The Next Governor of California

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Tom Head, Aug 9, 2003.

Loading...
?

Who should be the next governor of California?

Poll closed Nov 7, 2003.
  1. Gary Coleman

    13 vote(s)
    54.2%
  2. Larry Flynt

    11 vote(s)
    45.8%
  1. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I don't know about you, but I think the California recall election is becoming quite a circus--even though we all know there are only two folks who really have a shot at replacing Gray Davis. If the election were held today, which would you pick?


    Cheers,
     
  2. Dr. Gina

    Dr. Gina New Member

    Where is AHH-Nald?
     
  3. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    I can say this. I lean a lot more to the right, but I do not think it is right to overturn an election made by the people of the state by a petition. If Arnold or whomever else beat Gray Davis in the general election, which I think they would, then that would be fine, but to overturn an election is not right. MHO of course.
     
  4. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

  5. bruinsgrad

    bruinsgrad New Member

    no vote

    It is beyond unacceptable. The recall was started because of (allegedly)the poor state of the economy, all Davis' fault, according to Issa. To hold an iregular, three ring circus election within a few months, the state will spend billions. How's that for concern about the economy? Each candidate spent $3,500 to put his/her name in the hat, while teachers and policemen are being laid off. Then we're asked to choose between a jailbird has-been actor with serious health problems, a smut peddler, a porn "star", and an actor whose "I'm a candidate now" speech was something to the effect of how successful he was as an actor. But he has nothing to say on any issues concerning governing the state, for that, he must find advisors to tel him what he thinks. Oh, then there's the Lt. Governor who is only running not to get left out, even though he doesn't believe the election should be taking place. And Issa, in tears, cause some big bullies told him he can't play with them anymore. Meanwhile, the anti-petition and pro-petition people met on the street, got into a brawl and put a few people in the hospital. Hope it wasn't a candidate:)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2003
  6. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    It's the California way. Matt Welch:

     
  7. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    Re: no vote

    While I don’t support recall process in these circumstances, let’s get the facts straight. The election won’t cost the State billions. The most recent estimate was $60 million or roughly $2 per California citizen.

    Whatever the candidates spend will help the economy in terms of money being taken from the candidates' campaign accounts and being spent on goods and services.

    In terms of entertainment over the next two months, I think I’ll get my $2 worth.
     
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    This poll would have been a lot more interesting if it wasn't restricted to two of the least serious candidates.

    As to whether the recall is justified: I don't like Davis one bit, but I don't think that most of the state's problems are his doing. I don't think that a recall is necessary. But the state constitution allows for recalls, and the decision is the people's, not mine.

    I don't like the cost of the recall, but that's miniscule compared to the state budget deficit. I don't like the disruptive effect on state government business, but given that the state government was in paralysis before the recall, we aren't losing very much.

    The bottom line is that conditions are gonna suck in California until the recession is over. California was hit especially hard because of the Silicon Valley internet bubble. State spending expanded greatly based on tax revenues from paper profits, and when the house of cards collapsed, tax revenues plummeted.

    Unfortunately, politicians are much better at ratcheting up new spending in order to get votes than they are at eliminating government benefits to fit reduced circumstances. The latter would anger the voters and threaten their political careers. So the state remains stuck at program levels more appropriate to the internet boom, and can't find any way to kick the spending habit.

    Cutting government programs would be unpopular at a time of statewide economic anxiety. But raising taxes significantly would just drive more business out of the state and create a huge voter backlash.

    So far the state government seems to have been doing nothing at all, praying to whatever gods they worship in Sacramento that a return to a boom economy will come soon and save all their asses.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2003
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Given those 2 choices, you have to go with the 4'7" candidate.

    How can you not like a guy who publicly advocates drilling for oil in every National Park? :rolleyes:
     
  10. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Whatchoo talkin' bout Willis?
     
  11. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Time for another EPIC story; it's a Jungle out there.
    Myasthenia Davis versus the Old Oagen Bugget.
    Better red and dead--Upton Sinclair for governor--now more than ever.
    Would government by seance really be so different?
     
  12. Broderick

    Broderick New Member

    The issues

    I know I will get flack for this, but Larry had some pretty good ideas in his platform. I don't remember where I read it, but he talked about different ways generating income (one of them was legalizing prostitution and taxing it, I'm not up for that. No pun intended, LOL!) I doubt he will win, maybe Ah-nuld will have him as an advisor?


    Veritas,

    Michael:D
     
  13. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    You mean prostitution in CA is not legal? :D :D
     
  14. roysavia

    roysavia New Member

    Re: The issues

    Hey if it works in Nevada, it just might work for California. After all, when the lights are out in Nevada, there's enough electricity generated in those tax free brothels to light up the entire city of Fresno.
     
  15. bruinsgrad

    bruinsgrad New Member

    Vote for Chads

    "You mean prostitution in CA is not legal? "

    No, thats that other state nearby, you know, Nevada?
    Now if our politicians really wanted to make the voters happy-well, all who weren't American Indian-they'd allow slot machines and casinos all over the place and Vegas would dry up. I thnk one of our 150 candidates is using that for a platform.
    And to help put a dent in Mr. Boyd's $2, one gent handed out $20 bills to reporters in front of the courthouse, only to return and take some back when he fell short of having enough to pay the $3,500 filing fee.
     
  16. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

  17. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    I am not sure who Mary is, but from the picture in the first article I could see why she is getting out of the business. I hope as Governor that she will cover that roll, and the nanny goats. :D
     
  18. Broderick

    Broderick New Member

    Re: Vote for Chads

    That would also be Mr. Flint.
    SInce I work in the casino biz, I dont think that would be such a bad idea. His idea is to allow the card rooms here in Cali. to have slot machines and become full fleged casinos. Anyone know how much state tax is taken out of people's paychecks in Nevada? Zero, zilch, nada.... The casino's finance the entire state. Sounds really good to me.

    Veritas,

    Michael
     
  19. dlkereluk

    dlkereluk New Member

    John Bear!
     
  20. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Re: Re: Vote for Chads

    And people think they can win. :D
     

Share This Page