Go Arnold!

As an ex-Californian, I'm watching this closely! Surely 01 has an opinion on this!

TS

 

I was wondering when Calif was gonna fall of inta the ocean... I heard they were moving the Ford Trucks off of it first

 

I like Arny too, but come on, Governor? I gotta believe there's somebody a little more qualified for the position......

-Mike-

 

Davis is terminated. Arnold is the governor.

 

Could this country of ours get any lower. I can accept the recall but come on arnold as the governor!! we have truly reached bottom. We can only hope the san andraus (sp) fault becomes active soon.

 

He could do about as good a job as anyone.

 

That must mean he will be as good as davis??. Its bull, We need a educated, respected, smart, forward thinker in that position not arni.....



us all

 

Why not give Ahhhhhnold a chance?
Didn't they say all this stuff about Ronald Reagan when he was running for Governor (and President)?
I think Arnie will be smart enough to surround himself with very smart and capable people who will be able to figure it all out.
If Davis can turn a 12 billion surplus into a 35 billion deficit since 99 then surely Arnie can't be worse.
California is the 6th largest economy in the world. It can't go on as it is.

My 2c worth.

 

"Come with me if you want to live."

 

His slogan:


"I'll be bak"

 

Well, since I was invited to comment…

Here is my view on the recall:

It is in the California Constitution –

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit,
and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good
may require.

The state's constitution, however, does not specify that elected officials can only be recalled for illegal acts. By law, proponents must simply state a reason for recall -- and that reason could presumably be simply that the official is doing a poor job. Therefore, the recall provision is not limited to the demonstrably corrupt or the impeachable. California's recall provision makes it possible to remove politicians deemed dishonest, incapable, incompetent, unrepresentative, unresponsive, unsatisfactory, or wasteful.

Here is some more interesting information about the history of California’s recall. http://www.thecalifornian.com/news/s...on/389176.html


Ok, now my take on it.

I think it is fine that California had the recall, it is their state law, and from what I read it does have some merit to why it was put into law.

If the democrats have such a problem with it, or the republicans then both parties have had about 92 years to have it taken out of California’s Constitution. It was adopted in 1911. I believe it has been used 12 – 13 times and this is the first successful attempt using it.

With that said I personally don’t like the idea of the recall itself. It causes instability in a government. How can one try to successfully govern if they are always looking over their shoulder and worrying about being recalled for what ever reason?

State government is one thing and federal government is a completely different story. It is one thing for state government to have instability because of a recall provision with very vague definitions of its use? Not to mention it took a very little number of the population to put it into action. What was the percentage needed to approve the recall in California? Like 10%? Could you imagine federal government having that type of instability? It would be a nightmare.

I would support a recall for any elected official in state or federal government that had been convicted of a felony AND there were no other provisions to have that person removed IF that is what majority of the citizens represented by said elected official wanted. Majority of at least 51% of the people.

I did not particularly care for President Clinton when he was in office and did feel he disgraced it at times, specifically with Monica. However I did NOT support the impeachment process that was undergone. He was elected by the people and therefore unless there was a provision for the “people” to vote on him being impeached, and that vote came out to 51% of the people supporting it then fine and I would have agreed with that.

However there was no such provision, and though the Constitution states an impeachment can done for “high crimes and misdemeanors” I did not feel that Clintons problem with cigars came anywhere near that level.

When the people of California elected Davis and he screwed them then tough love, that is how it is and now they must suffer the consequences of their inability to do any homework on the man they elected AND tough love to those that did not elect him because they didn’t bother to get off their lazy butt and vote for the other candidate.

I have always said that regardless of the 1st amendment, if you don’t vote (and you’re eligible to) then you do NOT have the right to whine about the outcome and will have to suffer the outcome until the next “official” election.

So now that this is over in California and they have “kind of” a Republican Governor I wonder how much support all the democrats will give to getting rid of the “recall” provision…

 

Maybe it's time for northern California to split from the state:

http://jeffersonstate.com/articles.html


runnert

 

Makes sense runnert, therefore it will never happen!

 

If California deciedes to secede from the Union, I would be more than happy, instead of a Civil War, there would probably be Civil celebration!

 

I have the same thoughts about the recall also. Consider it a lesson learned for not researching.


On a side note, my co-workers parents are currently touring Europe, and got some opinions on this whole recall thing from over there. Here is what they (Europe) had to say:.


Interesting comments to say the least.

Those comments are not the views of my co-workers parents, just what they were told while on vacation.