John Scalzi has a long and fun screed up about the recall, and I would recommend you take a look at it. I am not going to join him in beating up the California voters (four years of Davis and then a choice between Simon and Davis- haven’t they suffered enough?), but I do think he is right about some points, not surprisingly, the points I have mentioned previously that I found objectionable about the recall process:
Yes, Gray Davis was unpopular. That’s what you get when you don’t vote, people. You want your leaders to reflect your interests, haul your whiny asses to the polls on a regular basis.
The very worst thing about this recall election is that it solidifies the concept of the permanent political campaign, with the focus on running for a position rather than the running of the government. Every vote for the recall was a vote for office-holders needing even more money to run their political organizations, money which will inevitably come from special interests and corporations, making the political process even more opaque to the needs of citizens than it already is. Every vote for the recall is a vote that signals that politicians can’t vote their consciences, on the rare occasion they have one, for fear of some excitable group deciding that it just can’t wait for the normal election cycle to boot their asses out. Every vote for the recall is a vote for short-attention-span government, one that inevitably trends towards the “bread-and-circuses” aspect of the political discourse, rather than the aspect that deals with long-term issues in a serious way.
So, to wrap things up: If you voted for the recall, you might have thought you were voting to boot Gray Davis out of office. But that’s because you’re a moron, easily distracted by sparkly lights and shiny objects. You were really voting to let small, inherently undemocratic groups run your state all the time, forever. The fact that you thought you were doing the former when in fact you were doing the latter suggests that you would have been more helpful in the governance of your state by hurling yourself off the Golden Gate Bridge and smacking into the bay below with a nice, bone-powdering swack. In addition to clearing out four million bottom-feeders from an already-overpopulated state, California might still have a government still nominally beholden to voters, instead of through special-interest control by mob rule proxy. Good job.
While I disagree that this was undemocratic (it followed all the procedures set up within the California Constitution), the CA recall as written is a deeply flawed piece of work. A quick note to Californians- change this. However, he is absolutely right about this instituting the so-called permanent campaign. I am fearful that this will be the beginning of six month administrations (although it should be noted only four states have a form of recall), but it is most certainly going to poison the climate. With jackasses like McAuliffe and Mulholland running around, you can be sure of it:
California Democrat Party state spokesman Bob Mulholland said his party is giving Arnold Schwarzenegger just 100 days before a new recall effort may be launched.
Mulholland made his threat on Fox News Tuesday night after polls closed and major press outlets declared Arnold Schwarzenegger the winner.
On Tuesday, Gray Davis declined to refute reports that he may back a new recall effort against Schwarzenegger.
Already press reports indicate that Democrats have $3 million prepared for a new recall effort.
Also, Hollywood billionaire Stephen Bing has promised to finance any Democratic-backed recall effort.
Yippee! We get to do this all over again. Fortunately, the Democrats will need to give him more than 100 days, as the law gives him a six month grace period- but you get the point. In his screed, Scalzi blames the usual suspects for this recall:
Californians, boy, did you ever get played, you dumb-ass losers. This was, at its root, one of the most flagrantly un-democratic (small “d”) elections in the history of the United States, and you followed the script as if you were giggling, squealing paid extras. The recall was bought and paid for by one guy and orchestrated by a few zealots with an extremely narrow agenda, and both these parties were more than happy to push your emotional buttons to get you to do what they wanted you to do, which was boot the current and conventionally-elected office-holder for a chance to install someone more amenable to their own interests. Florida 2000 paranoids aside, this is the closest thing to a coup we’ve had in the country, and you swallowed it like it was a tasty treat. It’s sickening, really.
Scalzi is partially right, in a sense- it is the GOP to blame. But not the ‘cabal’ of ‘conspirators’ the tin-foil hat crowd likes to throw around. The people who are really to blame are all the people are a group of influential California GOP party men, led by George Deukmejian, who killed Dick Riordan’s primary race by denouncing the man, stating they had no respect for the man, and essentially writing Gray Davis’s commercials. It was clear to anyone with a brain that someone like Bill Simon would NEVER be elected, yet the CA GOP marched along in lockstop, choosing the right to marginalized ideological purity over the right to govern. Hell, Richard Bennet had an ongoing theme about this titled the Republican Death March.
Fortunately for the state of California, do-overs are allowed, some in the GOP grew up enough to realize that a pro-choice moderate Republican was better than Gray Davis, as did the rest of the electorate. Simon dropped out early, McClintock ran a respectable, principled, and decent campaign, and Arnold was able to carry the day.
This is the main reason that I think all of the triumphalism about California being in play for 2004 is rather absurd. There was no tectonic shift in the political stances of the majority of Californians. This was an anti-Davis vote, and Arnold is a moderate, palatable candidate. Let’s be clear about one thing- this was not, as some might say, an anti-incumbent vote. This was an anti-Davis vote. Has everyone forgotten what Davis’s friends thought about him?
Gray is a friend of mine, but Gray has really given a bad name to being moderate, because Gray really isn’t a moderate. Gray is kind of a, you know, this kind of guy who polls for the answer. … There’s not much that Gray stands for — and I like Gray personally — but Gray doesn’t stand for anything. That’s his problem politically right now. You know, Gray stands for Gray. And so, as something moves forward, his calculus is not ‘What do I feel in my gut or my heart?’ His calculus is ‘What sounds good? What polls good? I don’t wanna make a mistake that could cost me politically.’ But when you do that, you get just what he got. I mean, which is, in his effort to be risk-averse, you end up with the biggest risk, where ultimately nobody feels shit about you. I mean even the articles that try to say we don’t like the recall, none of them have good things to say about Gray. …
Had Rirodan run the first time around this recall would never have happened. But does this put California in play for Bush? Let’s not be silly. Oliver seems to think the reason the GOP will not win in 2006 is because there will be no other celebrity to run. He is wrong. If the GOP loses in 2006, it is because either Arnold was a failure or because they will nominate another candidate like Simon, a person that mad even the most outspoken Davis critics cringe.
Maybe the GOP will learn. I doubt it. Arnold really does represent the new breed of Republicans (at least he claims to hold positions like most of the Republicans I know- think libertarian lite), but the California primary voters continue to select candidates who we be immensely popular Governors- in Alabama.
Robin Roberts
How can one claim that the recall creates a “permanent campaign” when such has already been created. Look at Gray Davis’ behavior the last five years.
M. Scott Eiland
I’ve said all along that the only Democrat who could lose California to GWB in the election of 2004 is Gray Davis. After yesterday, I’ll amend that to Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante. Oh, and maybe Gary Coleman, if he’s not careful about who he selects as a running mate.
tom scott
As a follow-up to Robin Roberts comment about a permanent campaign.
Of course many are aware of the Oracle debacle “California Republicans have questioned the impartiality of Lockyer and his fellow Democrat, Gov. Gray Davis, whose re-election campaign received a $25,000 Oracle contribution two weeks after the software contract’s signing.”
And the infamous toxic dumping for campaign cash. “State officials allowed one of California’s largest polluters to increase toxic discharges into San Francisco Bay shortly after the company donated $70,500 to Gov. Gray Davis, a Mercury News investigation has found.”
Or how about the 33% pay raise to Department of Corrections personnel after campaign donation “Gov. Gray Davis received a $251,000 check from California’s prison guard unions only weeks after he granted corrections officers a 33.7 percent raise and proposed closing five private prisons.”
Additionally the CHP (Highway Patrol) got up to 25% raises after contributing $50,000 to the Davis camp. (… RECALL NOTEBOOK Donation Follows Contract OK The California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen
donated at least $50,000 to Gov. Gray Davis on Tuesday, four days after …
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/ la-davis_recall-sg.storygallery – 101k – Cached – Similar pages)
It’s getting late in Alaska or I would also go to some Pacific Research Institute articles for more articles like this “Mr. Davis added 34,000 workers to the state payroll, a greater increase than the next three largest states combined. The state now spends $24 billion a year more than when he took office.
Andrew Lazarus
I see that Arnold has pledged no tax increases and repeal of the gas tax increase (which, actually, went back up to its level under the Republican Wilson Administration).
That leaves us a minimum $12Bn short, and a balanced budget is required.
In short, Arnold has to pony up $12Bn (maybe more) in service cuts. Now, he says he’s going to “audit” the state government, but we’ve tried the “waste, fraud, and abuse” thing before, and it’s never saved that much.
Twelve very big ones is going to mean cuts noticeable to everyone in the state (not just those Welfare-type People): more tuition hikes (and Cal already costs 10x what it did 20 years ago), shorter hours at the DMV, lots and lots more. At least unlike Davis, Arnold doesn’t depend on the Corrections Officers. Close a few prisons and rescind their last pay hike!
My point is: we either need fewerr services or higher taxes. Arnold didn’t bother explaining this to his voters, and in a year, after the next budget go-round, some of them will be very disappointed about cuts that hit them personally.
That’s when we recall Arnold.
RW
**”That’s when we recall Arnold.”**
Bring ’em on.
Let Bob Mulholland be the front man (pretty please). :)
Steve Malynn
John, Scalzi’s only points are: the recall was not democratic and the voters are dumb. (I’ll just ignore the VRWC tin-hat crap.)
Both points are goofy. (There, I’ve just matched, precisely, his level of logic.)
Lets see, voters pick from amoung choices, and after due process and counting the choice with the most votes wins.
What is Scalzi’s complaint about? I don’t like the rules that have been in place for a century governing this process. Why, because his side did not win, and had to spend money and look bad in the process of losing.
So what is his solution, lets use the same process to screw the Republicans, and incidently the dumb voters. (Can you say, Hypocracy? I knew you could.)
There is nothing remotely insightful in Scalzi’s whining.
There is plenty of reform needed in California, some limit on referenda is probably due, but the recall process is a democratic check on office holders and one possible source of a solution to California’s problem, not in any way a contributor to what is wrong in that state.
cameron
I love how it is only after the fact the the republicans say, “You know what, this recall business is messed up. We got to fix this so it is harder to do.”
Not that I don’t agree with them, I just think their timing is impecable.
If the dems have to wait 6 months, as opposed to 100 days, then it will work towards their recall ambitions. If there is any constant in the public, it is that they have quite the short attention span.
But I just see it as them shooting themselves in the foot. Seems to be the only thing the dems are good at these days.
David Perron
“I’ll just ignore the VRWC tin-hat crap.”
But that’s the fun stuff!
Kimmitt
There has been a pretty simple solution to this for a while, and it involved voting in Democratic primaries.
Dean
How in the world is that a solution Kimmitt? Did the Dems try to amend the CA constitution to eliminate the recall provision? I don’t seem to recall much coverage on that.
Or are you suggesting that voting straight-line Dem would be the “solution”?
Calvin
Steve got it in his comments:
“Scalzi’s only points are: the recall was not democratic and the voters are dumb.”
From where I sit, Scalzi is just regurgitating the standard lefty line “Bush was selected, not elected and voters are dumb.” with a slight adjustment to match current events.
Where do you go, in a democratic society, from the axiom that voters are too dumb? How would someone like Scalzi fix dumb voters? Filter them out? Isn’t that what chads are for?
And if the Democrats are so smart, why can’t they come up some shiny objects to attract dumb voters (not counting the sparkly bits on W. Clark’s uniform)?
Even on Calpundit, which I used to enjoy reading, it is a relentless barrage on ‘stupid voters’. OK. We’re stupid. That made you feel better. Where do you go from here?
Kimmitt
If the problem has been for some time that Gray Davis is a shitty governor and that the Republicans put up fools and ideologues to oppose him, then the solution lies in the Democratic Party primary.
In addition, while many rank-and-file Republicans are perfectly nice people, the Christian Right so thoroughly dominates the primary that Arnold will be a complete aberration.
Seriously, guys — ditch the theocrats and start showing up at Democratic Party precinct meetings. If we can change the dynamic to the Christian Right Party vs. the “no organized Party” Democrats of yore, we could get some seriously excellent policy debate and candidate selection going.
David Perron
“In addition, while many rank-and-file Republicans are perfectly nice people, the Christian Right so thoroughly dominates the primary that Arnold will be a complete aberration.”
Utter horseshit, Kimmitt.
Kimmitt
Dude, look at the Party leadership! We’ve got George “Selected by God” Bush, John Ashcroft, Bill Frist*, Denny Hastert**, Tom DeLay, Mark Racicot . . .
The Party is dominated on the Federal level by the Christian Right. Some of the State parties suffer more and less from this, but they are all leaning in that direction as the movement continues to gather electoral power.
If Arnold chooses to re-run, he will have a primary challenger, and that primary challenger will win unless there is a strong crossover Democratic vote in the primary. That’s how these things work nowadays.
*Not actually a Christian Rightist, precisely, but perfectly willing to play one on TV.
**A reasonable center-rightist who is dominated by his Minority Whip.
Kimmitt
Dude, look at the Party leadership! We’ve got George “Selected by God” Bush, John Ashcroft, Bill Frist*, Denny Hastert**, Tom DeLay, Mark Racicot . . .
The Party is dominated on the Federal level by the Christian Right. Some of the State parties suffer more and less from this, but they are all leaning in that direction as the movement continues to gather electoral power.
If Arnold chooses to re-run, he will have a primary challenger, and that primary challenger will win unless there is a strong crossover Democratic vote in the primary. That’s how these things work nowadays.
*Not actually a Christian Rightist, precisely, but perfectly willing to play one on TV.
**A reasonable center-rightist who is dominated by his Majority Whip.
Andrew Lazarus
I don’t think there will be a significant GOP primary challenge to Arnold in a RE-election campaign, but it’s absolutely true that the Republican primary voters turned down moderates for hard rightwingers every other time. If Arnold is an aberration (say, McClintock wins the primary to take on Boxer), we CA Dems are going to survive well. Social conservatives haven’t polled above about 42% since the first Bush and Boxer’s first run.
As I posted above, Arnold won’t be able to make up the deficit with spending cuts without stepping on middle-class toes, the more so that he also pledged no cuts in the largest single item, K-12 schools. (I wonder if he’s going to reiterate that as loud as “No new taxes”?) Mind you, I wasn’t impressed with the Dem Legistature’s ostrich approach on this problem either.
David Perron
Ok, Kimmitt, I guess we have to get you to define what you mean by Christian Right. I thought you were talking Pat Robertson, there. Hopefully, you’ve got something related to policy.
And…15 yard penalty for starting out a comment with “Dude”.
whatever
I’ve been very amused over the past few days over people who don’t live in California giving their expert insight (it was really humerous watching HardBall during election night. Chris Matthews knows jack about California politics and it really showed).
The recall worked because of two horribly, badly timed moves by Davis. If these didn’t happen, I honestly think the recall would have failed.
As a set-up, the thing that got it going was the energy crises and Davis’s handling of that. Things died down and most people were starting to move on. There was bitching about the budget mess, but that happens every year and wasn’t enough to pass a recall. Then two actions drove the voters batty:
1. Trippling of the Car Tax – okay, technically it was just taking back the reduction from a few years ago, but it was passed without any legislative approval, just executive fiat. This happened just as the recall movement was building steam and really got it going. The mailings for the new tax went out in September (for October month renewals), so 1/12 of the voters got big bills just as the recall campaigning was getting under way.
2. Giving Drivers Licenses to Illegal Aliens – This is what drove it over the top. This PISSED OFF a LOT of people without getting any payoff from the hispanic community (see writeup in opinon journal today). Even DEMOCRATS went off the deep end on this one – none of the ones I know would support Davis after this (okay, they’re all white, but my hispanic friends vote republican).
Once Davis lost the democratic base, he was doomed. Period. Arnold running just made it easier.
As for a recall of the recall, the dems are going to look like asses, so let ’em. They won’t be able to collect the signatures and will just look like sore losers.
whatever
Lazarus, you reading California Insider? He has a theory on how Arnold is going to tackle the budget.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/
Don’t know if he’s right, but puts a little more thought into it than your blanket statement. Everyone does agree, however, that the Injuns are going to be paying more from their swanky casinos.
Harry
kimmitt,
Do you dislike these people these because they are Christians or because they are Conservatives. Sounds like Christian bigotry to me.
Ryan Waxx
Almost as impeccable as democrat timing in condemning this decades-old law as undemocratic before the recall, you mean?
Hipocrite.
Andrew Lazarus
I didn’t find anything at the California Insider link except more on “opening the books”. It’s just hard for me to believe that over $10,000,000,000 has been pilfered or squandered and is coming back from such an operation.
In today’s SF Chronicle, a Republican staffer said “We’re going to close some state offices and save $300 million.”
$300 million? OK, now the other 97%?
I don’t know when the Indian Gaming Compact expires, but the Indians are demanding more slot machines in return for a higher payment to the state. Arnold doesn’t have a lot of leverage here.
Kimmitt
Democrats didn’t condemn the law because it didn’t come up! It’s the same way that we don’t go on and on about how the current Presidential succession line really isn’t optimal every year. It’s true, but it hasn’t been relevant.
Kimmitt
>Do you dislike these people these because they are Christians or because they are Conservatives. Sounds like Christian bigotry to me.
I dislike them because they are theocrats. I’m an equal-opportunity theocrat disliker; I dislike (in alphabetical order) Animist, Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, and Zoroastrian theocrats. I would probably dislike a Baha’i theocrat if I could find one.
I am a big religious-freedom guy; other folks aren’t. Priorities, as always.
David Perron
“I dislike them because they are theocrats.”
Well, Kimmitt, given that they’re NOT theocrats (just people who have religious beliefs and occasionally(gasp) act consistently with those beliefs), your entire reason for dislike is misplaced. Nice post, otherwise.