Man, this place is dead today. Here's something to talk about... __________ A Conservative Travesty By George F. Will Thursday, October 9, 2003; Page A37 California's recall -- a riot of millionaires masquerading as a "revolt of the people" -- began with a rich conservative Republican congressman, who could think of no other way he might become governor, financing the gathering of the necessary signatures. Now this exercise in "direct democracy" -- precisely what America's Founders devised institutions to prevent -- has ended with voters full of self-pity and indignation removing an obviously incompetent governor. They have removed him from the office to which they reelected him after he had made his incompetence obvious by making most of the decisions that brought the voters to a boil. The odor of what some so-called conservatives were indispensable to producing will eventually arouse them from their swoons over Arnold Schwarzenegger. Then they can inventory the damage they have done by seizing an office that just 11 months ago they proved incapable of winning in a proper election under ideal conditions. These Schwarzenegger conservatives -- now, there is an oxymoron for these times -- have embraced a man who is, politically, Hollywood's culture leavened by a few paragraphs of Milton Friedman. They have given spurious plausibility to a meretricious accusation that Democrats are using to poison American politics, the charge that Florida 2000 was part of a pattern of Republican power grabs outside the regular election process. Schwarzenegger's conservative supporters have furled the flag of "family values" while mocking their participation in the anti-Clinton sex posse. They were unoffended by Schwarzenegger's flippant assertions that only the "religiously fanatic" oppose human cloning -- not just stem cell research but cloning. These faux conservatives' new hero said that only "right-wing crazies" supported the proposal on Tuesday's ballot to bar the state from collecting the racial data that fuel the racial spoils system. Some conservatives insist that they have been not empty-headed but hardheaded: They say a Republican governor will markedly strengthen the Bush campaign in California. Perhaps. But Republican governors did not prevent Bush from losing Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2000. During the coming presidential campaign, California's Republican governor will be busy proving the fatuity of his proposal to solve California's budget crisis by cutting waste, fraud and abuse -- things for which there is no constituency. In 2004 President Bush will not campaign in a California seething with resentment of spending cuts and attempted tax increases advocated by a hugely unpopular Democratic governor. Instead, Bush will campaign in a California in which the Republican governor will be illustrating the axiom that today only a Republican governor can substantially raise taxes. This is so because the people, in their zeal for majority rule, have mandated, through the initiative process, a two-thirds supermajority requirement for raising taxes. Which means the Republicans' legislative minority is large enough to block a Democratic governor's request for tax increases but probably is not starchy enough to resist a Republican governor's request for -- Republicans believe in recycling, at least of squeamish rhetoric -- "revenue enhancements." Then again, some Republicans might resist, because their principles need not threaten what is really important -- reelection. Almost all legislators of both parties represent safe seats because the political class has put an end to much of California's politics by using redistricting to protect all incumbents. This is one reason why politics has reemerged through the recall process, which allows the people to vent against their chosen representatives. The put-upon people of California, groaning under the weight of decisions taken by California's electorate, have repeatedly taken lawmaking into their own hands through initiatives that mandate this and that allocation of resources. So an estimated -- no one seems able to say for sure, which says much about the consequences of California populism -- 60 percent to 80 percent of the budget is beyond the control of the governor and Legislature. One of the new governor's two noteworthy campaign promises is that he will not cut education, which -- thanks to what the public did in a 1988 initiative -- is roughly 50 percent of state spending. His other venture into specificity during the campaign -- a campaign in which he said, brassily and correctly, that "the public doesn't care about figures" -- was his promise to promptly increase by 50 percent a deficit already at $8 billion by repealing the car tax that Davis and the legislature recently tripled. A Washington-based Democrat who was making election eve get-out-the-vote calls to African American households in South Los Angeles knew Gray Davis would be recalled when voter after voter told her, emphatically and specifically, the precise dollar amount that the tax increase was costing him or her. The new governor should repeal it because it is unjust. And because the people deserve to get what they demand. Don't they?
rim...maybe you can do better than I...Will wrote a piece last week or maybe the week before, basically saying that the humanitarian cause is insufficient argument to justify the war in Iraq...I searched for it and couldn't find it...If you do, could you either start a thread about it, or E-Mail it to me and I will? Thanks, buddy. I love Will.
Sorry. I looked here and didn't find anything that resembled your request. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/willgeorge/ "Can't They Just Admit It?" is a good one though.
Thanks, bud. They quoted it on Meet the Press, and I missed what it came from...I searched for it that night, came up empty, and forgot about it. Your post reminded me...I'll see what I can find, but I'm not very good at this internet search stuff...
I heard a discussion of this today on... oh, my God... Rush Limbaugh. A caller called in from California to deny some of the insinuation that Will bases his claim on. According to this caller, when Congressman Issa (SP?) got involved, volunteers had already garnered 750,000 of the required 825,000 signatures required to initiate the recall. At that point Issa wanted to make sure the recall met the necessary deadline (and perhaps got interested in the governorship himslf) and so forked over money to hire professional petitioners to make sure that the necessary signatures were acquired in the time frame remaining. This caller estimated that volunteers still accounted for the collection of some 1.2 Million of the approximately 2 Million signatures acquired on the recall petition. The claim being made was that this is/was indeed a true grass roots movement not a "millionaire's riot" as Will describes. That being said, California needs to change this law. I agree with most of Will's argument and the vision of the Founding Fathers. Obviiously, I don't know how to validate or invalidate the above assertions about who was responsible for gathering how many signatures. Maybe some of our California residents can chime in...
I am looking for information for you. USA Today has a timeline for this election online, but it doesn't address the issue of signatures. Seems this grass roots movement would not have had much time to gather signatures before Issa got involved. I don't really remember the recall effort being considered a serious threat and getting lots of media coverage until Issa got involved. If I come up with signature numbers, I'll be sure to post 'em. This is a timeline from a Bay Area NBC (11) affiliate: Recall Timeline Feb. 5: Republican former Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian and the taxpayer group People's Advocate announce separate campaigns to try to recall Gov. Gray Davis. March 25: Recall supports are approved by the secretary of state to begin collecting the 897,158 signatures needed to put the recall on the ballot. May 15: Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, files documents declaring his intent to form a committee to run for governor. A week later, he donates $445,000 to a campaign to recall Davis. May 28: Davis' allies launch anti-recall effort, vowing to raise $4 million to keep the recall off the ballot. June 2: Peter Camejo, the Green Party gubernatorial candidate in November, announces that he will run again if the recall makes it to the ballot. June 9: Issa donates another $200,000 to recall campaign, bringing his total contributions to the recall effort to $645,000. June 17: Controller Steve Westly, state Treasurer Phil Angelides and Attorney General Bill Lockyer -- all Democrats -- rule out running for governor if the recall makes it to the ballot. June 19: Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante says he will not run for governor if the recall campaign is successful. July 10: Republican activists trying to recall Davis sue the Democratic secretary of state and five counties, saying they've purposely slowed the counting of signatures. July 14: Davis allies sue to challenge the signature-gathering process, saying they discovered widespread illegalities in the Republican-led signature drive. July 17: Democratic National Committee chairman vows that no Democrat will run to replace Davis, if the recall drive reaches the ballot. "I want the folks here in California to know that we are not going to have another Democrat on the ballot," DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe says. July 18: A Los Angeles Superior Court judge blocks the effort by Davis allies who had asked for a temporary restraining order in order to investigate allegations of illegal signature-gathering. The group appeals. Also, in Sacramento, an appeals court sides with recall supporters that sued the secretary of state to speed up signature verification. July 23: California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announces that Davis will face a recall election. Voters will be asked whether Davis should be recalled on the first part of the ballot, and then will be asked to name his replacement on the second part. July 24: Bustamante sets the recall election for Oct. 7. July 31: Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt files papers to run for governor, joining more than 200 would-be candidates who will have to pay $3,500 and turn in 65 signatures, or collect 10,000 signatures, to qualify for the ballot. Aug. 6: Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger announces on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" that he will run for governor. Bustamante, breaking ranks with fellow prominent Democrats, announces he too will run. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein rules out run for governor, saying the election is "more and more like a carnival every day." Aug. 7: Davis and the American Civil Liberties Union file separate federal lawsuits claiming that if the recall election takes place as planned thousands of California voters would be disenfranchised. Both lawsuits ask that the recall election be postponed until March 2004. Aug. 7: Insurance Commission John Garamendi, a Democrat, announces that he'll run for governor. Aug. 8: The California Supreme Court declines to intervene in the recall election, clearing the way for an Oct. 7 vote. Several federal lawsuits remain. Aug. 8: A Los Angeles Superior Court judge refuses to halt the Oct. 7 election over allegations that petition signatures had been improperly collected, saying there wasn't enough evidence of fraud. Aug. 8: Former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth announces his candidacy for governor, joining fellow Republicans businessman Bill Simon, state Sen. Tom McClintock and Schwarzenegger in the race to replace Davis. Aug. 9: Under pressure from Democrats, Garamendi drops his bid for governor hours before the deadline to file his candidacy papers. Aug. 9: 247 potential candidates file papers to run for governor before the deadline, including Independent candidates columnist Arianna Huffington, actor Gary Coleman and comedian Gallagher. Aug. 11: The secretary of state conducts drawing to reorder the alphabet to determine candidates' order on the ballot. Aug. 13: The secretary of state certifies 135 gubernatorial candidates for the recall election. Aug. 23: Republican Bill Simon drops out of the California recall race. Sept. 3: Five candidates -- Bustamante, Camejo, McClintock, Huffington and Ueberroth -- face off at the first gubernatorial debate. Schwarzenegger bows out, saying he'll take part in a later debate. Davis doesn't take part in the debate, but is given 30 minutes to state his case to voters. Sept. 9: Ueberroth drops out of the recall race. Sept. 14: Former President Clinton begins campaigning against the recall, appearing with Davis in Los Angeles. Sept. 15: A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halts the recall election, saying it is unacceptable that six counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. Recall supporters say they'll appeal the decision.
I read every one of George Will's columns. You are right, he does not believe that the humanitarian cause is sufficient intervention. But I hate to dissappoint you, because he believed the security and strategic reason for invading Iraq was MORE than sufficient. From a recent column, taking a look at French philsopher Levy: "Because Levy sees a danger of Pakistani nuclear technology leaking to stateless terrorists, he thinks the United States' understanding of the war on terrorism is insufficiently frightening."
Lol. I love Will... But I don't see your point...I never addressed whether Will believes that our security and strategic reasons were sufficient. I haven't read his take on that...if you could provide it, I'll be happy...but was merely going to refute the ever more common pro-war take that it doesn't matter if we were misled, it doesn't matter if there was no threat, it doesn't matter if there are no WMDs or ties to 9-11, we did a good thing, and that jusutifes it, and anyone who says otherwise is just a left wing Bush hater...with words from an admitted and proud right wing advocate. Whether that right wing advocate agrees with other aspects...interesting, worth dfiscussing in and of themselves, IMO, and would appreciate you posting them...are immaterial to the point I was going to make.
This is confusing as heck. My only point is that George Will did support the war. Insofar as you made a different point, that wasn't the same as my point- that's not what I am adressing, for I am going on to a different point, not necessarily in response to your previous points, but more in the way of a tangent. Now, tangents, certainly when they go directly against your position, are not always direct points and welcome to all discussions, as this one, but they do illuminate subjects, insofar as it allows posters to see their original points in a different way, and illuminate their insular views. Whether the poster of the original point agrees with said tangential points, or as I say, even initially making a point that led in direct logical course to such a tangent, are immaterial to the point I was making. Here is one Will's articles pre-war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A32574-2003Feb5¬Found=true
