The Establishment vs the People
The California Supreme Court has taken the case about whether the language of the Constitution, as it was changed in 1974, to read that there be a successor election only "if appropriate" means we do not have a successor election for governor because it is more appropriate for the Lt Gov to succeed the Governor in the event of recall.
California Insider has shared the opinion of Republican Tony Quinn who has suggested that Ron George is linked with the political establishment and may want to use the suit to stop the recall madness.
Later there was a response from an anonymous member of the Establishment, which the Insider shared:
Even if Ron George wants to help the Establishment, it's not clear what he should do. Is helping Cruz get elected helping the poltiical establishment? Further, would dropping the second part of the election help or hurt Gray? Some people think the "if appropriate" suits are a way to screw Gray because removing the conservatives from the ballot would make Democrats more comfortable voting for the recall. Also: It is not in Lockyer's interest to take a dive on this, because he is getting older, and his last best chance to run for governor is in 06. He can only do that if Gray serves out his term or is replaced by a caretaker. Elevating Cruz serves neither purpose.
Apparently, the member of the Establishment has no clue what is the Establishment is. To this member, George wouldn't be protecting the Establishment because the Establishment doesn't have a consensus as to the desired solution.
However, he or she has missed the point. In the recall, the Establishment doesn't get a decision. The people vote and elect whomever they darn well please from what may be long list filled with political outsiders.
If George steps in, and says no successor election, then Cruz can step up or Davis can stay. Most importantly, in the future, recall of the governor will be a rather weak tool and the Establishment will retain control over the process. The Establishment will benefit even if George doesn't adorn any particular member.
Can you imagine? George wouldn't be helping us, the Establishment, because we might want the path of succession to go differently. Yeah, that voting thing is just a minor procedural hangup.
Fellow bearflagger, Molly, is taking up watch over the Sanchez portion of this race. Check out this post and the others below it.
I have a new style sheet, in case you couldn't tell, thanks to blogstyles.com. I wondered how people pick their styles. My main decision point is how easy it is on my eyes. I don't wear glasses but I don't have perfect vision. I'm in that gray area where my vision is not bad enough that I have to wear them and I can still pass a driver's test. Some websites cause me to squint and the layout and color combination does make a difference. So the amount of squinting I do is what determines my preference.
Calpundit has very definite reasons for setting up his template the way he has. Others just leave the default in because their mother said so. California Insider has a site that matches the rest of the Bee.
I wondered why Rick Hasen chose yellow. I find his site very easy to read with the color combination and the large font. Every time I go there though, a part of my brain says "yellow? Is he the only one who uses yellow?"
For a change of pace, leave a comment about your template choices.
Calblog and the crystal ball have a pretty good read on the Republican front. The Democratic candidates are a little harder to track. John Fund has an excellent summary in today's Wall Street Journal. WSJ opinion pieces are free to view.
Yesterday, I wondered aloud what the purpose was behind the GOP Straw Poll. The answer, in the comments, deserves its own post:
I'm the political consultant you refer to that is running the GOP Straw poll. No hidden motives -- I'm not trying to drum up business (I have plenty of work) and don't have a horse in the Governor's race. When we first started the site, we wanted to try and limit the field of candidates and avoid a splintering fo the GOP vote -- a goal that doesn't look possible now.
The straw poll will likely turn into more of 'who has grass roots support from activist' and it this point it looks like McClintock has the early edge. We send the results to the CRP leaders when we tabulate and likely won't close it until closer to the election.
California Insider reports that the former state legislator who drafted the words "if appropriate" now remembers that he meant that there would be no successor election if we recalled the governor. The Insider comments:
It is my understanding that those documents [the ballot pamphlet] , and not the memory of the author, is where the courts normally look to guide them on interpreting the meaning of a ballot measure.
Insider is right and here's the case law to support it. Legislature v. Eu decided in 1991 by the California Supreme Court. (54 Cal.3d 492, 816 P.2d 1309, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283) says:
The principles that guide us in evaluating the validity of initiative measures such as Proposition 140 are likewise well settled. (2) Although the legislative power under our state Constitution is vested in the Legislature, "the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.)
Accordingly, the initiative power must be liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 341.) Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise. (Ibid., and cases
cited.) As with statutes adopted by the Legislature, all presumptions favor the validity of initiative measures and mere doubts as to validity are insufficient; such measures must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. (Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989)
48 Cal.3d 805, 814 [258 Cal.Rptr. 161, 771 P.2d 1247] [evaluating the constitutionality of Prop. 103, an insurance rate initiative measure adopted at the Nov. 1988 Gen. Elec.].)
As we have previously recognized, to help resolve such ambiguities "it is appropriate to consider indicia of the voters' intent other than the language of the provision itself. [Citation.]" (Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of
Equalization (1991) 53 Cal.3d 245, 250 [279 Cal.Rptr. 325, 806 P.2d 1360].) Such indicia include the analysis and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet. (See ibid.; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 245-246 [149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281]
[hereafter Amador].)
Doesn't that "jealously guard the precious initiative power" language give you the chills?
Bottom line: It's the voters' intent and regardless of what the drafter was thinking, the question is whether he explained it that way to the voters.
UPDATE: Rick Hasen comes to a similar conclusion with different case law.
Calblog is headed on vacation the day before the filing deadline for recall candidates. This is the first vacation in a long time that has been planned well in advance. If you are interested in guestblogging and are willing to follow the recall daily, let me know via email.
The name sounds strangely familiar to you. Is she running for recall? Is there any other news besides recall?
Short answer: She is a person who the Left claims has been endangered by the Bush administration purposely in retaliation for her husband's First Amendment activities.
Shocking, eh? Well, it would be if the claims held up. Bill Hobbs has the story.
The Assembly has also passed the budget. It's headed out for signature. In addition to liking certain candidates like McClintock, this blog likes certain reporters. Bob Salladay in the Chronicle has an excellent analysis of the budget in this morning's Chronicle.
Bush ran fast from the recall today. The last question in the news conference was about his views on the recall. He doesn't know much about recals. We don't have them much in the country. We don't have them in Texas, thankfully. Yes, he added the word thankfully! It doesn't matter what he thinks. It matters what the people of California think.
Polizeros has an excellent report on a possible Peter Camejo/Arianna Huffington alliance at Political State Report.
Mercury News reported that Riordan doesn't want in if Feinstein gets in. (Hat tip: Prestopundit). Perhaps the draft Feinstein movement is designed to keep Riordan out.
And that's just yesterday's news that I didn't get to yesterday. Dan Weintraub has an early morning roundup and I'll be mining the papers next.
Oh yeah, Arnold's out. Again.
Simon is probably running again. I hope he changed campaign staff.
The rumors are that Arnold is not running but he hasn't said he's not running because he is waiting for Riordan to be ready to run. Let's see, can we source this anywhere besides California Insider, who is just getting way too cool these days? Why yes, the Insider provides links to 4 different news stories.
Now the obvious question is: how the heck can Riordan not be ready? We were talking about Riordan before Issa got involved. The cats could be ready by now.
Well, I have no sources like some "insiders" but I do have the crystal ball which hasn't failed much. It's like this:
On a few nonprofit boards I serve on, everyone feels good about the organization but no one wants to take on the extra added job of board chair or other time-intensive positions. So many years, a few of us sit around passing the job to each other and negotiating who will take it and what the rest of us will do to make it worth that person's while.
That's how I see the current Schwarzenegger-Riordan dialogue. They're friends They vacation together. They both love politics. They both see clearly what an opportunity this is. Who's going to take it? Neither sees another viable candidate. They're fiscal Republicans who are social progressives. The other Republicans are too conservative and well, the non-Republicans, let's not go there.
But Arnold has young children, a wife who is opposed, and a movie career. He wants to run in '06 or '10, depending on which source you believe (crystal ball says 2010).
Riordan is 70. He's done his public service years. His wife is opposed. He wants to retire. He'd like to start a newspaper.
So they start to negotiate. At first, it looks like Arnold will do it. It's earlier than he wants, but he does want to. It'll be a better opportunity than '06 or '10. Shorter campaign. More anger at Davis. No primary. No primary! So it's Arnold.
Then Maria steps in. They have a deal and he's supposed to wait.
So the ball bounces back to Riordan. It's a short campaign. Less than a full term. Arnold will take it in '06.
We're not looking at Riordan getting ready or Arnold trying to decide. We're watching two men playing hot potato with the governorship with the belief that it belongs to one of them and only one of them.
And that's where this analogy breaks down. When I'm sitting around passing off some volunteer position, whoever takes it gets it.
The governorship does not belong to one of them. The more they play this hard-to-get game, the more they hurt their own campaign(s) and the campaign of anyone else who tries to get serious. The electorate, already pissed off at politics, will see this as the power play that Davis is describing and they'll just keep Davis.
Arnold has to step out and Riordan has to step in or out. Without rumors, discussion or speculation. If you can't make a decision about running, how are you going to figure out the budget?
Let's get to it.
It was one of those scary moments. I was home early to spend quality time with a nebulizer for my smog-induced asthma. I had to talk to a client first so I had the TV muted while I chatted. There on the screen was Davis smiling and a caption that said court strikes down part of recall law. Ack! Recall news and I'm, I'm, I'm working.
Fortunately, I did not miss much. The law said that the ballot is in 2 parts. The first part is yes or no on the recall and the second part is a list of successors. In order for your vote to count on the second, you had to vote one way or another on the first question.
Here's the ruling: You can vote on the second question and skip the first! Woohoo!
Califonria Insider asks what difference it makes. None. We're just preventing a Florida style debacle where we argue about what the voter intended if they did just that.
Many are viewing the recall as revolutionary. Weintraub jokingly described Saturday's recall rally as "peasants with pitchforks." The rally I attended had that same feel. 75 people standing around, smacking a pinata with Davis' picture on it. My kids' birthday parties are rowdier and draw more public attention. Yet, it was clear then that the recall was about to make the balot and we were just one little pocket of many similar little pockets.
Stories of the American Revolution read similarly to me. The British troops marched in and random homeowners gathered their muskets and headed out to resist. The stories of trying to raise those early armies made it seem like a huge stroke of luck that it was ever anything more than a couple of skirmishes that would end up as a footnote in history.
When the Revolution ended, what to do next wasn't as apparent in foresight as it was in hindsight. The Constitution wasn't the first document out there. The reason why Washington is considered father of the country is a consensus that he was the only one who could step into the breach and take the country through the transition.
My view of why Washington was successful is that he kept his eye on the ball. He saw the big picture and focussed on forming the country.
If the recall is going to be more than footnote (and admittedly, I have been skeptical that it can be), it too needs a leader with the eye on the ball. The reason I decided to stand behind McClintock is that he seems to have that picture. He's focussed on the problem at hand. He knows that the fiscal problems are extreme and need hard management. He's not using the budget mess as a steppingstone to impose a rightwing agenda on the state. He's trying to lead us back to the "Golden" days of the "Golden State."
There are some who wonder if McClintock has a chance. Kevin's blog entry is one example but I have heard this opinion repeatedly in my email correspondence. Here's food for thought. Howard Dean is outraising Cheney and his fellow Dems, using the populist tool of the Internet.
The campaign manager said the message extends to the core of Dean's populist message.
Cheney ''does it with people who get plaques for raising $100,000. (Dean's supporters) are regular people -- students, retirees -- who give $50,'' Trippi said. ''If George Bush is running against that, it's not a left-wing thing or a right-wing thing, but people participating in their democracy. People don't want to believe that about us, but we'll just keep talking about it -- and proving it -- until they do.''
Here's Californians' chance to participate in their democracy, in a way that is stronger and more powerful than usual. If like me, you think McClintock can lead us through the difficult task of righting the economy, head to his website and drop in something, even $5. If you disagree, post a comment. I'd particularly like to hear about any other candidate, Davis included, who is discussing details and a plan, rather than talking about the politics of power and who the recall does or does not benefit.
The recall is here now. A failed revolution is worse than no revolution at all.
From his speech at the recall rally:
Let me tell you what I will do in the first hour of this new administration.
The moment I have taken the oath of office, I'll sign the order to rescind the illegal tripling of California's Car Tax. If this governor can claim that he has the authority to raise the car tax by fiat, then by God I'll claim the same authority to lower it right back down by fiat.
I'll then sign a stipulation to the Superior Court in Pasadena in the case I filed last year to void the $42 billion of outrageously priced electricity contracts that Davis approved. Those contracts were negotiated under a clear legal conflict of interest by Davis' chief negotiator. This governor won't stipulate to these simple facts because it would require him to admit wrongdoing. I'll certainly admit Davis has done some things wrong!
Then I will sign a third document, calling a special session of the legislature to deal with our Workers Compensation insurance crisis. They will have 30 days to enact Arizona's Workers Compensation law—slashing workers comp costs by 2/3. And if they fail in 30 days, I'll take it to the ballot and let them explain to the people why they refused to act while our job market was collapsing.
With those three documents—and a governor with the will to act—we can reduce taxes by over $4 billion, dramatically lower electricity prices, and roll back the costs of Workers Compensation that are destroying jobs in our state. And all that before lunch.
I like specifics. I can now take these points, as can all my fellow bloggers, and analyze whether they do the trick. None of the usual "I'll fight like a Bengal tiger" (Davis) or "seriously considering" whether or not to get into the race. (Riordan).
When it gets right down to it, the recall is on not because of Davis' personality but because we're in a pickle and no one else is talking about how to get out of it. McClintock is saying the stuff I want to hear.
By the way, I've heard him speak a couple of times now and read several of his other speeches. He has never touched on things that really rattle the left. No talk about illegal immigrants or affirmative action or abortion. Yes, he swings right, but those aren't his issues and he'll have enough to do in the next couple of years fixing our economy.
McClintock also won the GOP strawpoll. It was an non-scientific poll and it's purpose wasn't clear to me. Other polls I have seen are on talk radio sites, with the purpose of bringing viewers to the site. This one was run by political consultants. Bringing in potential clients? Or already working for someone? I don't know.
I found this entry (and the referenced article) at Amygdala fascinating. A Harvard psychologist ends up unemployable after assuming that people haven't really been abducted by aliens. I hope we get followup on this someday.
The Assembly hasn't passed it. Assembly Republican leader Dave Cox is still looking at the Senate budget. Let's go, ladies and gentlemen. The credit rating doesn't have much farther down to go.
Senator Tom McClintock gave a speech last night on the Senate floor against the budget which passed the Senate. As he said,
Mark my words: this budget solves nothing. It sets in motion still
bigger deficits to come. The day that it is signed will be the first day of
the budget crisis of 2004.
Read the speech in the extended entry and, if you agree, give Senator McClintock your support.
AB 1765
2003-04 Budget Final Vote
Senator Tom McClintock
July 27, 2003
Three years ago, when the 2000 budget passed the legislature with overwhelming majorities, I warned that "If lawmakers don't take a strong
stand now to control spending, they are setting California up for very harsh choices and hard times just around the corner."
Two years ago, when the 2001 budget was taken up in the Senate, I warned the continued absence of structural reforms in the budget would ratify policies that were bankrupting our finances.
Last year, when the 2002 budget was taken up in the Senate, I warned that the budget set in motion events that would require the next legislature to "address a continuing hemorrhage of red ink whit fewer options and a weakened economy."
And today I tell you this: the budget now before us is a rotting porch just waiting to collapse. It rests on two decayed pillars that cannot stand: the illegal tripling of the car tax and the illegal borrowing of billions of dollars for ongoing expenses without a vote of the people.
According to the office of the legislative counsel, the governor does not have the authority to raise this tax.
This action is now being challenged in court. And mark my words: the state will be ordered to refund this money - plus interest. If you pass a budget that spends this money -you have just blown a multi-billion dollar hole in future budgets.
The second rotting pillar of this porch is the borrowing of $13 billion for ongoing state obligations, in direct violation of Article 16 of the state constitution. It doesn't matter what general fund revenue streams you dedicate to its repayment - it is a general obligation of this state and general obligation debt cannot be used for ongoing expenses and it must be submitted to the people.
And we have already been placed on notice that this action will be challenged in court. And it too will collapse.
I set only two requirements for my vote on this budget: it must be balanced and it must not require tax increases.
As to the first: I count some $13 billion of deficit spending - including
the Davis deficit bond, the pension bond and the $1 billion raid on our
highway funds. It is not balanced.
And as to the second: however you care to explain it or justify it, this
budget is based on over $5 billion of new taxes -- $4 billion in car
taxes, a half billion in manufacturer's taxes, and a half billion in
other taxes masquerading as fees. That's an average of $575 of new taxes
on every family in this state. It DOES require tax increases.
I believe Senator Brulte when he says that this is the best budget that he feels he could negotiate given the current membership of the legislature and the current structure of our service delivery systems.
But here's the problem. The current structure of our service delivery systems is completely shot. You have to change those systems.
We can bridge that gap - but we have to be willing - right now - to
close obsolete offices, eliminate agencies that have overlapping jurisdictions,
decentralize service systems and restore local control over those
systems.
We have to allow state government to do what every household and
business does everyday - shop around for the best service at the lowest price.
We can no longer delay prevailing wage reform, welfare reform, medi-cal
reform, workers compensation reform.
And every time that I - and others - have made these proposals we've been told- year in and year out - that there's no time and we'll talk about them next year.
I realize that we are taking some steps forward by finally moving
ahead with BRAC and are at least talking about some structural reforms.
But I've heard promises of bureaucratic reform before and they all go
away once the budget is passed.
This might be the best the legislature can do. But it is nowhere close to the best that can be done and that needs to be done.
Mark my words: this budget solves nothing. It sets in motion still
bigger deficits to come. The day that it is signed will be the first day of
the budget crisis of 2004.
Hugh Hewitt at 3:25 pm. Dr. Laura is talking about running and Willie Brown is calling the powwow. Dreier is coy about supporting Riordan if he runs.
I came to my decision today. McClintock is our best hope. He is focussed on the budget while everyone else is deciding the best time to announce whether they're running or not.
Yes, I know he is way to the right on social issues but the Democratic legislature won't let him stray too far right and he is going to ignore those while he gets the budget isn't worked out.
So starting now, this blog officially throws in behind McClintock and will be even less neutral than usual.
California Insider has the news again. Arnold is not running.
Dan Weintraub, the Insider himself, will be on Hugh Hewitt's show until the the election. You can listen to Hewitt online at 3 pm Pacific. Lileks is on regularly too. Some people even listen to hear Hewitt.
From ChronWatch:
One promising development is Tom McClintock's announcement to San Francisco broadcasters Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan that he will run in the recall election. He is the most credible and principled of the Republicans considered for the race. Known as a budget hawk--precisely what the state needs at the moment--state senator McClintock was the one bright spot in the Republicans' dismal showing last year. Though badly outspent by his multimillionaire opponent, McClintock came within a hair of becoming the state's controller.
Angry Clam sounded the alarm first and the news of that Berkeley study has bounced around the web. It's hit Drudge (how he'd fall behind?) and Drudge also links to a piece from today that Berkeley Republicans are demanding an apology. Careful folks, you don't want to become appendix one.
Fellow Bearflagger Absinthe & Cookies thinks the current criticism, as summarized in this Washington Post article, of Rice is sour grapes. I wish I could be so sure.
The evidence that keeps popping up does not fit in with previous reports of her obsessiveness with facts and details. Sure, Bush delegates and you can disagree with it or not, but it's no surprise to discover that he's delegated something the opposition thinks he should not have. But Rice? If she's delegating, I'm wondering why. The most positive explanation I can hope for is that she's tried to adopt her boss' management style with less success. Any other explanation is less palatable. I think my liberal friends, in their tunnel vision about Bush, have limited their inquiry to talking about Rice in ways that make Bush look bad. A little look at Rice alone may have more traction.
John McCaslin revisits a 1997 column in which Kerry demands we take out Saddam because of WMD:
But let's revisit Nov. 17, 1997, when nobody else in Washington except this column led with an item headlined, "Finish the mission."
"Debate on whether to take out Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi strongman, is over as far as one Democratic senator is concerned," or so we had written.
"Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is calling for a 'strong' military attack in response to the Iraqi leader's 'horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.'"
Kerry is not taking the same position on the campaign trail now.
Dion Nissenbaum, another writer, who ought to have a weblog, has analysis of how the shortened campaign might play out. Money quote:
Those with a plan then need money to get the message out -- and new state campaign finance rules will make it hard to raise the cash. Donors will be able to give no more than $20,000 each to candidates, so the top contenders may have to rely on their own personal fortunes.
In a twist, however, Davis and his allies will be able to raise unlimited amounts of cash because the new political reform laws don't apply to campaign committees set up to fight the recall.
It's the kind of story that they make up for movies because there aren't enough stories like it in real life.
A bottle containing a message from a refugee fleeing the Nazis during World War II has been found on a remote Swedish beach.
The note, dated to 1943 and scrawled on now yellowed paper, was written in English and asked if the war was over
If you ever wanted to try your hand at Fisking, Dowd's column on the recall is prime, beginner-level, piece-of-cake stuff. The recall is too complicated! Only for you, Maureen. Only for you.
California Insider reports that the new budget includes a commission on reviewing and cutting all state expenses. The Insider doesn't think it will save more than a few hundred million. I think there's a lot more fat there.
A fact-filled bio.
He's been in the state legislature since he was 26. Authored the lethal injection death penalty law. (My prolife views have me as strongly against the death penalty as I am against abortion so this fact is not a winner in my book.) Now, to show you how quirky I am, this fact did impress me:
He is [a] recognized expert in parliamentary law [and] is designated as one of the fewer than 2,000 Professional Registered parliamentarians in the United States by the National Association of Parliamentarians.
For those who view the recall as the start of a revolution, the speech that follows the bio was made by McClintock in 1997 and compares the CA state government then to England at the time of the American Revolution.
A 2002 Sacramento Bee article in connection with the GOP primary for controller affirming that MClintock has had a consistent stand against taxes.
A good starting point is his current state senate website.
His hot button issues right now are the lowering of the car tax and the workers' compensation crisis The senate website only addresses workers' comp with a survey of business owners that you can participate in. It refers you out to legislation he introduced -- SB 414. It died in committee and has been granted reconsideration. The bill would require that an employee's injuries be substantiated by "objective" medical evidence. Theorectically, this bill would cut down the number of injuries that are compensated under workers' compensation.
He is attacking the car tax in several ways. There are two initiatives on his campaign page. One eliminates the tax by statute. Another does so in the constitution. At the recall rally yesterday, he indicated that if he were elected governor, he would sign a stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit about the car tax. Since it was raised by the executive branch, the new governor could lower it. More information on his views on the car tax are here.
C-Span will air the Recall Rally live at 11 am Pacific Time. Internet feed is here.
UPDATE: The rally will repeat on CPAN at 5 pm Pacific. Worth watchng if you want to see the players for yourself.
Hugh Hewitt calls the next two weeks a hot stove league. (Posted at 8 am yesterday, no permalink.) For those who know baseball, the hot stove league is when you sit around in the dead of winter around a hot stove discussing next year's season.
If I had to pick a player to back, McClintock would be it. I think he is most able to turn this mess around. He has specific ideas. In the next few days, I'll try to present some of those ideas with background, similar to the Schwarzenegger archives. I don't know if he can beat Arnold if Arnold decides to run.
Also from the rally: Danny Ball, R-Hemet, is running against Boxer.
Worldnet Daily and Insight lays some of the blame for Liberia at Jesse Jackson's feet.
And it was Jackson who legitimated Liberian strongman Charles Taylor and his protégé, the machete-wielding militia leader in neighboring Sierra Leone, Cpl. Foday Sankoh. Without Jackson's active intervention, both leaders were headed toward international isolation and sanction. Thanks to Jackson, both retained power to murder another day.
At Jackson's prompting, Clinton made an unprecedented phone call to Taylor from Air Force One while flying over Africa. Until then the United States had shunned Taylor because of his grisly past. Among Taylor's many "accomplishments" were the murder of American Catholic nuns in Liberia and the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia.
Many more details of Jackson's peacekeeping efforts failing to achieve peace.
I'm no fan of Jackson but it seems to me it took a lot more than Jackson's acceptance to get to where we are. We may have isolated Tayler then and brought the current crisis on sooner. Then what? We weren't going in and I doubt it would have resolved peacably.
Prestopundit's second child was 10 days old when he returned to the blogosphere. Plenty of good stuff, just like the old days. There's even a rumor he;s in the Bear Flag League
California Insider's been in the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal and tomorrow he will be on the Beltway Boys tomorrow, oh wait, today, at 3pm Pacific Time. It reruns through the weekend for those of us committed to children activities. While you wait, he has lots of scoop. Lots. You won't find it elsewhere. Go read.
Finally, check out the summary of the national media reporting on the recall here. (Hat tip: Daily Pundit*) Snippet:
Republicans are split on what it means. The media are not. The recall movement is “madness,” caused by “cranks.”
* Also a Bearflagger.
First, let's get this out of the way, I know I said I wouldn't comment but I think I have something to add to the discussion, so I'm in.
We have had reports in the last few days that the woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of sexual assault (not rape and I have not followed the difference) has had perhaps two self-inflicted overdoses in the months prior to the date in question. The implication that some suggest the defense will draw is that she is unstable and not to be believed. (How's that for qualifiers -- "implication" "suggest" "will draw"?)
Before law school, I worked in battered women shelters and rape crisis centers. I learned about most of the ongoing research although my information is over 20 years old now. One study that keeps coming to mind was one that showed that women were at a much higher risk of being raped in the six months following some major life trauma, such as death in the family or, as in this case, suicide attempts. The theory drawn from the data was that in that state, women were more vulnerable, less likely to use good judgment, and an easier target.
That seems a sensible theory and certainly as likely a link between the overdoses and the incident as the suggestion that the overdoses diminish her credibility. That's if there is indeed a link.
Dan Weintraub is quoted in the Wall Street Journal.
Oh yeah, the article says Arnold will run.
I'll be offline most of the day. Here's something to keep you going:
California's credit standing was lowered three grades Thursday, and two hours later Senate leaders announced that a state budget agreement had been reached and would be passed by their members on Sunday.
Bearflagger Howard Owens needs to know how to vote in the recall. Go help him out.
I try to give people the heads up but sometimes it feels like I'm whistling in the wind. No, Davis has not brought up Arnold's Nazi dad yet. It's coming though. From the comments thread over at Calpundit:
I had a pollster call me up the other day about the recall. The funny (scary) part was that he mispronounced every thing. "Veto", "Panetta", "Nazi" (in reference to Ahhhhnold's father) were all butchered by this poor phone guy.
Yes, they're polling on it, boys and girls.
Recall election is October 7th. By my calculations, the deadline to file is on a weekend so the deadline is either 8/8 or 8/11. I will be on vacation and blogging lightly if at all.
Silly aside: Calblog husband said I could run. He told the girls they'd have to move to Sacramento with me. I asked about him. He has to stay and run the firm but he'll visit. The thought of becoming governor and a single mother all in one swoop was a tad overwhelming. :)
California Insider has bad news on the budget. Calblog husband and I make our living giving legal advice to California business. I worry a lot about the effects of prolonged economic trouble in the state and our ability to continue to build our client base.
Israpundit has an interesting writeup of information he got at a lecture last night, including where the WMD are:
4. Russia told Hussein one month before the war to remove all WMD to Syria and told Hussein to make many tapes to be played after. Iraq transported all the WMDs to Syria to be buried in Beka Valley in Lebanon. They did it at night so as not to be detected by Israeli or US satellites. It didn’t help. The satellites were able to detect where soil had been disturbed and put back so the exact location is know. It will come out during elections in the US. Debka first called it.
If this is true, the most disturbing part is Russia telling Saddam to move the WMD. Yes, even more disturbing than holding the info until election time. The latter is politics, which I hate, but the former puts our safety at risk.
Time will tell. It all seems a little too good to be true.
Powerline reports that Arnold may not run. Not surprising. I just tracked down a copy of the 1999 Talk magazine with the Arnold interview on ebay for the Schwarzenegger archives. It arrived yesterday. It's like washing your car so it'll rain.
Well, it'll come in useful when he runs in 2010.
By now most of you have read about Clinton's cogent defense of Bush on Larry King. Calblog husband, busy working and celebrating his birthday, missed it. I reported it to him. His first reaction:
Clinton's reduced staying up late and calling in to Larry King?
After the laughter, we agreed that we were impressed with Clinton, who had little, if any, personal stake and clearly was doing what he thought was the right thing.
Shelley makes the official announcement re: recall at a press conference at about 5:30 PT.
Bustamante speaks at 10 am tomorrow.
Bustamante is, to my horror, calling the recall election but not calling for an election of a successor, relying on a section of the constitution that says he calls for the election of a successor if appropriate.
California Insider calls this "stunning news.' He's right. I was stunned. I was so stunned that the girls came running from other parts of the house to see what had happened and it was a full minute before I could form words other than "Bustamante" and "I can't believe he did it."
The "if appropriate" language was added as part of a cleanup bill -- a bill designed to make the language clear, not change the meaning. Here in a nutshell are the reasons why there was no intention to let Bustamante choose:
1. The recall statute was put in to counteract the political machine phenomenom. Letting the Lt Governor choose whether he himself would succeed the Governor doesn't exactly counteract political machinations.
2. Other provisions of the recall statutory scheme make it very clear that an election of successor will go forward. If Davis resigned, we'd stil vote to recall him and elect his successor.
3. Some recall elections do not have a successor election -- i.e., judges -- providing an alternative and more logical reason for the "if appropriate language."
Not only is Bustamante doing this, he's giving the question to the Democratic-controlled Commission on the Governorship, not the Courts.
Do I think he's going to succeed? No. This delays the issue, maybe until March, but because it's such a high-stakes play, I think it will delay only until November. The fallout may be serious though. While we're dragged into this dispute, the state government will suffer real and perceived instability. Bustamante will have lost the ability to lead, just as Davis has. CA credit is likely to be further downgraded. The chances of focussing on real solutions to the budget any time soon are shot.
UPDATE: California Insider and Rick Hasen are debating whether the courts or the Commission on the Governorship will get to decide this issue. Both agree that it should be the courts. Hasen thinks Shelley should immediately petition the Supreme Court. A fine idea but according to a Bustamante spokesperson, “the commission has exclusive authority to petition the Supreme Court regarding succession to the office of governor.”
UPDATE 2: California Insider and Hasen continue to have updates on the story. I have no sources and am playing blogosphere echo chamber to the hilt instead. Keep checking them both for news.
UPDATE 3: While the general rule in politics is to follow the money, I like to follow the web links. Rick Hasen points to a petition by anti-recall people for the Commission to submit the question to the Supreme Court. The petition appears on a website apparently owned by Scott Rafferty. The website also contains a link pictures from the Santa Clara Democratic convention. Not that the opposition is partisan.
Angry Clam has this Berkeley study of what makes a conservative. Read that again: Berkeley study of what makes a conservative.
Here's some traits:
- Fear and aggression
- Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
- Uncertainty avoidance
- Need for cognitive closure
- Terror management
I guess I'm not a conservative after all.
This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.
Hmm. Yep, that explains all those people on the Bushlied meme. They're secretly conservative.
Walter Olsen, who maintains Overlawyered.com has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today on the California Unfair Competition statute. Since I am currently litigating a matter on this issue, I won't be commenting on the law changes although I would otherwise have a lot to say.
You know, I had never been too interested in running for Governor but this quote from Garry South on California Insider makes we want to get my petition together ASAP.
Let's say you run and you win: what have you won? You get no transition period. You take over a staff appointed by Gray Davis. There are seven constitutional officers who are Democratic -- all of whom can investigate you, audit you and have press conferences on the steps of the Capitol against you.
Take a look at the GOP Straw Poll, complete with bios of the top contenders. The twins turn 12 today so I'm a little preoccupied.
Fellow Bearflagger Lex Communis comments on the Kennedy-McCarthy link thusly:
Given the virulent anti-Communism of American Catholicism in 40's and 50's, it sounds right. It's just that it also seems so at odds with the way that history is remembered through the lens of the 60's and 70's.
When I was a kid, we prayed for the conversion of Russia regularly.
You wouldn't believe the web Bob Mulholland was spinning this morning on Fox News Sunday.
First, he said that the recall proponents has brought in Greyhound busloads of felons to collect the signatures. Tony Snow, with that glint in his eye, said "busloads? We've heard of a couple of these guys. Are you now saying busloads?" (All quotes approximate, not exact, but represented by me to be accurate.) Mulholland backs off -- "the voters need to know there's at least these two."
Snow also asked whether felons could vote in CA. Lo and behold, felons can vote after they've finished parole and no, Mulholland doesn't actually know whether these two identified people had finished their parole, although he did admit they'd been out of jail for "years."
Mulholland also said that Issa has prison tattoos "the length of his arm." Snow pointed out that, actually, Issa has never been to prison. Mulholland again had to back off.
Imagine if a Republican pulled that stuff.
One of the nice things about the blogosphere is that its generally free of the conspiracy theories that I thought would overrun it. If there's a blog about Kennedy's assassination or the Roswell crash, I haven't seen it.
Now the liberal blogs are all over the "what did Bush know and when did he know it?" conspiracy theory. It's Watergate and Iran-Contra all over again, they cry. (The Watergate analogy appeared in a newspaper somewhere but I can't even backtrack to it. You'll have to trust me.)
Oliver Willis, whose stuff is a good read even when I disagree with him, has another accusation.
Here's my own conspiracy theory. I haven't seen this elsewhere, but if anyone else is spinning it, I'm ready to read.
The CIA is incompetent. We saw signs of this during Clinton's term. The bombing of the Chnese embassy based on "outdated intelligence" when public street maps had the current information is an obvious example that comes to mind.
Bush comes in and we have 9/11. Who do you thnk missed the signs? The intelligence agency or the President? (If you believe the latter, the rest of this will just upset you.)
I think Bush, the CEO, is well aware of the deficiencies. I'm sure the left thinks he should announce the deficiencies. Our enemies would love the details. So instead, Bush reorganizes the whole kit and kaboodle into Homeland Security. Depite the outward reasons, I suspect that the reorganization allows some kicking upstairs of crappy operatives.