http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030621.shtml Will Gray Davis quit? Robert Novak (archive) June 21, 2003 | Print | Send WASHINGTON -- Prominent California Democrats are pressing to get Gov. Gray Davis to resign rather than face a recall that may replace him with a Republican governor in a special October election. Oakland Mayor (and former California governor) Jerry Brown, in Washington this past week, speculated that Davis could instantly destroy the recall movement by resigning. That would elevate Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante to the governorship. Sen. Barbara Boxer has sketched the same scenario in private conversations with fellow Democrats. These Democrats express skepticism that Gray would voluntarily surrender the prize that he sought his entire political life. Nevertheless, he could derail the recall at any time prior to the actual balloting by just quitting.
The recall here is so stupid. Don't mistake me: I am not a Davis fan. But all the state's problems are hardly his fault, and we can just vote him out, like a normal state in the next election. It's been such an enormous waste of time and money when we have must bigger things to worry about.
are you in calif, B-Bob? i tend to agree...why not let the normal election cycle run its course and vote him out? there may be something i'm missing.
Is there a reason that the recall should take place now, as opposed to the next election? Has he done anything illegal or incompetent? From what little I know about this, it sounds like he was just carrying out many of the things that most Californians wanted. Now they aren't getting the best results and they're making him the fallguy. I think it's a bad idea to set this precedent of recalling elected officials.
Wouldn't just the threat of Davis resigning ruin a recall, seeing as he could quit anytime to move the Lt. Gov. into his position? Could he resign after a recall election was called for or would that just cause the Lt. Gov. to have to run against someone? Interesting political gamesmanship... Please no Arnold for Gov. ug. T4 Arnold takes over Cally...
I would imagine this would be the easiest way to get a Republican in the Governor's seat. Those most likely to come out and vote in the recall election are going to be those most opposed to Gov. Davis, very many of whom are likely Republicans. And since Gov. Davis has never been all that popular anyway, it's not very likely that he'll be able to get out the base to keep him in office. And he can't try to get out the vote by running against a certain candidate (which is how he operates best) because the referendum is all about him (and any number of people could replace him as it's an open ballot). We are talking about a Governor who just isn't popular. He had trouble beating Bill Simon, a piss-poor, big business candidate in a state that skews Democratic. Had Davis not spent so much money in the primaries to get Richard Riordan beat, it's not unlikely Davis wouldn't be in the Governor's office now. But that's no reason for a recall, except for political reasons, of course. It's easier to get a Republican in this way than in the general election next year.
The combination of the brilliance of Gray Davis, Barbara Boxer and other politicians made it no surprise that the state is having power outages and is teetering on bankruptcy. First they sign fixed contracts with energy companies, then they waste their time appealing to those who don't contribute to society. All in all, Cali is an example of socialist policies at its finest. They are more worried about pleasing trial lawyers, welfare recipients and illegal immigrants than the integrity and success of their state.
Hey, FD Khan, the power disaster was a result of DE-REGULATION, and the associated problems with de-regulating a natural monopoly, which is pretty much the exact opposite of "socialist policies" at their finest.
Actually, it wasn't deregulation. It was regulation in a different way than before. But it was still very regulated. Just because people call it deregulation doesn't mean it was. And certainly differently designed "deregulation" programs have not led to anywhere near the same issues in states such as Texas or Pennsylvania. Restructuring would be a better term for what California did.... poorly.
exactly right... ultimately, if you don't want to "manufacture" energy in your home state...if you want others to deal with the environmental cost...you're going to pay for it. california's nimbys have caused more problems than they've solved. the process of transporting energy to california is more wasteful of energy than if calif would merely produce it for themselves....
No, it wasn't totally deregulated, but it was regulated much less than before. I call that deregulation. Regardless of what you call it, when you have artificial shortages and price fixing by private monopolists, then "socialism" is the least of your problems.
I was under the impression that a great deal of it was due to the unethical behavior of the energy companies: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/enron/1838578
Well, I know you're mistaken. Giant corporations never act unethically. (I hope that's sarcastic enough to not require a smiley). But had the politicians designed a better system, the opportunity to screw it all up would not have come up, as it has not in other places that have tried a more deregulated set-up. But I agree that it was not a socialistic approach.
The fact of the matter is that they were ignorant and companies may have taken advantage of them. I say 'may' because there has been no conclusive evidence against Reliant, El Paso and others that would make them extremely guilty of huge damages in Florida. If I walk into a candy store and offer to pay $10 for a candy bar that is my own fault. They signed bad contracts because they couldn't create enough internally. Then they made a huge hooplah and blamed the energy industry alleging billions in losses. At the end of the day they accepted a 10 million 'go away' settlement from Reliant and a few others because they know they have no real case. California did not lose because of de-regulation, it is losing because of its policies. De-regulation has worked in Texas and Pennsylvania, and I don't feel that power is a 'natural' monopoly. The sad part is that many associate the demise of Enron as a case study against de-regulation, but one has very little to do with the other. Except they're both made as scapegoat's by Boxer and Davis.
They were igonrant and got taken advantage of? So when they went to the Bush Administration and complained, and Cheney, et al said "no, there's nothing bad going on, enron aint doing nothing bad", it's their fault for not having access to their market manipulation schemes like "Get Shorty" and "death star"? That's a great rationale. So by that measure, Adelphia, Enron, Healthsouth, Tyco, etc shoud be allowed to cheat their investors too right? HEy, the investors were ignorant. They should have audited the company themselves. They contracted to buy enron at 100, it's their own fault for not knowing it was worthless! Have they been proven guilty in a court of law? no, but then neither has saddam hussein. You might want to rethink your opinion that power is not a natural monopoly, because most economists (high fixed costs, very low or zero marginal costs) will disagree with you entirely. That is a fairly basic concept. Another fairly basic concept is that a rational monopolist (or cartel) will charge monopoly prices when he can, resulting in overall welfare losses. There's a reason why antitrust laws exist, monopolies are inefficient, they are a corruption of a healthy market.
