California Recall Live Thread

[Sabertooth]

Do it California. Post here.

[camas]

have to think about this for awhile-he tried to be a spoiler and would not support ARNOLD.

[cyncooper]

Wow, on CNN actor Rob Lowe just said (to Judy Woodruff, of all people) that Arnold will "bring more conservatism to this state that so badly needs it".

Just catching up on posts made since I went to bed last night.

I just have to say "I told you so!" about Lowe.

I posted several times, over the last few weeks, that I thought he had made some changes in his life from his younger days. He is a very strong supporter of President Bush and particularily our troops in the War on Terror.

I am so pleased to see he said this. I was hoping my perception was right.

[pgyanke]

I apologize for the long delay... I hang with my family at night (no offense, fellow Freepers!).

...my point is that if one's action give victory to the enemy...

I understand your point, you misunderstand mine.

There are many ways for my "enemy" to gain advantage over me. Some are overt and some are more covert. There is the overt means of having an absolute 180 degree bassackwards ideologue (like Hitlery or Bustabutt) in power over me. There is also the covert means of continually giving me "the lesser of two evils." Over the years, as the bar lowers with each "lesser", I have to accept less and less. Somewhere, I either stand up for my beliefs or I never get the opportunity to vote for them again.

Conservatives should take great notice of this election. The Republican party decided to swing left to "win" this election. Those who thought we stood for something bigger than that, were apparently wrong.

The absolutely outrageous thing in this election is that there was a choice who wasn't the lesser of two evils but a near carbon copy of what we claim to want here on FR. However, we on FR chose to be pragmatic and turn our backs on "our" candidate out of fear of the bogeyman. Does anyone here feel they were led around by the nose by the media we so hate? THEY chose Arnold. THEY declared Tom unelectable. THEY gave all of the election oxygen to Mr Schwarzenkennedy. Those of you who said they would only vote for Tom if he were ahead in the polls on election day doomed him to failure by the very "tainting" of polls you routinely decry. YOU GAVE THEM THEIR AMMUNITION.

Your principles tell you to vote pragmatically, pushing the better choice to the side in favor of the one you've been told can actually win. Who told you this? The very party leaders and authorities we continually rail about on FR? The very media establishment that canonized Arnold as the Republican frontrunner (like Wesley Clark) as soon as he announced his candidacy?

Why is it that Tom can't win? Well, let's first see what it takes to win... To win, Tom needs more votes than his opponents. It takes us to vote for him. What will it take for us to vote for him? We have to know what he believes and see if it jibes with what we believe... he has to get his message out. What will it take to get his message out? It will take a lot of support. What does he not have? Support--not from the party, not from the media, not from you. Why? Because he's unelectable... it's a circular argument.

It's all moot now but my principles as an American say to vote my conscience. I shouldn't worry about my neighbor's vote. To game my vote or to vote strictly party line is to vote like a Democrat and a political lemming--not a man of principle.

At the end of the day, I will be who God called me to be. You can be what God called you to be. However, I am not less than you because I choose the better candidate and you choose to vote with the pack.

P.S. I'm not in CA anymore. I care about it's future and it's politics but my issue with this whole affair has been the subordination of conservative principles to a lemming pragmatism better suited to totalitarian regimes. It's not about Tom, it's about our future as a conservative voting population.

[null and void]

The Dog That Didn't Bark:

Sooooo, where was Bill???

There were TV cameras and no Bill Clinton. Is he deathly ill?

[cyncooper]

Not only is the "Yes" vote higher than Arnold's, so is Davis's vote.

More people apparently want to retain Davis as Governor than want to have Arnold as Governor.

But because Davis is not allowed to be a candidate to succeed himself, it doesn't mean anything.

California is a strange place.

What's strange and downright bizarre is your type of extremely twisted thinking.

The reality is very plain and simple:

More people wanted Davis OUT. They had a pot pourri to select from to replace him. By far, Schwarzenegger received the vast vast majority in that selection process.

[cyncooper]

The latest numbers from the California Secretary of State website at 5:19 am Pacific Time shows Governor elect Arnold Schwarzenegger with 3,476,301 votes. This passes Gray Davis' vote count of 3,469,025 from the 2002 election.

This should add to the "legitimacy" of the election. Arnold also owns 47.9% of the vote as compared to 47.4% for Gray last November.

Then redheaded John on MSNBC was using old numbers since the first thing I saw on tv this morning about an hour after your post time, was John showing Arnold had less votes (so far, I should note, but why the hell was he comparing them if not to "send a message") than Davis had gotten last time.

He did show 97% reporting in. And redheaded John is usually very good so now I'm perplexed with him pulling this number stunt.

[kkindt]

I understood the rules - you must understand that my point is simply this - Davis is not permitted to be one of the run off candidates. Yet he could have gotten 49% of the vote and then, because he could not be in competititon with the 100 others, still lose to someone who only got 34% - do you see what I am trying to say about this?

[Moby Grape]

I share your concern, the concern of conservatives, regarding the GOP becoming the moderate party. I have often said that I dislike moderates more than liberals...at least liberals hold to their issues and stand for SOMETHING, even if it is wrong. I also understand the desire to act upon principle, in that you do not wish to hold your nose and vote for a moderate when there is a true conservative on the ballot. I hate that we are often faced with the lesser of evil choices....

But, having said that, I understand that liberals destroy whatever they touch from education to defense....it seems to me principled to at times chose the lesser of evils, and vote in a way that assures that the liberal is removed from office and replaced by someone who will at least do less damage to the country.

If McClintock was even, or slightly ahead of Arnold in the polls, I would have screamed with all that is in me for HIM to bow out..but alas, the vote shows that McClintock just did not have enough support to get elected, and at least this time, not enough support to put the democrat back in office.

I am NO fan of Arnold, and fear that if he does not take the tough steps necessary, then California will go into default, and the GOP at large will suffer, along with the entire nation.

[kkindt]

BUT if Davis had been permitted to put his name up with the contenders he could have gotten 49% of the vote - don't you see how unfair it is to not permit him to run against the 100? If he got recalled by 51% and had 49% vote for him - and if he had been permitted to have his name in the contender list he would have gotten the 49% and then someone with less than that could not have replaced him.

[pgyanke]

I've read your arguments and they are vacuous. Davis has been recalled--fired--impeached by the electorate. That is the first question on the ballot.

The second question becomes who will replace the FIRED governor?

They are mutually exclusive questions. Your hypotheticals have nothing to do with reality.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

LOL - you're right - I watched it again and did the rewind thing on TiVo. My husband was watching it in the garage, and he heard it the same way I did. Whew!! : )

[prairiebreeze]

I'll pose this question here instead of a vanity post, to see what the opinions are of California Freepers and Recall Thread posters.

Now that Davis is out and Arnold is in (by significant percentages) what's your opinion of how this will impact Hillary's decision about a possible Presidency run in '04? Or even in '08 for that matter?

It's obvious that Bill Clinton endorsements are not an asset for Dimocrapic hopefuls or hangers-on. In fact they could be viewed as a liability. So, does that same handicap also extend to Hillary now? Will her Heinous decide Bill has too much baggage for her to carry and divorce him before any run?

The Beest and her keepers have to be sweating bullets about the Arnold win. They may even have to concede the backlash effect of the Times smears. What is likely to be their next tactic and what will be their methods?

Prairie

[blackie]

Please get off the pitty potty ~ there are a couple of more whiners that want to use it. :)

[strela]

Will her Heinous decide Bill has too much baggage for her to carry and divorce him before any run?

Color me amazed that she didn't divorce him about 2 nanoseconds after she was elected Senator in New York. I think she honestly believed that people would be nostalgic for the Clinton years after a year or two of President Bush; the fact that they're not surprised her.

The Beest and her keepers have to be sweating bullets about the Arnold win. They may even have to concede the backlash effect of the Times smears. What is likely to be their next tactic and what will be their methods?

I think we'll see in a couple of weeks. Tying up the election results in the courts and plain old obstruction in the Assembly by Rat legislators are two likely outcomes. They'll probably learn from the experiences of the "Chicken D" legislators in Texas and secrete key Rat legislators somewhere in Nevada or New Mexico, thus denying a quorum and making Schwarzenegger look ineffective.

[GraniteStateConservative]

No, Bush is out of step with the state's ideology. Arnold fits it like a glove. The state is a libertarian state-- fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

[jetson]

Where's Bill! Where's Hitllary! The great Klintons are no where to be found.

[prairiebreeze]

That sounds risky to me. To play a Chicken D move in California. But then rational behavior isn't their way either.

Hopefully the voters would remain strongly voiced and flood their congressman's offices and the media outlets with on-going complaints should that tactic be tried.

Prairie

[null and void]

Now that Davis is out and Arnold is in (by significant percentages) what's your opinion of how this will impact Hillary's decision about a possible Presidency run in '04?

No change. She's not running for President:

She's running for VICE President.

• She keeps he promise not to run for president in '04
• Two years and one day into her term the first slotter gets arkincided
• Under Article XXII, she can still run for two full terms as the incumbent
• The Hillary!™ Decade begins
• Hillary uses the Patriot Act to it's fullest extent, and beyond
• At the end of the Hillary!™ Decade there is a National Emergency "temporarily" delaying the elections
• Under the pressure of the National Emergency, the 2nd and 22nd amendments are repealed...

Just as an aside, with the Clinton's love of all things Military - Wesley Clark is VERY expendible, isn't he?

[prairiebreeze]

Yikes nully! :^D

You do raise a good point about the Veep role though. And the technicality she might employ with NY constituents who question it.

Prairie

[pgyanke]

... all yours!