's not enough. While he has been taking millions of dollars from Indian gambling interests, his grasp of economics has proved tenuous. He actually believes that state regulation of gasoline prices would benefit consumers. The only federal attempt to fix gas prices, in the 1970s, led to shortages and lines. Bustamante also has insisted that the energy companies that triggered the state's power crisis also caused the state's fiscal crisis. It's a good sound bite, but surely the lieutenant governor and former Assembly speaker knows that the cause was the national economic downturn and the collapse of the high-tech industry, especially in Silicon Valley Or does he?

Tom McClintock: McClintock is the anti-mealy-mouthed candidate. He's done his homework, has been consistent and has fully articulated his positions. The problem is, McClintock would have to govern all of California, not just the conservative wing of the GOP. His intolerant social views — on public services for the poor, on gays and on abortion, as well as his draconian solutions to problems of illegal immigration and his opposition to banning assault weapons — are out of step with mainstream California. Still, he almost won statewide office last year as controller in a race with then-political unknown Steve Westly. No doubt McClintock has a bigger future in GOP politics, but he is unsuitable for the top job in the nation's most diverse state.

Peter Camejo: Camejo, the perpetual Green Party candidate, has some good-sounding ideas about making taxation policies more fair. But his simplistic tax-the-rich reform doesn't take into account that California already has one of the most progressive income tax systems in the country.

Arianna Huffington: Huffington, conservative-turned-libertarian/liberal-gadfly author and columnist, sparked necessary conversation about the need for fundamental, statewide reforms. Controversy over her own payment of taxes damaged the credibility of her campaign against greed.

*

Replacement: No Endorsement

If state voters are to throw out a governor less than one year into his term, the replacement should be demonstrably superior. This field of contenders offers no such person. Changing the governor in midstream would not address what really ails California state and local governments; the recall of Davis instead would invite more political chaos and economic uncertainty. Worse, the state and the nation could look forward to more recalls pushed by poor losers who simply didn't want to wait for the end of a four-year term. The vituperative, scorched-earth politics of partisan payback would be never ending.

The recall is a form of misdirected anger at what's wrong with Sacramento. Here's what causes most of California's dysfunction: illogical tax laws and policies; gerrymandering; term limits, which take power from the elected and hand power to the lobbyists; a political system fueled by big business and big union cash; and, yes, ill-considered ballot initiatives and recall elections. As soon as this recall is over, voters finally can collectively concentrate on ridding Sacramento of the real causes of the state's problems. Recall might feel good, but it would cause the worst political hangover California has ever had.
_____________________
Thanks, Bich Ngoc! I agree very much with this editorial. Davis, despite his flaws, speaks very much for centrist Democrats like me. McClintock is way too conservative on social issues (anti-abortion) and doesn't want to ban assault weapons, plus energy is not the MAIN cause of our economic crisis. I am against legislative term limits, since they put more power in the hands of legislative staff and lobbyists.

I have a big problem with California's recall, ballot initiative, and proposition system, since it lets voters completely bypass the state legislature. We elected the legislature to represent us---we shouldn't bypass our own representatives or own election results with "whoops, I changed my mind!" As anti-recall advocates have stressed, it sets a very bad example for the future, in which people use the threat of recall as a weapon, in which the governor can only lead in a short-term way to serve the fickle polls or fear being kicked out when a small fraction of the voters change their minds.

I want to vote exactly like the LA Times said: NO on the recall, and no endorsement for the replacement candidate.

However, if Davis loses, the replacement candidate does become important, although I don't like any of them. Since Arnold has recently begun to lead in the polls of candidates to follow Davis, it gives me a chill. I reluctantly need to vote for Bustamante as the replacement candidate, just to keep the leadership of California Democratic.

Practically then, I'm voting for NO on the recall, and YES on Bustamante for the replacement.