Andrew Sullivan says Makes sense to me

if ($conservatives_voting == 1 || $democrat_lost == 1) {
$election_accessible = "bad";
} else {
$election_accessible = "good";
}
print("The fact that the election was accessible was $election_accessible.\n");

To think he could have made amazingly intelligent and witty contributions such as these...

• You're mostly party line voters anyway, so shut your fucking mouth when it comes to this.
  
• Give him a chance, or get elected yourself, you whiny fucking cunt.
  
• Unless you're clairvoyant, you don't know how he's going to do. By opening your mouth now, you show yourself for who you really are - an ugly partisan voter.
  
• You're not, but that doesn't keep our mental giant from mouthing off about things he has no knowledge of.

While Arnold isn't a "Nazi" and the allegations of "groping" are highly suspect, he's still not even remotely qualified for this position. And it doesn't take a "clairvoyant" to know how he's going to do. He will most likely do as all Republicans and Democrats do. He will shuffle things around, and when he leaves, government will be larger, more expensive, and more intrusive on our personal lives. It doesn't matter who you vote for unless its for a Libertarian. If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you have wasted your vote.


Californians were given a choice between a scumbag incumbant or an evil scumbag replacement. Californians didn't have much of a choice at all. If you ask a man on death row whether he'd prefer to be given the lethel injection or the electric chair, he doesn't really have a choice. Either way he is dead. And the fact that Davis was re-elected isn't a mandate from the people; especially with such a low voter turnout. It only proves how horrible Simon was.

Why? Because they were given a choice between burning at the stake (Simon), or taking a bottle full of sleeping pills (Davis).

Spoken like a true doo-doo.....err....ditto head. Are you one of Limbaugh's minions who have already swallowed the cool-aid and avert all independent thought? One who throws the word "liberal" around as though it were an insult? One who mistakenly thinks the role of government includes forcing an arbitrary Christian morality down the throats of Americans while telling them America is a Christian nation? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from. It's clearly an angry and bitter place. I just want to know why.

Personally I think this recall was a good thing. It got voters off their asses and into the polls. It got many people interested in politics again. Sadly it didn't work out too well for the Libertarian party and I'm sure voter turnout will be scarce for my election next month. (Yes I'm on the ballot in November) I like the idea of voters being able to fire people who aren't doing a good job. Perhaps it will make public servants think twice about screwing over their constituents and help them to remember we are their boss and they answer to us.



Paul T. Ireland
Chairman
Libertarian Party of San Bernardino County

Arnold's not dumb. and he did head the President's Council on Physical Fitness. I wish him well.

Having caught some of the televised display, I am a liberal who would have picked Arnold over Davis or Bustamante.

The recall is troubling because of the way it occured. Werent people paid to go out and collect petition signatures? And Davis was not legally charged with incompetance or mismanagement. Sounds like a case could have been built, and should have been. It's a bit wild west. The petitions could be circulating for Arnold right now...I'm sure some are. So the question is how important is the term in office. I dont know all of the history and legalities here, one might correctly note that I am retarded in this regard, but how did it deteriorate to the point that the voters had no choice at the last election Simon/Davis?- or was it that not as many were engaged until the petition campaign whipped up? Will California be doing this next year too? Given he's able to stay in office his entire term, I'm curious how Arnold will work with his lieutennant Gov.

The recall is simply the latest manifestation of a principle of direct democracy that has been part of the California government far more than in any other state (and possible anywhere else period). I go back and forth on whether this is a good thing or not. Call me elitist, but I think the average person doesn't have good enough judgement to be trusted with a driver's license, much less decisions about government. I also don't think that gives me or anybody else any particular right to dictate to them. Good or bad, the people of California want it this way. If they don't like the theoretical prospect of a new gubernatorial election every 90 days, they can change their rules. Who are we non-Californians to second-guess? You can't stand Teddy Kennedy? Jesse Helms? Tough shit. Nobody held guns to the voters of Massachusetts and North Carolina all those years. Etc.

So what? All this proves is that people with a lot of money can run better campaigns. Not news.

Well again, that's the way they want it in California.

Well I don't know what happened in California at the last election, but I've felt for a long time that the best candidates usually get canned in the primaries, which is why we so often end up with a choice between two putzes in the general election. (Exhibit A: Bush vs. Gore, 2000) And once Davis was elected, I don't know what level of incompetence/criminality it would take for his party not to nominate him for a second term. So the only way for Democrats who didn't like Davis to get rid of him was to a) vote against him in the primary (that probably wasn't contested, but I admit I haven't looked it up), b) vote for a Republican, or c) have a recall.

In a certain way it makes perfect logical sense if you think about the extent to which the R's and D's choose candidates. The recall was an end-run around the party process as much as anything. I'm very skeptical of Arnold, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I generally support anything that reduces the influence of political parties.

And call elections when desired.

1) No. 2) No. 3) Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Ah. No.

It's an "angry and bitter place" because people like JeepNGeorge have far too much influence over this country, and it's become one where the mindset is much like you describe in your questions. I am against precisely that - the elimination of independent thought, the overwhelming Christian majority in government, etc. I understand that you haven't devoted your time to reading my each and every post here, but if you had, you'd know this.

The democrats that are against the recall aren't against it on principle. You can bet that if a Republican were being recalled, they'd be all for it. It's simply the nature of the current major political parties. Liberals align with other liberals, conservatives align with other conservatives. This is hardly news.

Ha. You're one to talk. Dig through your previous posts and count up how many times you resort to namecalling. You can stop when you reach 1,700.

Arnold alone got more votes than were cast against the recall. If you're so unpopular that you can be recalled so easily, perhaps it actually <b>is</b> time for a change.

He's married to a Kennedy - I think that by default you have to go into politics.

Just as a side note - being in insurance and I have handled claims in the State of California - as much as I don't like AARRRNNNOHHHLD - he's got some really really good ideas for the insurance regulations in the State of California. They are out of control down there right now - I mean everyone and their dog has an attorney and pretty much everything is paid for with no questions asked. Now - I know in my job I can be considered "the man" but I'm sure the (good?) people of Cali don't want to be paying out the ass for some dumb-ass fradulent lying injured worker to be sitting at home eating bon bons.

Sean Hannity was interviewing Jesse Jackson the night of the election before the results were known. He let Jackson blab on and on about how Jackson was going to file a lawsuit as soon as the polls closed on the grounds of voter disenfranchisment (i.e., the Florida argument). Jackson argued passionately for those "whose voices would not be heard!"

At the conclusion of Jackson's diatribe, Sean asked the esteemed reverend if he would proceed with the lawsuit if the recall was defeated.

Jackson, who seemed stunned by the question, paused before replying "No."

1,700 in 250 posts. That's got to be a record. I need someone to submit my name to Ripley's!

:3eye:

Not true. For example, I disagree with the small but apparently growing number of people that think Bush should be impeached. I don't think he's done anything that merits that action.

Anything like this or impeachment just depends on the situation. The party doesn't matter.

I'm just giving you a hard time, ugly. I know that you personally are, for the most part, above such things. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for most.

You don't think lying to the American people to gain support for an unconstitutional use of our military in a war against a sovereign nation that has never attacked America, poses no threat to America, and has no connections with anyone who has attacked America doesn't merit impeachment? I think it merits execution for treason.

How about violating the Constitution more than all previous presidents combined including Lincoln? Championing the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation in America's history? Violating his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? Military Desertion? Endangering America and the entire world through his imperialistic military interventionism? Sending American soldiers to murder and be killed instead of doing thier job of defending America? Mass Murder? Wrecking the economy?

What exactly do you consider an impeachable offense if not lying to the American people, committing mass murder, violating his oath and the highest law of the land, endangering America and the rest of the world, etc...? What does someone have to do in your eyes; start WW3?

Right, and A G A I N, that Constitutionality ought to be determined by the body that the Constitution says should determine it. I.e., not you.