If you have read me across these boards and threads, I have repeated hit on Bush for not balancing the budget. He ought to do some seriously slashing of spending. Bush is hardly a conservative's conservative. He is more like the Republican's DLC.
Nick
Preposterous. He's a Republican's "DLC" in name only- in that part of his election rhetoric that positions himself as a moderate but belies a much more conservative ideology. Granted, balancing the budget has traditionally been a conservative ideal, but not balancing the budget isn't always to be considered "liberal." Rather, tax cuts aimed at the rich in addition to heavy duty military spending is draining the amount of money left over for social services. Now, cutting services is a conservative ideal... So even though Bush hasn't balanced the budget, he's still a conservative's conservative in terms of what he's doing to the government and what the government can afford 10 years from now. If I was a conservative, I would consider Bush to be very much in my corner. (Of course Bush is a Neo-Con, which is not a traditional conservative, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from. But make no mistake, neo-cons are not moderate republicans by any stretch of the imagination.) I think it's important to correct lies and intentional misstatements when they arise.
...but to add to the discussion: full public funding for campaigns!
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct?
No I would still allow the primary process so that respective parties can select their candidate for the general election. Nothing other than etiquette stops the candidates from running in the general election after the primary now. Likewise I don't like other parties interfering in that process. For example I don't think the Green party would like a bunch of conservative (by their standards) Democrats coming in and selecting a different Green candidate.
As for the general elections now, they are open. You don't have to belong to a party to vote.
Preposterous. He's a Republican's "DLC" in name only- in that part of his election rhetoric that positions himself as a moderate but belies a much more conservative ideology. Granted, balancing the budget has traditionally been a conservative ideal, but not balancing the budget isn't always to be considered "liberal." Rather, tax cuts aimed at the rich in addition to heavy duty military spending is draining the amount of money left over for social services. Now, cutting services is a conservative ideal... So even though Bush hasn't balanced the budget, he's still a conservative's conservative in terms of what he's doing to the government and what the government can afford 10 years from now. If I was a conservative, I would consider Bush to be very much in my corner. (Of course Bush is a Neo-Con, which is not a traditional conservative, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from. But make no mistake, neo-cons are not moderate republicans by any stretch of the imagination.) I think it's important to correct lies and intentional misstatements when they arise.
...but to add to the discussion: full public funding for campaigns!
Bush hasn't cut social services. He has created an entirely new department of government. (Homeland Security) He reauthorized and enlarged the federal government commitment to education at a national level. (very anti-conservative) As you mentioned his neo-con views have led to policing and nation-building exercises which are not conservative at all.
The whole Bush family isn't even that strong on abortion rights or conservative judicial appointments. His father gave us David Souter on the Supreme Court in case you weren't aware of it. He hasn't attempted to privatize aspects of Social Security yet and spending has pretty much exploded in all areas of the government in addition to military spending.
Even his tax cuts weren't particularly conservative. If you consider child tax credit (not a cut, a pure redistributive credit) a conservative idea, it isn't.
I consider him better than Gore, but I consider him far from a conservative.
Since you aren't a conservative and it is my opinion that Bush isn't particularly conservative, how can you possible be correcting lies. My opinion is a lie now. Interesting.
Heard any wars on drugs during his administration? Any serious condemning of smut from Hollywood? Any just say no campaigns or things of that nature? Bush hasn't pounced on any big social conservative issues in case you hadn't noticed.
Speaking of the recall (thread topic sorry) Bush did endorse Riordan over Simon in the general election when it was held. Riordan is pro-choice, pro-homosexual rights and has campaigned and given money to just as many Democrats as Republicans.
Bush is very moderate, but not to someone who is so far to the left they think the Green party is moderate.
As for full public funding, that is insane. I prefer George Will's solution. No limits, no catagories, full disclosure. All election funding has done is protect incumbents, made it so you have to be a millionaire who loans your own campaign tons of money, and made it harder to track who gets what.
Likewise it has made the core of each political party even more powerful and tossed out all the political mavericks because they need the party building type soft money to get elected.
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct?
I like the idea of the open system, but only in a two stage plurality. 200 people can run on the first stage, but you set a threshold and have a runoff of those who meet the threshold in the first stage. Seems like you'd get much more of a mandate than you will in the recall-esque system, but it does away with party control in primaries.
Richard Riordan (sp?) and Arnold are moderate Republicans.
Bush is no moderate Republican, especially when Snowe and Voinovich refused to go along with Bush's initial figures for the second tax cut, one of the largest in history.
The amount of deception, trickery, and distortion here is amazing- that someone can call George W. Bush a moderate Republican with a straight face- in the face of his administration's bullying of moderate Republicans to go along with its plans. This is the administration that moved far to the right of McCain during the 2000 Primary to win.
I wonder if anyone else believes that Bush, surrounded by neo-cons and Karl Rove, supported by the Religious Right, is anything but a conservative leaning politician. Not a moderate, but a conservative. (old guard, neocon, whatever.)
Unless 59-64% of Californians are Republicans (laughable to even suggest) then this is well beyond partisan politics.
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)
I oppose recalls, whether launchened from the left or right. If a leader has done something illegal, then impeach him. Otherwise, let him/her govern and serve out his/her mandate. If you don't like the leader's policies, then vote against that person in the next scheduled election. That is democracy. Recalls are a parody of democracy that weaken the ability of any party to govern. They tend to be supported by people who are anti-government in general.
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)
I oppose recalls, whether launchened from the left or right. If a leader has done something illegal, then impeach him. Otherwise, let him/her govern and serve out his/her mandate. If you don't like the leader's policies, then vote against that person in the next scheduled election. That is democracy. Recalls are a parody of democracy that weaken the ability of any party to govern. They tend to be supported by people who are anti-government in general.
Ha! California? Well don't get me wrong I love your state however What's going on there now is just so silly. And afterward what do they have to look forward to? Gary Coleman or The Terminator?
The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".
Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.
Ha! California? Well don't get me wrong I love your state however What's going on there now is just so silly. And afterward what do they have to look forward to? Gary Coleman or The Terminator?
The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".
Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.
While the California recall and budget are becoming farcical, I'm not sure an Oregonian should be commenting. I mean, our public schools are still open...
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)
The reason the number is 897,158 is because it is a set percentage of people who had voted in the previous election. If more people had turned out, it would have been harder to recall Davis.
The reason people didn't turn out? Davis intervined in the Republican primary and took out Riordan. Then he spent millions (made in campaign contributions from energy companies, insurance companies, etc.) on nothing but purely negative political ads. He didn't advertise any ideas. So no one showed up to vote, he won by 3% and he basically slit his own throat. Run on ideas and people will turn out to support them. Run on, yeah but the other guy is the devil, and watch record low turnout occur.
While the California recall and budget are becoming farcical, I'm not sure an Oregonian should be commenting. I mean, our public schools are still open...
OUCH! Oh and don't forget, we are smart enough to pump our own gas as well.
Ha! California? Well don't get me wrong I love your state however What's going on there now is just so silly. And afterward what do they have to look forward to? Gary Coleman or The Terminator?
The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".
Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.
The California Recall: One of the Two Great Spectator Sports.
The other one is Stupid Arguments.
We have, what, 250 candidates? California is so screwed. A tie would mean that each candidate received 142,364 votes. Most counties in California are bigger than that. That's like my town(Benicia, CA) and its neighbor(Vallejo, CA) combined. Of course, with Arnold, a tie is pretty much impossible, IMHO.
The reason the number is 897,158 is because it is a set percentage of people who had voted in the previous election. If more people had turned out, it would have been harder to recall Davis.
The reason people didn't turn out? Davis intervined in the Republican primary and took out Riordan. Then he spent millions (made in campaign contributions from energy companies, insurance companies, etc.) on nothing but purely negative political ads. He didn't advertise any ideas. So no one showed up to vote, he won by 3% and he basically slit his own throat. Run on ideas and people will turn out to support them. Run on, yeah but the other guy is the devil, and watch record low turnout occur.
Oh give me a break. So if a few more had turned up, the number of required signatures would be a bit greater. The point is percentages. California requires signatures equaling only 12% of votes cast in the previous election (most states require much more). Add that to the fact that reversing an election on the basis of signatures is a loopy idea to begin with and you have the current California circus.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Trumpet, do you agree that this (65 signatures and 3500 bucks) should be the process for ALL state elections?
No I would add a provision that allowed you to get more signatures and lower the fee as well. $3500 can be a lot of money to lots of folks.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
No I would add a provision that allowed you to get more signatures and lower the fee as well. $3500 can be a lot of money to lots of folks.
Nick
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct?
Originally posted by trumptman
If you have read me across these boards and threads, I have repeated hit on Bush for not balancing the budget. He ought to do some seriously slashing of spending. Bush is hardly a conservative's conservative. He is more like the Republican's DLC.
Nick
Preposterous. He's a Republican's "DLC" in name only- in that part of his election rhetoric that positions himself as a moderate but belies a much more conservative ideology. Granted, balancing the budget has traditionally been a conservative ideal, but not balancing the budget isn't always to be considered "liberal." Rather, tax cuts aimed at the rich in addition to heavy duty military spending is draining the amount of money left over for social services. Now, cutting services is a conservative ideal... So even though Bush hasn't balanced the budget, he's still a conservative's conservative in terms of what he's doing to the government and what the government can afford 10 years from now. If I was a conservative, I would consider Bush to be very much in my corner. (Of course Bush is a Neo-Con, which is not a traditional conservative, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from. But make no mistake, neo-cons are not moderate republicans by any stretch of the imagination.) I think it's important to correct lies and intentional misstatements when they arise.
...but to add to the discussion: full public funding for campaigns!
Originally posted by BR
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct?
No I would still allow the primary process so that respective parties can select their candidate for the general election. Nothing other than etiquette stops the candidates from running in the general election after the primary now. Likewise I don't like other parties interfering in that process. For example I don't think the Green party would like a bunch of conservative (by their standards) Democrats coming in and selecting a different Green candidate.
As for the general elections now, they are open. You don't have to belong to a party to vote.
Nick
Originally posted by Shawn
Preposterous. He's a Republican's "DLC" in name only- in that part of his election rhetoric that positions himself as a moderate but belies a much more conservative ideology. Granted, balancing the budget has traditionally been a conservative ideal, but not balancing the budget isn't always to be considered "liberal." Rather, tax cuts aimed at the rich in addition to heavy duty military spending is draining the amount of money left over for social services. Now, cutting services is a conservative ideal... So even though Bush hasn't balanced the budget, he's still a conservative's conservative in terms of what he's doing to the government and what the government can afford 10 years from now. If I was a conservative, I would consider Bush to be very much in my corner. (Of course Bush is a Neo-Con, which is not a traditional conservative, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from. But make no mistake, neo-cons are not moderate republicans by any stretch of the imagination.) I think it's important to correct lies and intentional misstatements when they arise.
...but to add to the discussion: full public funding for campaigns!
Bush hasn't cut social services. He has created an entirely new department of government. (Homeland Security) He reauthorized and enlarged the federal government commitment to education at a national level. (very anti-conservative) As you mentioned his neo-con views have led to policing and nation-building exercises which are not conservative at all.
The whole Bush family isn't even that strong on abortion rights or conservative judicial appointments. His father gave us David Souter on the Supreme Court in case you weren't aware of it. He hasn't attempted to privatize aspects of Social Security yet and spending has pretty much exploded in all areas of the government in addition to military spending.
Even his tax cuts weren't particularly conservative. If you consider child tax credit (not a cut, a pure redistributive credit) a conservative idea, it isn't.
I consider him better than Gore, but I consider him far from a conservative.
Since you aren't a conservative and it is my opinion that Bush isn't particularly conservative, how can you possible be correcting lies. My opinion is a lie now. Interesting.
Heard any wars on drugs during his administration? Any serious condemning of smut from Hollywood? Any just say no campaigns or things of that nature? Bush hasn't pounced on any big social conservative issues in case you hadn't noticed.
Speaking of the recall (thread topic sorry) Bush did endorse Riordan over Simon in the general election when it was held. Riordan is pro-choice, pro-homosexual rights and has campaigned and given money to just as many Democrats as Republicans.
Bush is very moderate, but not to someone who is so far to the left they think the Green party is moderate.
As for full public funding, that is insane. I prefer George Will's solution. No limits, no catagories, full disclosure. All election funding has done is protect incumbents, made it so you have to be a millionaire who loans your own campaign tons of money, and made it harder to track who gets what.
Likewise it has made the core of each political party even more powerful and tossed out all the political mavericks because they need the party building type soft money to get elected.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
So, the point is that you feel that we should do away with the two party primary system and have open elections. Correct?
I like the idea of the open system, but only in a two stage plurality. 200 people can run on the first stage, but you set a threshold and have a runoff of those who meet the threshold in the first stage. Seems like you'd get much more of a mandate than you will in the recall-esque system, but it does away with party control in primaries.
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush is very moderate
Olympia Snowe is a moderate Republican.
Susan Collins is a moderate Republican.
George Voinovich is a moderate Republican.
Even Arlen Specter is a moderate Republican.
Richard Riordan (sp?) and Arnold are moderate Republicans.
Bush is no moderate Republican, especially when Snowe and Voinovich refused to go along with Bush's initial figures for the second tax cut, one of the largest in history.
The amount of deception, trickery, and distortion here is amazing- that someone can call George W. Bush a moderate Republican with a straight face- in the face of his administration's bullying of moderate Republicans to go along with its plans. This is the administration that moved far to the right of McCain during the 2000 Primary to win.
I wonder if anyone else believes that Bush, surrounded by neo-cons and Karl Rove, supported by the Religious Right, is anything but a conservative leaning politician. Not a moderate, but a conservative. (old guard, neocon, whatever.)
Originally posted by trumptman
I like how 1.6 million signatures is a "few."
Likewise...
Unless 59-64% of Californians are Republicans (laughable to even suggest) then this is well beyond partisan politics.
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)
I oppose recalls, whether launchened from the left or right. If a leader has done something illegal, then impeach him. Otherwise, let him/her govern and serve out his/her mandate. If you don't like the leader's policies, then vote against that person in the next scheduled election. That is democracy. Recalls are a parody of democracy that weaken the ability of any party to govern. They tend to be supported by people who are anti-government in general.
Originally posted by Chinney
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)
I oppose recalls, whether launchened from the left or right. If a leader has done something illegal, then impeach him. Otherwise, let him/her govern and serve out his/her mandate. If you don't like the leader's policies, then vote against that person in the next scheduled election. That is democracy. Recalls are a parody of democracy that weaken the ability of any party to govern. They tend to be supported by people who are anti-government in general.
ding ding ding ding ding. what he said and stuff.
The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".
Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.
Originally posted by jimmac
Ha! California? Well don't get me wrong I love your state however What's going on there now is just so silly. And afterward what do they have to look forward to? Gary Coleman or The Terminator?
The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".
Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.
While the California recall and budget are becoming farcical, I'm not sure an Oregonian should be commenting. I mean, our public schools are still open...
Originally posted by Chinney
My point is that the number of signatures required - which was actually only 897,158 - is only a small proportion of Californians. My further point is that getting this number of signatures (or whatever similar number will apply after the next vote) of continually pissed-off people might not be so hard even after the next Governor enters office. Could another recall then be allowed? (I am not sure about the finer point of California constitutional law on this issue)
The reason the number is 897,158 is because it is a set percentage of people who had voted in the previous election. If more people had turned out, it would have been harder to recall Davis.
The reason people didn't turn out? Davis intervined in the Republican primary and took out Riordan. Then he spent millions (made in campaign contributions from energy companies, insurance companies, etc.) on nothing but purely negative political ads. He didn't advertise any ideas. So no one showed up to vote, he won by 3% and he basically slit his own throat. Run on ideas and people will turn out to support them. Run on, yeah but the other guy is the devil, and watch record low turnout occur.
Nick
Originally posted by agent302
While the California recall and budget are becoming farcical, I'm not sure an Oregonian should be commenting. I mean, our public schools are still open...
OUCH!
Nick
Originally posted by jimmac
Ha! California? Well don't get me wrong I love your state however What's going on there now is just so silly. And afterward what do they have to look forward to? Gary Coleman or The Terminator?
The Terminator doesn't do so well with questions does he? " My ear piece doesn't seem to be working. I heard the words but I don't understand the question ".
Someone should tell him not to quit his acting job.
The California Recall: One of the Two Great Spectator Sports.
The other one is Stupid Arguments.
We have, what, 250 candidates? California is so screwed. A tie would mean that each candidate received 142,364 votes. Most counties in California are bigger than that. That's like my town(Benicia, CA) and its neighbor(Vallejo, CA) combined. Of course, with Arnold, a tie is pretty much impossible, IMHO.
Then again, maybe my math is off.
Then again again, Califonia is so screwed.
IMHO.
Originally posted by trumptman
The reason the number is 897,158 is because it is a set percentage of people who had voted in the previous election. If more people had turned out, it would have been harder to recall Davis.
The reason people didn't turn out? Davis intervined in the Republican primary and took out Riordan. Then he spent millions (made in campaign contributions from energy companies, insurance companies, etc.) on nothing but purely negative political ads. He didn't advertise any ideas. So no one showed up to vote, he won by 3% and he basically slit his own throat. Run on ideas and people will turn out to support them. Run on, yeah but the other guy is the devil, and watch record low turnout occur.
Oh give me a break. So if a few more had turned up, the number of required signatures would be a bit greater. The point is percentages. California requires signatures equaling only 12% of votes cast in the previous election (most states require much more). Add that to the fact that reversing an election on the basis of signatures is a loopy idea to begin with and you have the current California circus.
Conventional Wisdom in this week's Newsweek says no.
"A thousand clowns. And with a "democratic" process gone goofy, the joke is on the voters."
Oregon does have real problems.
Originally posted by jimmac
Once again my comment wasn't a knock against California or Californians. It's just things are a little daffy there lately.
Oregon does have real problems.
I know, just making fun (hence the winking smiley).