Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (5119)	9/28/2003 8:21:15 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Posted on Sun, Sep. 28, 2003 No . . . and nobody THE RECALL IS NOT A SOLUTION TO STATE'S PROBLEMS; VOTE NO From the day the first petition was signed, recalling Gov. Gray Davis looked like a simplistic, illusory solution for the state's real problems. The recall is no solution to the state's budget crisis, no solution for struggling schools, and no solution -- quite the opposite -- for the poisonous partisanship that prevents the Legislature from finding solutions on issues from energy to health care. The seven months of paid-for signature-gathering, partisan ma- neuvering, legal hair-splitting and political campaigning since then have made the recall look even worse. Californians should vote ``no'' on the recall. The recall is wrongheaded even though Gray Davis has been a mediocre governor. The indictment against him is familiar: budget mismanagement, perpetual fundraising, a personality that not only distances him from the voters but also limits his effectiveness with the Legislature. The indictment fails to mention that Davis has championed major increases in education funding, protection for the environment, and a hard line against crime -- all of which are priorities Californians tell pollsters they endorse. But even if all of the charges against Davis are true, they don't add up to a case for dumping him mid-term. After all, the federal budget is in trouble, and Republicans are aggressive fundraisers as well. What's fair to Gray Davis, however, is not nearly as important a consideration in opposing the recall as the question of what's good for California. While California's Constitution permits a recall any time enough petitions get signed, it ought to be reserved for graver offenses. Already California is hobbled by partisan division. Where once the opposing parties sometimes looked to find common ground, they now seize every opportunity for sabotage. A recall will usher in more scorched-earth politics, including more recalls undertaken in retaliation. The Democratic accusation that the recall is a right-wing coup is disingenuous. Discontent in California runs deep. But clearly the recall was financed by Republicans and seized by them as a chance to win an office they fumbled away last November. Expect Democrats to work diligently on revenge if Davis loses. Voting ``no'' on the recall repudiates the tactic. Since winter, the case against the recall has actually grown stronger in one respect, the list of replacement candidates. Counting only the most credible handful -- which is what virtually all voters are doing -- this is not an inspiring group. The candidates who are clear in their positions, Peter Camejo, Arianna Huffington, and Tom McClintock, reflect only a fraction of the electorate. Those in the middle, Cruz Bustamante and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have proved that being ``too political'' is a charge that sticks to more politicians than just Davis. Did Davis devote himself to raising money more than to governing California? Would you like to replace him with the candidate who exploited a loophole to accept millions from Indian tribes or the one who said he wouldn't solicit contributions and then did? Voting ``no'' on the recall is a recognition that much of what is wrong in California is wrong with the system, not with the governor. For some voters, on both the right and the left, the recall offers an opportunity to select a governor more in line with their own political views. That's what primary and general elections are for. If political disagreement is grounds for recall, the paid signature-gatherers will be perpetually employed. Voting ``no'' on the recall affirms the importance of predictable elections. For all the disruption and expense the recall has caused, it has demonstrated how deeply dissatisfied Californians are with their state government and with their elected leaders. If Davis survives, chastened by the recall, he must work to recraft his legacy. The governor needs to drum up support for structural reforms, not just appoint committees. His last three years are the perfect time to streamline bloated bureaucracies and rethink the way the state provides services so that California doesn't spend more than it earns. Workers compensation reform isn't done. The electricity system isn't fully fixed. Overall, California needs a governor more engaged with voters, more involved with legislators, and one who adopts a visionary as opposed to a merely administrative view of the job. For the voters, their challenge is to channel the unhappiness into real reform. The way to begin is to see past the mirage. Vote ``no'' on the recall.