True, I pretty much agree with your analysis. Gray Davis definitely was screwed in a way, but he didn't have to turn the whole state into a joke and disaster. I think the Republican's should consider letting the Democrats solve the problems on their own. But they want to start making some inroads in California, and Arnold may be the guy to do it.
Fault is the wrong word to use. What I am saying is this: If Issa hadn't have pumped millions of his own dollars into the recall, most California voters wouldn't have even known that recall was an option, let alone support it.
LOL, "down the throats of each and every voter in California" A little melodramatic, huh. First, not "each and every" voter is opposed to the recall. Second, "each and every" voter can still vote "no" to the recall. Third, it's within the law. Complain about the law before you complain about someone using the law and his own money to do something he thinks is right. BTW, I'm not voting for Arnold.
Very interesting. I see that the liberals are finally beginning to recognize the impact of declining equity valuations on the budget. Now if they would only make this same connection when assessing the nation's budget, they would begin to recognize the folly of attributing 100% of a budget deficit to an administration's policies (especially when 100% of those policies have provided economic *stimulus*). Very interesting. What is also interesting is FranchiseBlade's superficial knowledge of the energy crisis. A policy of imposing retail price caps, not promoting active investment in power plants, strong demand for power, and a restriction on long term contracts between utilities and power providers led to the crisis. Gray Davis' regime has failed Californians.
What is also interesting is TJ's superficial knowledge of what happened with the power scandal and California. It's not just my conclusions but those of courts that have banned Enron, among others from selling their product in California at market price and until they were reviewed and passed their review. That's based on their previous fraud which led to the crisis. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/17/155922.shtml They have been found guilty. It was not some long term contract reasons that you claim, but the courts have found fraud. I've never blamed the whole of our economic problems on Bush. I feel free to admit that 9/11 and other influences helped push down the current economy. I do feel that Bush's policies aren't helping, and are hurting. I've never said anything differently. Because you claim Bush's policies have provided 100% stimulus doesn't make it so. They've enlarged our Federal spending for years to come among other things. I do agree that Davis' administration has let Californians down.
FranchiseBlade -- the manipulation that allegedly occurred, if it changed prices, did so at the margin. Prices were going to be high that summer regardless of market manipulation. Economic demand was very high, the price of natural gas (which fuels power plants) was sky high, and many generation projects had yet to come online. Combine all of that with intense weather and your have a recipe for high prices -- market manipulation or not. Gray Davis imposed retail price caps, which limited the price at which utilities could sell power to consumers. There was no limit on the price at which utilities purchased their power. Therefore, the high power prices could not be passed on to the consumer, and the utilities had to eat them. This resulted in the finacial ruin of the utilities. Had these utilities been able to pass some of these costs on, or had they been able to contract out at the lower-priced long-term contract rate, then none of this would have evolved. The alleged scandal may have intensified the situation, but most certainly did not cause it. Gray Davis caused it.
You can disagree with courts and Enron execs who've plead guilty and admitted it all you want. Energy prices are higher in the summer but the article I posted the link for shows differences of billions of dollars that California wouldn't have paid in a true competitive market.
Attack machine? All I did was wonder why the "liberal" mainstream media fawns over him and why othersare labeled, for better or worse, as fringe candidates despite having similar credentials. But you're right about the anti-Arnold attack Machine being in full swing. Unfortunately the attacks come from the far right. Nobody does attack machines like the righties!: Joe Conason Aug. 8, 2003 | Conan the "liberal" Did I mention yesterday that conservatives would be the first to attack Arnold Schwarzenegger for his social liberalism and bawdy style? I did. In fact, the blasts from the right began as I typed those sentences. Leading the pack of disgruntled wingers was Rush Limbaugh, who compared the muscular movie star to that despised Republican-In-Name-Only, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Having commented on Schwarzenegger's "powerfully-packed bikini," El Rushbo now warns against the "conservative orgasms over Arnold Schwarzenegger" because "his own words prove he's not a conservative." Limbaugh went on to quote from a short, harsh profile on the American Prowler (a right-wing Web site run by the editors of the American Spectator) that described Schwarzenegger as a "tainted celebrity," a candidate "Kennedys could vote for," and worst of all, a "liberal." As might have been expected, the indictment of Arnold includes his support for gay and abortion rights and his denunciation of the Clinton impeachment. Newsmax.com, sponsored by Richard Mellon Scaife and run by Christopher Ruddy, turns away momentarily from its usual obsession with Hillary Clinton to blast the Terminator. After quoting extensively from Limbaugh's attack, the Newsmax story gives full vent to Rev. Lou Sheldon. As the gay-bashing chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, Sheldon believes that Schwarzenegger would create a "moral vacuum" in Sacramento. "As Governor" he ranted, "Mr. Schwarzenegger would be a darker villain than any he has faced in his movies. And when it comes to the moral issues that Californians really care about -- he gives us inaction not action." Sheldon is cranking up his direct-mail machine with a new letterhead -- "Californians for Moral Government" -- to rally the right-wing opposition. What seems to offend wingers most is the conceit that Arnold equals Ronald, as in Reagan. Limbaugh and Sheldon both scoffed at that notion -- as did Michael Reagan, talk-radio blowhard and son of the former president. The younger Reagan denounced the Austrian pretender in a Newsmax interview last week. "All he's got is a name because he's an actor," Reagan groused. "If you want to know the difference between my father and Arnold Schwarzenegger, I'll give you a couple: Maria Shriver/Nancy Reagan is one. There's a big difference politically between them. And number two, Ronald Reagan held the position of running a union, nine times as president of the Screen Actor's Guild, and was active politically for many, many years before he ever delved into elective politics himself when he finally ran for governor. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is nothing but an actor. He has never been a politician and he hasn't given me one reason to vote for him. Vote for him for Actor of the Year? Maybe." Will Karl Rove, who appears to have engineered the recall campaign and supports Schwarzenegger, be able to herd these disgruntled wingers into line before Oct. 7? Or will those angry conservatives try to revive the "politics of personal destruction" to terminate the Terminator? Schwarzenegger's supporters are already concerned about his reputation for obnoxious behavior toward women, so it is mystifying, if true, that his campaign has hired Republican consultant Don Sipple. That's the same Sipple exposed by Mother Jones magazine in 1997 for physically abusing two of his wives. Salon.com
Gray Davis' policy created the situation. The energy companies may have exacerbated it, but they were doing that to an already busted system. Without the broken system, it would be very hard to argue that the energy companies could have done what they did. The impact that the alleged market manipulation had on the state was trivial compared to the impact of price caps and the missed opportunities of long-term contracts.
I've said that Gray Davis was a moron, and that he hasn't served well as governor. But I would not call billions of dollars due to the fraud of energy companies as trivial. I also disagree that the system was more broken before, in fact that fruad proves that it wasn't.
I said trivial when compared to the effects of the price caps and the inability to set up long-term contracts. The system was absolutely broken. The proper incentives were not in place for the construction of an adequate amount of electricity generation. The transmission grid is sorely in need of updating. Bottlenecks are abundant. Utilities were put in a no-win situation by insane regulations. They had to buy power at spot market prices, which were terribly volatile, and then sell that same power to consumers at fixed rates. You've got a serious matching problem there. Combine that with large debt burdens with fixed payments and you have a recipe for bankruptcy. With adequate generation, and an adequate grid system, prices would not have been as high. With the elimination of price caps and the ability to contract in the long-term market, utilities would not have been bankrupt. Gray Davis was directly responsible for a failed energy policy.
Yes indeedy, TJ, you have proudly and correctly identified a failed policy with incorrect incentives and systemic flaws. And you are right to hold the governor of California accountable for such, after all, he WAS the leading voice in favor of deregulation, he DID get the bill unanimously approved by the legislature, and he HAS said the he would take "full credit" for the achievements of deregulation, and he DID sign such a bill into law despite the fact that he had been warned as to the potential problems. Therefore, Republican former Governor Pete Wilson, should IMMEDIATELY resign from his current post: Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign chairman. I swear it's true, I cannot make this sh-t up guys. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/12/wilson.deregulation/ game set whatever.
Bush's federal budget imbalance is worse than California's. Why don't we recall him? There's an R- in front of his name.
Wilson would have taken corrective action when the problem was identified. Davis saw the problem before his very eyes and would not agree to lift the retail price caps. He would not allow the utilities to pass on even part of their costs, and therefore bankruptcies followed. During Wilson's tenure, no one would have ever dreamed of $100 prices on the spot market for power or $10/mmbtu gas prices. It was not an issue then. It became an issue under Davis. He made the wrong choices. He failed Californians.
Oh he would have? And your basis for this statement is...? ....Nothing. I would say nice try, but that was pitiful. You should have just let the crickets chirp.
