Schwarzeneggar?

[Cluttermagnet]

I'm just glad Davis got his butt kicked out of office. The way he handled our energy crisis was a shame.  And we are still being gouged! And yes, this is a wake up call to other politicians as well. The people are sick and tired of being taken advantage of and not being listened to. I didn't vote for AH-NOLD ...... but I will support him in his efforts to get California back on track.And if he doesn't do his job, we will fire him as well! Jeber: Sorry my friend - I forgot to write your name on the ballot. LOL

Respectfully, I wish you left-coast guys lots of luck. I suspect you are going to find Arnold will also be a disappointment. Heck, he might even end up being worse. Out of the frying pan, into the fire? Frankly, I'm a bit surprised you guys would fall in such a big way for the old "trust me" scam. Yeah, sure, Arnold is "for the people". Sure. And Hitler was a great humanitarian. Arnold will serve his own interests and those of his party. If his actions help the people of CA, that will be somewhat incidental. The guy made campaign promises only God Almighty could ever keep.No politician can really work for 'the people' and remain in office for long. Your state budget is in deep doo doo, with no resolution in sight. He can't fix that. Nobody knows any way to fix that which does not involve inflicting incredible financial pain on the citizens of CA. You allowed your legitimate election process to be hijacked and overturned by wealthy politicians of the minority party who have no respect for the will of the people of CA as expressed in an election- a very bad precedent indeed. I wish him all the luck in the world, and I hope he succeeds- in actually helping the people of CA. Unfortunately, I doubt very much that that is what he really has in mind. When reality sets in, he will likely make some choices based on political imperatives not necessarily related to the needs and interests of your state.I don't know enough detail about Davis and all the issues unique to CA, but I think he got a pretty bad rap on the energy ripoff. Personally, I see Enron as being by far the heavy, and Davis as merely ineffectual. In fact, I remember fairly extensive press coverage of Davis appealing to the new Republican President in Washington DC for help and getting stiffed a few years back. In fact, it appears to me that that crowd may have had something to do with Enron and other such enterprises getting away with murder in the first place. Don't you get it? Your state got ripped off by unethical, out-of-state businessmen headquartered in Texas. Are you paying attention? Texas. You didn't get hosed by Davis, you got hosed by Enron.CA snubbed Mr. Bush in the presidential election and went for Gore. He was apparently so intent on revenge that he would actually rather have seen CA just slip into the ocean than to offer any real help, despite the financial calamity it spells for all of America. I have little doubt that this was about harming Davis, a Democrat, politically, and also about sending a clear message to the citizens of CA and indeed the entire country regarding the future 2002 and 04 elections. President Bush was _so_ deceptive in his campaign promises. A uniter he is not. A divider he definitely is. The present US administration has been a particularly nasty, partisan, scorched earth group of politicians. Davis served as a lightning rod for big problems, some not of his own making and beyond his ability to fix. Enron was a major criminal conspiracy (possibly operating with protection from insiders in government as well as from unethical accounting firms) that preyed heavily on CA by illegally manipulating the energy market. You have been scammed. Now the admin will be falling all over itself to 'help' in CA. This was all _so_ partisan. And partisan politics was never much good for the nation. ("A house divided cannot stand"- Abraham Lincoln)

And if he doesn't do his job, we will fire him as well!

With all due respect, no you won't. It took a lot of money to make that recall happen. The recall was not the idea of 'the people' and was not orchestrated by and financed by 'the people'. I doubt 'the people' could have done this on their own. You need lawyers, professional activists and lobbyists, and wealthy backers to pull it off. I think it is going to take a while, but eventually Californians are going to wake up and realize they have just been had, and in a big way. Some really, really bad precedents have been set here, which will be harmful to the entire nation. It's not that I hate Arnold, far from it. But I do hate what this awful process has wrought. I wish him luck, but I believe he is going to let you all down.

[ibe98765]

But as Jay Leno said - Our Governor can kick your Governor's a**

[Marsden11]

Recall only requires one individual with enough money to file and gather sufficient petition signatures. An organized group or a single indivdual... makes no difference. The cat is out of the bag...

[Marsden11]

<<Way to Go Arnold!>>How exactly is the Gropinator going to file a new budget by Jan 10th, 2004 and make up $14 billion in red ink? He said again today... "I will not raise taxes!" Ok fine Ah-nuld. What group or groups are you going to rape to come up with that kind of scratch? Piss the wrong people off and another recall is a slam dunk...

[ibe98765]

Recall only requires one individual with enough money to file and gather sufficient petition signatures. An organized group or a single indivdual... makes no difference. The cat is out of the bag...

Whoa bucky! You guys that don't live here have to be careful on your facts before shooting from the hip!In order for a recall to be certified, the petitioners have to get valid signatures (registered voters) representing 12% of the vote for Governor in the last race. You can read up on the requirements here:http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_r...call_faqs.htm#5These were the reasons given for the recall are on the petition:http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/recall_notice.pdfGray Davis was on the rocks before the last election. The only reason he won then was because the stupid Republican right-wing drove the selection of conservative Bill Simon instead of the more moderate Richard Riordin. Had Riordan been the Republican candidate, I believe he would have won. And still, in a highly moderate to liberal state, Davis only won by 5 percentage points over Simon (47.4% to 42.4%). With a bad taste in my mouth and holding my nose, I voted for Davis then only because, IMO, he was the lesser evil. I don't believe in wasting a vote by casting it for candidates who have zero chance of winning, such as on those from the Greens or other fractional parties. I don't use important votes to make statements. Gray Davis was viewed as an ineffectual pawn of the special interests, someone who would sell a vote to anyone with the cash to pay. He spent an inordinate amount of time raising money from these interests. In his first term, he was quoted as saying "I will never sign a bill that business disapproves of" and he followed through on this promise by vetoing many worker and consumer friendly bills (i.e. until recently when with his rear to the fire, he started signing bills that he had previously rejected in order to "buy" more votes). He was viewed as having mismanaged the electric power problems that we had here a couple of years ago. On top of everything else, many of the people he worked with just did not like him. He was reported to be moody and difficult to work with, a bit full of himself much of the time. Lastly, as the person in the hot seat, he presided over a Democratic majority legislature that spent more money than was coming in and got the state of California into a $38 BILLION deficit. Therefore, as the highest elected official in the state, he has to shoulder the responsibility.Because of the poor choices offered in the last general election, there was a record low voter turnout (~7.4 million voted for Governor). In order to create a recall election, signatures representing 12% of the total number of votes for Governor in the last election must be collected in a 160 day period. 897,158 valid signatures were necessary to certify this recall and approximately 1.3 million were collected. Altogether, there have been 31 previous attempts to recall a Governor of California, including Ronald Reagan. All failed to gather sufficient signatures to make it happen. At this point, including about 1 million absentee ballots, it looks like approximately 9 million people voted for Governor, which is less than I expected, but the bar for another recall is somewhat higher. Without doubt, an attempt will certainly be made by some of the disaffected Democrats. It's become a California tradition. However, Schwarzenegger was chosen by a broad segment of the voters, many crossing over from expected party and interest allegiances. Schwarzenegger got nearly 50% of the vote. Add in the 13% for Tom McClintock, the other Republican candidate who refused to drop out and the Republicans got 63% of the vote. That is simply unheard of in California!

[Marsden11]

What makes you think I don't live in the 5th largest economy on this planet?By my numbers a new recall needs slightly less than the minimum needed for this last recall.How do you get all those signatures?Gov.-elect Ah-nuld's vow to repeal the vehicle license fee hike could punch a $4 billion hole in the state budget -- a prospect that worries officials in San Francisco, Oakland and other cities and counties that rely on the money to pay for police, fire, and health care. So we pay more in city taxes and fees and live with reduced fire and police services... Sounds like a sure fire way to get people angry... angry enough to sign a recall again...

[Peachy]

Oprah for President! She'll put Dubya in his place!

[Guest LilBambi]

Peachy,ROTL!

[Guest LilBambi]

I am sure that Arnold will have some uphill battles, it would be difficult for any republican in California to accomplish much there given the number of democrats holding key positions.And even though he is painfully still learning that speaking live to a group of rabid press folks is not the same as producing a movie .. he personally has accomplished quite a bit in his life. He is no slouch. I don't know how successful he will be in overcoming the great odds in California, however, if he is only 1/10th as dynamic in his ability to lead and in his thinking structure as he is in his acting career, he couldn't do much worse than those who went before him. LOL! I certainly wish him and all those who live in California well during what will certainly be an interesting roller coaster ride.Just one non-Californian's view

[Jeber]

I was a bit of a campus radical in high school, and I could never figure out why people thought California was a liberal state. Later on I noticed that most of the country only really knew of San Francisco and Los Angeles, both traditionally Democrat and liberal. But my town has been very Republican for years, as have many of the other cities in the state. And people also forget that California is the largest farming state in the nation. Farmers are a pretty conservative bunch, too. So are we conservative or liberal? Depends on who you ask, and where you are. And our politics are just as crazy. This will be our second actor as governor. Maybe the whole state is just a movie set and no one's told us. I could believe that. According to South Park, the whole world is just a reality TV show for the rest of the universe.

[Rons]

Jeber: 2nd actor as governor? They are ALL actors! :Dibe: Good points - Davis vs Simon was a joke! Clutter: Arnold was elected to serve out the remaining term for Davis. So if he doesn't do a good job we can vote him out at the next election.

[Gary]

I agree, Jeber's name should have been on the ballot. He would have gotten more votes than Gary Colemen!

[ibe98765]

By my numbers a new recall needs slightly less than the minimum needed for this last recall.How do you get all those signatures?

OK, then you should have known about everything I took the time to write up in my former post. It wasn't at all clear that you were familiar with the information I presented. As to your statement about number of signatures needed for a new recall, I am at a loss as to how you can contend that less would be needed than for the Davis recall. Perhaps your calculator is broken? 12% of 9 million IS greater than 12% of 7.4 million, last I checked. Finally, if you want to lead off another recall before giving Schwarzenegger time to see what he can do, then first go back to my former post and read the links I provided. You'll first have to pay some lawyers to write a recall petition and get it certified by the state and then you'll have to pay for all the people to go around collecting signatures. Around 1 million of them. And you'll have 160 days to do it.Before undertaking this task, you would be wise to keep in mind that according to this SF Chronicle report today (see link below):Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger garnered more votes Tuesday than Gov. Gray Davis gained in his re-election last year, winning support from a diverse mix of voters from conservative Republicans to some of California's most reliable Democrats. Schwarzenegger appealed to a wide swath of the state's Democratic-leaning electorate: low-income families, independents, union households, moderate women, infrequent voters, young adults and a surprisingly large number of Latinos. An analysis of exit poll data released late Tuesday revealed some surprises: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../09/MN83136.DTL

[Marsden11]

Regardless of the numbers...If it can be done once it can be done again. People were upset about the state of the state. If balancing the budget causes more pain, especially in the pocket books of those who switched sides for the recall... it can and will happen again. The people now preceive they have power to affect change and they don't have to wait 3 years to do it.

[ibe98765]

From http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7679

Running ManNow that speculation about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political future has become a staple of the summer media cycle, it’s time to rent Demolition Man again. That’s the 1993 movie that dared to imagine that Mr. Schwarzenegger’s muscle-bound charisma and Kennedy connections would take him not to the California gubernatorial race but all the way to the Oval Office. Demolition Man starred Sylvester Stallone as a loose-cannon cop who had been frozen in a "cryo-prison " in 1996 for a crime he didn’t commit; only to be unthawed in a seemingly utopian 2026, to assist Sandra Bullock hunting down a murderer (or perhaps the agents that had put them in the movie in the first place).Mr. Schwarzenegger’s name is mentioned in a scene where Ms. Bullock attempts to bring Mr. Stallone up to date on what’s happened in the world in the 30 years that he’s been asleep:Bullock: "I’ve been an enthusiast of your escapades for some time now. I have in fact perused some newsreels from the Schwarzenegger Library, and that time you took that car—"Stallone: "Hold it! The Schwarzeneg-ger Library?"Bullock: "Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn’t he an actor when you—"Stallone: "Stop! He was President?"Bullock: "Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment, which states that—"Stallone: "I don’t want to know."Rumors about Mr. Schwarzenegger’s political ambitions were already swirling back in the early 90’s when Demolition Man was made and Daniel Waters, who co-wrote the screenplay, told The Transom that the action star seemed like an appropriate symbol for the times. "Instead of doing a science-fiction movie that was about everything people feared, it was about what people at the time supposedly wanted," Mr. Waters said, "a society that was clean and nice, and without crime, and politically correct. And in a continuation of the quote-unquote beauty of the Reagan years, and in keeping with the star-****ing of the times, I thought: Wouldn’t it be great if Schwarzenegger were President? It was kind of perfect for the new image of the future."Early drafts of the script hadn’t included that bit about the 61st Amendment. It was Mr. Waters’ brother, in fact, who brought his attention to the fact that Schwarzenegger could not, under current rules, become President."When [my brother] brought that up, I just laughed, " Mr. Waters said. "Because anything that’s in the Constitution can be changed. Just like you rewrite a script, you can rewrite the Constitution. Just another draft."—Blair Golson

[ibe98765]

And a little humor:Future News Division:Californians Oust Schwarzenegger with Torches, Pitchforks Citizens Fearful of Increasingly Violent Governor http://www.confusionroad.com/article.php?a...?article_id=178

[Peachy]

Just a little wake up call to those who think the Terminator makes a good governor.http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=26726

[ibe98765]

Just a little wake up call to those who think the Terminator makes a good governor.http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=26726

I guess we'll just have to wait and see....

[Jeber]

You know, Peachy, maybe along with telling generations of children, "Any little boy can grow up to be president", we should have added, "but most shouldn't".

[ibe98765]

Good article:---------------------------------------------------http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...mnist_ferguson#----------------------------------------------------

Who Is Governor Arnold? George Shultz's Hunch By Andrew Ferguson Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Treasury Secretary George Shultz, sitting in serene retirement in his office on the campus of Stanford University, likes to tell this story about Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Buffett and I'' -- that would be billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who with Shultz heads the soon-to-be-governor's team of informal economic advisers -- "were doing a conference call with Arnold back in September. A number of businessmen had joined us. And one of them, a Latino restaurant owner, starts to push this driver's license thing.'' That would be the new California law, signed by a desperate Governor Gray Davis shortly before last Tuesday's recall election, allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. "This fellow says, 'Arnold, all my employees are for it. All my customers are for it. You support this thing and I can guarantee you a lot of votes.' "There was a long silence. Finally Arnold says, 'But I don't support it.' "And this businessman says, 'But it would be very good for you,' and so on and so on. Another long silence. "Finally, Arnold says, `I'm sorry, I can't. What kind of governor would I be if I started supporting things I don't believe in?' "Remember, this was not a public event for public consumption. This wasn't some kind of grandstanding. I just thought, Wow. Bam. What an answer. This guy's got it. This guy's the real thing.'' Admiration for Friedman A lot of people are puzzling over Arnold Schwarzenegger these days. Everyone knows -- because the news reports keep telling us so -- that he's a "social liberal'' and "fiscal conservative.'' But in trying to anticipate what kind of governor he'll be in one of the country's most liberal states, the more interesting question is, How conservative? Shultz and Schwarzenegger were first drawn together by a shared admiration for Milton Friedman, the Nobel laureate and libertarian purist. Organizing an anniversary tribute to Friedman's TV series "Free to Choose'' in 1990, Shultz asked Schwarzenegger to film a new introduction to the show. Schwarzenegger "enthusiastically'' obliged. "It was clear even then,'' says Shultz, "that he had a real understanding of Milton's ideas -- that he understood the value of free markets and how they work.'' When Schwarzenegger asked Shultz to join his campaign this summer, Shultz says he told him, "I can't help you unless we agree: The problem here in California is not taxes, it's spending. You start monkeying around with taxes, you're only going to make things worse. He agreed very emphatically.'' Buffett's Presence Some fiscal conservatives fret about the hovering presence of Buffett, a traditional political liberal on matters of taxing and spending. Shultz answers those worries indirectly. "Arnold understands you've got to divide the problem of the deficit,'' he says. ``On the one hand, you've got the deficit in the state's operating budget. I can help him with that, on the spending side. On the other hand, you've got the problem of retiring all this debt that's been piled up. Warren knows something about restructuring debt, you know. That's where Warren can help.'' Shultz dismisses the widespread criticism that Schwarzenegger's campaign was unduly vague about policy. "The press has him totally wrong,'' Shultz says. "There was more content to Arnold's campaign, in terms of policy, than any other I've seen in California.'' Pricing Electricity Schwarzenegger's energy plan, Shultz says, was a model of specificity -- and indeed it seems like a libertarian's dream. "One of Governor Davis's great errors was his delay in permitting retail prices of electricity to move with wholesale costs,'' Schwarzenegger's published platform said. "No market can function without proper prices.'' It called for abolishing the California Power Authority as a way of affirming the new administration's commitment to private power generation. More clues to who Governor Arnold is can be found in the transition committee he announced last week. It's an eclectic crew. It mixes the unexpected (Ivan Reitman, director of several Schwarzenegger movies as well as the unjustly forgotten "Cannibal Girls'') with the wonkish (Sally Pipes, head of the libertarian Pacific Research Institute), and the bizarre (Tammy Bruce, the nation's foremost right-wing lesbian political commentator) with the politically astute (Kevin McCarthy, a state assemblyman and former aide to U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, who will help determine how much federal aid California gets). Intellectual Vanity The list reflects what Bill Whalen, a former political adviser to Schwarzenegger and now a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, considers one of the new governor's most notable characteristics -- a lack of intellectual vanity. This lack, you may have noticed, is seldom found in either actors or politicians. "He knows his weaknesses and he's not embarrassed by them,'' Whalen says. "He knows what he doesn't know, which is why he's eager to seek advice.'' And in that, Shultz says, the new governor reminds him a lot of another California governor. "You people in the press got Ronald Reagan wrong, too,'' says Shultz, who served as Reagan's secretary of state after heading Treasury in the Nixon and Ford administrations. "Everybody said, 'oh, he's just an actor, he's vague, intellectually he's not up to snuff.' "Reagan didn't mind. I don't think Arnold does either. Reagan even cultivated that image -- he wanted to be underestimated. And while everybody was sort of laughing at him, he just blew right by them and walked off with all the prizes. I think Arnold might do the same.'' Last Updated: October 14, 2003 00:02 EDT

[Guest LilBambi]

Nice to see some positive comments in the press.

[Prelude76]

Here's a satirical "Davis Concession Speech" in some weblog i'm not too familiar with. found it sorta funny, but then again, i have a sick sense of humor. ;)Warning, if you are an Arnold supporter, you should probably stay away from this link. as for me, i dont care either way. if sleezy Arnold didnt get elected, another sleezy corrupt politician would've. it doesnt matter anymore.http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemm...ves/000405.html

[Jeber]

Subject: California 1850You know what happened this week back in 1850 ?California became a state.Back then, the state had no electricity. No money.Almost everyone spoke Spanish.There were gun fights in the middle of the streets.So: it was just like California today

[Rons]

Heh Jeber - that was great! LOL

[Guest LilBambi]

Yeah! So much changes and still remains the same!

[ibe98765]

Subject: California 1850You know what happened this week back in 1850? California became a state.

Back then, the state had no electricity.

Probably because electric power plants hadn't been invented yet See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power

No money.

But plenty of GOLD in them thar hills...

Almost everyone spoke Spanish.

Or an Indian dialect. Did they have casino's then?

There were gun fights in the middle of the streets.

Yup, gunfights all day long here. You don't want to move here! Stay away!!! No jobs here! (I figure that if people keep moving here, competing for jobs and houses, I'll never be able to afford one )

So: it was just like California today

It's always the same. Just different.

[Cluttermagnet]

Here's a satirical "Davis Concession Speech" in some weblog i'm not too familiar with.  found it sorta funny, but then again, i have a sick sense of humor. ;)Warning, if you are an Arnold supporter, you should probably stay away from this link.  as for me, i dont care either way.  if sleezy Arnold didnt get elected, another sleezy corrupt politician would've.  it doesnt matter anymore.http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemm...ves/000405.html

Fuu-nee! Must... look... away... from... screen... eyelids and neck muscles not responding... involuntary laughter... Mmmm! Doughnuts!Poor California. I feel so sorry for them, for what is coming. Sooner than we know, the state's voters are going to be seeing 'charming' Gray Davis as not such a bad guy after all. They went for one of the worlds 3 biggest lies, the one that says "I'm from your (new) government and I'm here to help you." Good luck, suckers. Trouble is, you are such a big state that this is inevitably going to pull us down too, to some degree, both economically and politically. You sure have set some lovely new precedents in American politics. D'oh! "Trust me." Yeah, right. Which ties right in with one of the other big 3 lies, the one that starts out "I promise I won't..." Yep, he wouldn't even tell you what he is going to do, but you elected him anyway. Go figure.Man, I've got to agree with the foul-mouthed author's blog piece on this one. The average intelligence in CA is at best, well, er, average. All those geniuses make no difference at all. Wow, people are so easily deceived. I wish I had majored in snake oil marketing in college, but it's too late now. I've missed my true calling. Ah, heck, California, it's going to be all right. You have Arnolds solemn word on that. Trust him, "the check is in the mail." He will cut someone else's programs or benefits, not yours. Never mind the horrific screeches of warning you have been hearing from beyond your state's borders. We tried to tell you the rifle barrel was pointed at your feet. Heck, what did we know? Oooh- that must smart! Here, let me support your arm and we can ease you into that chair over in the corner. Yes, right, the one with the conical pointed hat on it. That's right, you get to wear the hat. Isn't that cool? What a pretty color. It's bright red. Here's your noisemaker. Let's party...Actually, I respect Arnold as a person (but not his politics). He is capable. He is no fool. He may just surprise us all and acquit himself admirably. It's just that he is not superhuman, and that is what that job really entails now. Superhuman feats. Remember Conan the Barbarian? He's coming, and what gets hacked may well be your own sacred cow. Flee for your lives! "What is good? To kill all the men and hear the lamentations of the widows" (rough quote from "Conan"). That deficit has to be made up from somewhere. Maybe they will just carve it out of the hides of you Californians. OK, disfiguring, but at least you get to live. Don't get them mad, though, or else he or James Earl Jones will take your head off with one of those dang swords. Jones is doing cute TV ads for Verizon out on the east coast right now, but if Arnold really needs him, he can certainly step back into character. And he's the voice of Darth Vader, for gosh sake. Don't mess with Arnold. Wouldn't be prudent, at this juncture...

[ibe98765]

I find it interesting how many people there are that are not residents of California but yet have such interest in who the voters of California elected to be Governor! Hey, no worries people. Although we did elect another actor Governor who went on to be President, Schwarzenegger can't follow that path until and unless a constitutional amendment is passed.Did you know that there are other Governors crying out for a little attention (e.g. Jeb Bush in Florida, George Pataki in NY, Mitt Romney of MA...)?Here's the list of Governor's for each of the 50 states and some U.S. Territories (btw: did you know that the Virgin Islands, Guam and Puerto Rico are still territories of the U.S.? Rumor has it that Cuba, Canada and Mexico are on the list for the future acquistion ):http://www.nga.org/governors/1,1169,,00.html

[Cluttermagnet]

I find it interesting how many people there are that are not residents of California but yet have such interest in who the voters of California elected to be Governor!

Depending on how it all goes, getting a Republican elected as governor of CA may be anything from a trivia item in US history all the way up to the incredible possibility that the states voters, heavily Democrat in the past, may be persuaded to tip towards a Republican presidential candidate in 2004. For Dems, this would be an unmitigated disaster, and could even mean that the Republican candidate wins with a fairly comfortable margin in electoral votes and the popular vote. As far as I remember, political commentators have always emphasized the importance of CA to both sides. So what Californians has done is non-trivial, and could even have a profound effect on the coming election.I just don't understand why so many Californians minimize the importance of what just happened. It is almost unprecedented. Maybe most of them just voted for a good-sounding name or a pretty face or a nice white lie about what the candidate is really going to do for them if they get elected. Pretty shallow, if so. And of course a number of them probably believe that they have 'punished' Davis. Generally, those with the instinct to punish bring down destruction on their own heads instead. This is sort of one of those "California sneezes, the US gets a cold" sort of things. I'd have to go review all the election trivia stats, but I think CA is one of only a few states with big population and a whole bunch of electoral votes. In national elections, California matters. Those tiny east coast states get 2 senators and huge CA gets only 2 senators. But you get a lot more representatives in the House. And in national elections, a big pile of electoral votes is a big prize. So yes, I am anxious and more than a little irritated with how Californians have allowed their already flawed election process to be hijacked by cynical, well-heeled Republican politicians who have about as much in common with the average voter in CA as they do with the peasants of North Korea. The fact is that California matters and is always watched by the nation and is often seen as a trend setter. There are no doubt quite a number of people outside your borders who are watching it all to see which way it now goes, as it may have a profound effect on all of us. Now the runup to the 2004 election is going to be just that much more a rollercoaster ride- and the stakes are incredible. These are anxious times, not happy times.

[ibe98765]

OTOH, maybe we voted for the best person to do the job that needs doing....

Depending on how it all goes, getting a Republican elected as governor of CA may be anything from a trivia item in US history all the way up to the incredible possibility that the states voters, heavily Democrat in the past, may be persuaded to tip towards a Republican presidential candidate in 2004.

Absolutely incorrect. Since 1899, CA has had 19 Governors. Only 4 have been Democrats. Since 1983, the only Democratic Governor elected was Davis, who proceeded to turn a state surplus into a deficit by conspiring with and allowing the current Democratic controlled legislature to run up a $38 BILLION deficit, a number bigger than many counties total GDP!Furthermore, here are the most recent statistics on the breakdown by political affiliation in California. You can see that while the Democrats have a small lead over registered Republicans, it isn't that large and the number of counties that have a Republican majority is 38% greater than Democratic counties (36 to 22). Note also that many states require people to declare affiliation with a political party in order to vote in the party's primary. In an interesting twist, CA passed a law few years ago doing away with this requirement. So you are seeing an increase in the "Decline to state" category now. Anyone, no matter political affiliation, can vote in any party's primary now. If a group wanted to screw up the other parties primary, they could do so. ...................................................Decline....Democratic...RepublicanYear......Dem.......Rep......Other...to State...Counties......Counties2003.....43.7%...35.3%...5.0%...16.0%......22................362002.....44.6%...35.2%...5.0%...15.2%......22................36The above statistics are from:http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/regstat...ts_09-22-03.pdf

I'd have to go review all the election trivia stats, but I think CA is one of only a few states with big population and a whole bunch of electoral votes. In national elections, California matters.

Absolutely correct. Through 2010, CA will have 55 electoral votes. This number is calculated based on the number of senators (2) plus number of representatives (53). The number of representatives is calculated through a fairly complicated formula. You can read details here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/censu.../computing.htmlThank you for noting that although we are the land of "fruits and nuts", we matter. Remember to always be nice to Californians that you meet! Then perhaps we will be considerate enough to vote the way you want us to in elections.

So yes, I am anxious and more than a little irritated with how Californians have allowed their already flawed election process to be hijacked by cynical, well-heeled Republican politicians who have about as much in common with the average voter in CA as they do with the peasants of North Korea.

Despite calling on the heavy Democratic hitters (Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Diane Feinstein and others), Davis still lost big time. The two major Republican candidates got 63% of the vote! You may not realize this, but Schwarzenegger was elected by a true cross section of the people, not just Republicans. Check:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../09/MN83136.DTLAn excerpt:----------------------------------------------------Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger garnered more votes Tuesday than Gov. Gray Davis gained in his re-election last year, winning support from a diverse mix of voters from conservative Republicans to some of California's most reliable Democrats. Schwarzenegger appealed to a wide swath of the state's Democratic-leaning electorate: low-income families, independents, union households, moderate women, infrequent voters, young adults and a surprisingly large number of Latinos. An analysis of exit poll data released late Tuesday revealed some surprises: -- Despite a more than $10 million effort by labor unions to defeat the recall and back Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Schwarzenegger drew nearly as many votes from union households as the Democratic lieutenant governor. -- Davis was backed by just over half of Latinos in the recall despite his last-minute efforts to appeal to the state's largest minority group -- including signing a bill to give illegal immigrants the right to driver's licenses and appointing United Farm Workers founder Dolores Huerta to the University of California Board of Regents. -- New or "occasional" voters tilted heavily in favor of the recall and for Schwarzenegger. But contrary to some predictions, voters age 18-29 were less likely than older voters to back the action movie hero. -- The poorest voters -- families making less than $15,000 -- were more likely to back Schwarzenegger than his chief Democratic opponent, Bustamante. -- Women of every age group strongly backed Schwarzenegger despite allegations the actor groped or sexually harassed more than a dozen women. ------------------------------------------------------Another breakdown report is here:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10.../19/04404.shtml-----------------------------------------------------Democrats for Arnold?California's recall election was bad news for Democrats in more ways that one. Not only did Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger manage to take control of the statehouse, but both he and conservative Tom McClintock drew unprecedented support from key Democratic voting blocks.Nationwide, more than 90 percent of African-Americans voted for Al Gore in 2000. But two years later, according to a Zogby survey, 23 percent of black Californians backed a Republican in the recall race [17 percent for Arnold, 6 percent for McClintock.]Worse still for Dems, nearly 40 percent of Hispanics voted for either Arnold or McClintock, who garnered 30 percent and 9 percent respectively.Union members, whose leaders are assiduously courted by Democratic Party leaders, abandoned Democrats Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante in droves, with half the unionized electorate backing one of the two Republicans.Questioned about the results by TownHall.com columnist Donald Lambro, pollster John Zogby said, "Democrats ought to pay attention to these numbers because the unthinkable has happened."Joseph Crane contributed to this report. -------------------------------------------------------Now, all of us who voted for Schwarzenegger will be looking for him to deliver. If he doesn't, then he will get the boot just like Davis.