Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous, though? I think the whole idea of a recall is kind of silly. I mean, if the Davis had done something criminal, fine, impeach him. Feel free. Yay democracy. But a year after being elected to a second term, they're telling him he doesn't get a whole 'nother four years to prove what he can do? I don't know, it all feels like we're taking a pretty cavalier attitude towards the Constitution. And come on, really...Arnold?

First of all, apologies to Cynan for me using his blog as a soapbox while mine is down... but I just gotta rant somewhere.

I've been encouraged to come here and argue with Meghan. So, in the great tradition of... um... me arguing, I'm going to break it down:

<em>I think the whole idea of a recall is kind of silly.</em> I agree, I think that people in "executive office" positions should be removed by the legislature - the way impeachment and removal works at the national level. However, the people of California disagree with you by at least 55% to 45%, and its their state.

<em>I think the whole idea of a recall is kind of silly.I mean, if the Davis had done something criminal, fine, impeach him.</em>
Remember how hard it was to impeach Clinton when the republicans had a majority in congress? Try it in california, where every single major elected office is held by a democrat or an outright socialist.

<em>Yay democracy</em>
Indeed. Stupid democracy. This is one of the excesses of democracy - not because Gray deserves a second chance, but because the people of California need to be punished for their crimes (ie electing davis)

<em>But a year after being elected to a second term, they're telling him he doesn't get a whole 'nother four years to prove what he can do?</em>
The people of California know Gray Davis, they know that he's an excellent campaigner. They're not sure how good he is at governating. He was elected in 2002 - after the economy has already gone south. He probably got elected on promises that he'd turn things around. Instead, he's driven more businesses and investors out of california, california's bond rating is near junk-bond status, the workman's comp system is oppressive at least, and he continues to snuggle with organized labor. They gave him a shot, he's shown that he ain't going to change. Whether you like it or not...

<em>I don't know, it all feels like we're taking a pretty cavalier attitude towards the Constitution.</em>
...Its the law.
Sounds like you're taking a pretty cavalier attitude toward the Tenth Amendment:
<strong>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
</strong>
The people of California have made their law, and the law has been followed. I'm sure we'll get lots of "the republicans stole this election" despite the fact that they're a vast minority, and the recall carried by 55%. Whether or not you agree with the recall in principle (and I do NOT), you can't argue that it was somehow illegal, or that it was a "stolen" office.

The fun part is going to be watching S12r and Bustamante trying to get along.

<em>And come on, really...Arnold? </em>
And come on, really... Ronald Reagan? Actors can be governors. I don't think Arnold's the best man for the job, but of all the canidates, I think he's probably the second best (the best being Tom McClintock).

Ultimately, Arnold got about 46% of the total vote. Sure, its not a majority... but let's not forget that Clinton won in 1992 with barely 43% of the popular vote. Ultimately, I would have liked to see Davis win, so the Californians could feel the consequences of their choices. S12r is not the "best" choice for California, but he's almost certainly better than Gray Davis.

Well, hi, whoever you are...I wasn't exactly looking for a debate (that's my college roommate's area) so much as I was just letting off steam. No, the recall wasn't illegal. It's been on the books for a long time in California, and in several other states, too. Ah, yes, Ronald Reagan -- one of my least favorite politicians. Actors can sell themselves, though, and Reagan managed to do that for a long time. He also managed to convince us that trickle-down economics was a good idea, and look where that got us.
At any rate, I don't think it SHOULD be easy to remove an elected official from office. In the United States, the burden of proof lies with the accusers, so they have to present really compelling evidence that the executive has committed a wrongful act. Clearly the people of California (including my fellow Dems and "outright socialists") felt compelled by the offered evidence, but I still feel a better forum for an unhappy state would have been a legislative trial. And if the makeup of the legislature makes it hard to bring up impeachment charges, tough luck -- those are the people chosen to make the decisions. Similar, really, to the tough luck experienced in California two days ago.
Anyway, nice chatting with you. Glad we can at least agree that the recall is a stupid idea. :)

haha, only thing I can say about Arnold, can you see his second term slogan? "I'll be back"? hahahaha Well, heck, at least I thought it was funny :(

Aaron: Actually, I'm hoping Gray Davis says that in his departure speech :)

Meghan: Let me preface this by saying that Reagan has a place on my top 5 presidents list: <em>...He also managed to convince us that trickle-down economics was a good idea...</em>

What's wrong with trickle-down economics? I think its actually called "common sense". In fact, back in the day (pre-wilson/FDR/whoever you want to blame), it was just the way things were. The problem is that Reagan had to re-brand it to sell it.

...

I'm in a mood today. Someone bring me some communists, that I might punch them. In a pinch, Ted Kennedy in a bunny suit (cottontail, not intel) will do.