Arnie predicted as winner in Calif.

P

pknox

Guest
It appears the recall has passed in California, and Arnold Schwarzenegger has been projected to be the new governor. I know that there are still absentee ballots out there to count over the next few days, but evidently Arnie has enough of a lead for the networks to call it.

How's it sound out there in Cali? Is it going over well on the news?


Here's the full AP Release:

Californians banished Gov. Gray Davis just 11 months into his second term and elected action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him Tuesday - a Hollywood ending to one of the most extraordinary political melodramas in the nation's history.

Voters traded a career Democratic politician who became one of the state's most despised chief executives for a moderate Republican megastar who had never before run for office. Davis became the first California governor pried from office and only the second nationwide to be recalled.

Schwarzenegger prevailed despite a flurry of negative publicity in the campaign's final days, surviving allegations that he had groped women and accusations that as a young man he expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler.

The 56-year-old Austrian immigrant - husband of television journalist Maria Shriver - finds himself in charge of the nation's most populated state with an economy surpassed only by those of several countries.

Schwarzenegger promised to return the shine to a Golden State beset by massive budget problems and riven by deep political divisions.

Voters faced two questions - whether to recall Davis, and who among the other candidates should replace him if he was removed. They chose to get rid of the incumbent and put Schwarzenegger in his place.

About seven in 10 voters interviewed in exit polls said they had made up their minds how they would vote on the recall question more than a month before the election.

Long lines were reported at polling places through the day. By late afternoon, Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State, said a turnout of 60 percent appeared likely, higher than the 50.7 percent who voted in last November's gubernatorial election. It would be the highest percentage to vote in a gubernatorial election since 1982.

Re-elected last year with less than 50 percent of the vote, Davis fell victim to a groundswell of discontent in a state that has struggled with its perilous financial condition.

As colorless as his name, Davis was also known as a canny politician with sharp elbows. Once chief of staff to Gov. Jerry Brown, he rose through the political ranks as a state assemblyman, controller and lieutenant governor, before becoming governor in 1999.

By contrast, Schwarzenegger's political inexperience seemed a virtue to many voters.

The actor's improbable rise to political power played out before a rapt international audience. He announced his candidacy in August on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" after aides said it was certain he wouldn't run.

Other major candidates seeking to replace Davis were the Democratic lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, conservative Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock and Green Party candidate Peter Camejo.

The campaign included a parade of bit players among the 135 candidates, including Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, former child actor Gary Coleman, a publicity-hungry porn actress who wanted to tax breast implants and an artist who dressed in all blue and described his candidacy as the ultimate piece of performance art.

The cast of characters and outsized ballot gave the campaign a carnival-like atmosphere and provided late-night comics with a stream of material.

But to many Californians, it was serious business.

"I'm horrified at the thought that Schwarzenegger can be our governor," said Gretchen Purser, 25, of Berkeley, who voted against recall. "I'm sick of Republicans trying to take over the state."

Ed Troupe, 69, of Thousand Oaks, voted yes for recall and for Schwarzenegger. "As far as I'm concerned," he said, "Gray Davis is one of the dirtiest politicians I've ever encountered."

Though Schwarzenegger held a commanding lead over his rivals going into the final week, his campaign was shaken by allegations published in the Los Angeles Times just days before the election from six women who said he groped them or made unwanted sexual advances. Allegations continued to surface over the weekend, and by election day a total of 16 women had come forward.

Schwarzenegger also was confronted with reports that he had praised Hitler as a young man - accusations he disputed.

Responding to the sexual misconduct charges, Schwarzenegger acknowledged he had "behaved badly sometimes." But he attacked the newspaper and some of his accusers for what he called a last-minute effort to derail his candidacy.

Also Tuesday, voters considered ballot propositions to prohibit state and local governments from collecting racial data and dedicate money to public works projects.

Davis' plight reverberated across the nation, to the 18 other states that have initiative, referendum or recall provisions. If the state that brought us right-on-red is again a pioneer, perpetual campaigns could become common.

Davis stood to become only the second governor in U.S. history to be recalled, after North Dakota's Lynn Frazier in 1921. The cost of the election to California taxpayers was estimated at $67 million.

The victor will face daunting problems, including an ailing economy, a budget deficit now estimated at $8 billion and a tax-and-spending system many believe needs serious reform.

The recall movement was launched in February by grass-roots activists, angered over a tripling of the state vehicle license fee and a 30 percent to 40 percent increase in student fees at state colleges and universities - measures taken at the start of the year to try to close a whopping $38 billion deficit.

The movement really took off when Darrell Issa, a conservative congressman from San Diego County, poured $1.7 million of his fortune into the campaign to get the measure on the ballot.

Criticism of Davis mounted, with recall proponents claiming he squandered the state's $10 billion surplus in 2000 and lied to voters last fall when he was running for re-election to conceal the dire state of the economy. He also was accused of being slow to respond to the state's energy crisis in 2001 and presiding over a "pay to play" system that rewarded lobbyists and special interests for hefty campaign contributions.

Schwarzenegger cast himself as an outsider - he showed up at the Capitol on Sunday holding a broom to "clean house" - and claimed to be beholden to no special interests, even though he, too, accepted large campaign contributions from developers and major business interests.

Democrats portrayed the recall as part of a nationwide GOP power grab and sought to keep other Democrats off the ballot. But party unity was shattered when Bustamante, a moderate from the agriculture-rich Central Valley with a history of chilly relations with his boss, abandoned his pledge not to run. The first Hispanic elected to statewide office in more than 120 years, Bustamante was seeking to become California's first Hispanic governor since Romualdo Pacheco in 1875.

But it was Schwarzenegger who was the overpowering presence, even without the 22-inch biceps that made him Mr. Universe. Other GOP candidates such as businessman Bill Simon, former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth and Issa dropped out of the race, with Simon and Issa endorsing Schwarzenegger.

Tracked by national and international media, the Austrian immigrant found frenzied crowds wherever he went; flashing an iridescent smile, he tossed campaign T-shirts into adoring throngs. He raised at least $21.5 million for the race, some $10 million of which came from his own pocket (a sum that represented about a third of his salary for the movie "Terminator 3." )

All together, the candidates and the pro- and anti-recall campaigns raised at least $75 million.

The election was nearly derailed last month when a three-judge federal appeals court panel ordered the balloting postponed - perhaps until spring - because some counties planned to use the punch-card ballots that caused the recount mess in Florida in 2000. The court said tens of thousands of votes could go uncounted. But days later, an 11-judge panel of the same court unanimously ruled the election could go forward, saying too much time and money already had been spent on the election to stop it now.

While the field of replacement candidates included such entertaining players as Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and a porn actress who wanted to tax breast implants, to many Californians, it was serious business.

"I think we could be setting a dangerous precedent that other states might follow," said Evelyn Collaco, 63, of San Ramon. She said she was no fan of Davis, but was voting no on recall and for Bustamante.
 
Since I'm in Indiana, I'm pretty happy about this outcome because of the amusement value it will provide me.
 
I'm sure talk show hosts and standup comedians everywhere are rejoicing as well. ;)
 
Apparently the money Arnie put out is being repaid by unnamed donors. Good deal he isn't beholden to special interests.

Other tidbits...the thing about repealing the car tax? Apparently he can't. It's State law, passed by Pete Wilson. He'll need a supermajority, and the Dems just got on the radio aand basically said forget it.

Tax Indian casinos? He can't. Apparently they're soverign nations, and don't have to pay a dime--they pay tax only voluntarily.

This should be hilarious. Glad I moved out of Los Angeles...but Indiana would probably be about the right distance.
 
Great........and if the allegations are true........we now have who we can call "The Harassinator" for Governor.

:asian: :karate:
 
Originally posted by arnisador
Since I'm in Indiana, I'm pretty happy about this outcome because of the amusement value it will provide me.

LOL, Me too! :rofl:

And..who knows...he may actually do a good job. He has some good people in his transition team, and strategy teams. We'll have to see...
 
Great........and if the allegations are true........we now have who we can call "The Harassinator" for Governor
At least he didn't flatly deny the allegations. He could have said something like .... "I have never had sexual relations with that woman."
 
the car tax increase was instituted by Grey Davis as an executive order. there were many who thot this was an illegal move, but no one challeneged it.

now, the Democrats are trying to start a new recall on Arnold for next year.
 
Originally posted by Ender

now, the Democrats are trying to start a new recall on Arnold for next year.

That's the whole problem with this recall business. It could start a trend where when one of the parties, Dem. or Rep., doesn't get their way, they go for a recall, wasting more tax $$.

Arnold won fair and square, so he should at least be given the chance. I am not convinced he'll do a great job yet, but I am not convinced he'll be a failure either.
 
Good point. I honestly believe that the situation in California is so bad now, that just about nothing could make it worse. There's no harm in giving someone new a chance, especially as it seems that, based on the election results, that's what the people want. The big trick is going to be getting Dems to work with him -- they're most likely going to be very obstinate, and do everything possible to make him fail, so as to make it look like the recall was a bad choice.
 
Let me repeat: the car tax is the product of Pete Wilson's administration. Governors cannot pass new taxes, in California or anywhere else, by executive order.

And it was probably good policy. First off, Californians drive too damn much (me included) anyway. Second, taxes tend to cut usages--and if nobody's noticed, the air quality around LA is the worst in roughly twenty years. Third, it seems fair to me that the folks gotta put up some bucks when the State's broke. Fourth, the tax was keyed to the California economy. And it still is.

I might add that I've read and heard extensive discussions on the CA budget, and this tax was one of the reasons we even HAVE a budget. I realize everybody'd like to get something for nothing (Heinlein calls this the theory that, "Daddy will get them the pretty moon"), but alas...we still pay far lower taxes than any place in Europe...

Of course, the rational way to do things would be to educate people so they'd a) understand the issues, b) act morally. Then politicians could pretty much tell us the truth--believe me, these guys usually know damn well what it actually takes to run a state--voters would read the price tag, and make rational choices. But fat chance of that. It's much easier to blather about government waste (but never in the military! we NEEDED the B-2...two billion a pop, and designed to fly over the Soviet Union AFTER THE FIRST PHASE OF A NUCLEAR WAR and decapitate them, leaving nobody to negotiate with...), or whatever...

And, it's much easier to go off about public sector corruption (and believe me...I know more about that than you do...I taught at Compton College...keep scanning the news, and check out an LA Times article of last month), while claiming that the systemic corruption of American businesses (check out the trial of that guy from Tyco..astonishing thing is, what he was doing was clearly accepted practice!) isn't systemic. Hell, it isn't even corruption. It's accepted practice.

Apparently, we can't handle the truth. Things cost money. People need jobs. Our roads are overcrowded. SoCal is polluted, fortunately not as badly as parts of the old Soviet Union, but getting there. We can't afford to get rid of all immigrants. Our criminal justice system is systematically biased and crazy, so we've got far too many people in crappy jails that still cost money. We're getting way overpopulated. We can't afford to have everybody drive around in an Explorer. Rich people are sucking the society dry. Business ethics is an oxymoron. We've been too cheap to use our wealth to tool up for the next century. Too many of us think that what's on the tube is real. We exploit workers at home, and poor people abroad, to get by.

You will NOT be hearing any of this from Arnold. Whatever he says, he'll be rearranging the deck chairs, with the help it seems of Pete Wilson's staffers.

As for the dems..a) good to see the alibis for Arnold's upcoming disaster start early; b) the "recall Arnie," jazz is based on a Doonesbury cartoon, and a chant at Davis' concession speech...and he told 'em to cut it out, to support the new gov (hey...remember the coat Mel Brooks wore in "Blazing Saddles?" the one with "GOV" on the back?); c) why not? Are only Republicans allowed to launch irresponsible and expensive initiatives? Somewhere out there, there must be a rich liberal wacko equivalent of Darryl Issa, who's willing to lose his Congressional seat, pour his own money to start a recall, cost the taxpayers 60 or 70 mil, run for office, do poorly & withdraw & burst into tears in public..

Oh well. Can't wait for the cartoons. Bad times, good art.
 
Nice post...I'm glad you said it.

What I am most interested to see if what economic solutions the new Gov. will come up with. He has Warren Buffet on his side who will be helping him with the planning; and Buffet is a hell of a lot more socially/economically conscience the Arnold ever will be.

I'll try to stay possitive, despite the negatives. I do hope it works out...California is a major economy that effects our entire nation.
 
Thanks, Paul. I hope we're wrong...I need my job.
 
Let me repeat. th car tax was PROPOSED during the Wilson administration, but never implemented for for fear of an election backlash. Apparently the came to pass. Grey Davis intstituted the car tax ILLEGALLY by an executive order.

and all this nonsense about educating people, cying about how business is evil and other sorts of wishfull thinking will not get the job job done in Calif. The govenment is not the one to provide jobs because of inefficiency and waste.

And I do know what I'm talking about. I have an MBA, an electrical engineering degree and have run several companies. WE cannot continue the way we have been in calif.

Liberals try to make a boogyman out of business and really, most businesses make about 3% profit annually. They sit down with their spreadsheets, make rational decisions and how in increase stakeholder wealth. Stakes holders are stock owners, managers, employees, and customers. yes customers because the aim of business is to add value for the customer or perish. also, 3 out of 5 people now have their 401k's in the stock market, so their retirements depend on business doing well.

I laugh when people start to complain about insurance companies because most people don't know that they provide most of the money for major infrastructure projects, like ROADS, FREEWAYS, HOSPITALS. They loan the money to state governements who in turn build these projects. In calif we now have to pay huge interest rates because of our junk bond credit rating. These increase costs make the 70 million used for the recall look like chump change. is that the insurance companie's fault?..no..it's the governments'.
 
Sorry, Ender, but I looked it up--because I got on-line and paid mine today.

The original VLF tax dates to 1935. It was revisited in 1958 and confirmed; after Prop 13 began to hit during the 1980s, the VLF was apparently taken to voters and approved in 1988. With the economic boom of the late 90s (don't wanna mention, but who was President?), Tom McClintock proposed rolling the VLF back...the resulting bill, AB 2797, which Pete Wilson signed, had a trigger that would raise fees in it...apparently the bill Davis signed, AB 1121, used the previous bill but added an additional .5% to it...average fees were estimated to rise $130, not at all to triple.

I suspect we are both confusing the new car tax and the VLF, but I'll get around to checking tomorrow.
 
Senator Tom McClintock
Date: February 3, 2003
Publication Type: Press Release

This measure was approved by the California Senate by a vote of 23 - 16.

With this action, you will ignite the biggest tax revolt that California has seen since Proposition 13.

So be it.

But before you do, I want to address the sophistries that form the foundation of this measure, so at least the record is clear.

The first we just heard is the notion that the legislature intended that the tax go up in bad economic times, and this bill therefore doesn't change existing law. Well, if existing law really did that, you wouldn't need this bill, would you?

The truth is that if this provision had been part of the original law, the car tax reductions could never have taken place even in the good times.

The provision they cite has been clearly understood and practiced by the state controller's office for the five years since that legislation was adopted.

Under that provision, there are only two circumstances that would trigger an increase. The first is gross incompetence by the Controller in failing to maintain sufficient funds to cover the anticipated obligations of the state. The other is if the state were closed out of the capital market. In the entire history of California, neither of these events has ever occurred.

This measure fundamentally changes existing law.

It redefines the general fund - in an unprecedented manner -- to remove from the calculation of fund balance any outstanding loans.

Even in good times, short-term loans are routinely made to the general fund - from both internal and external sources -- to even out the state's cash flow. That's what keeps the money in the general fund all year long to pay the state's obligations while revenues fluctuate month-to-month.

By deducting any outstanding loans from the general fund's condition, you have just guaranteed that the car tax will be tripled - even in good times -- because this is the condition of the general fund throughout much of the year - even in the good times.

So let there be no confusion: the effect of this measure is to automatically and permanently triple the car tax.

The second sophistry is that local governments will suffer without this bill. The truth is that in the five years since the car tax was reduced, local governments have not lost a penny of support. Indeed, the ONLY way local government support can be cut is by a vote of this legislature. And the budget committees of both houses have unanimously rejected any proposal to raid local government funds.

The third sophistry is that this measure only requires a majority vote.





The Constitution is not ambiguous on this point: "any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues... whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the legislature."





So you are deliberately enacting an illegal tax by majority vote in direct and flagrant violation of the state constitution. So much for the rule of law.

The state's problems are not a shortage of revenue. AFTER the car tax was reduced and AFTER the dot-com collapse, and AFTER the state's revenues plunged, we're still taking in 28 percent more revenue than four years ago while the population and inflation combined have grown only 21 percent.

And AFTER the car tax was reduced, it is still the highest among the five largest states, and indeed is twice as high as the next runner-up.

You want to start a tax revolt? You're on. In the last three days, three thousand volunteers have logged on to my website and pledged 200,000 signatures toward a ballot measure - and that's just the result of a few radio interviews. If this response continues, I believe we'll have enough signatures to abolish the entire tax outright - which is what we should have done five years ago. And that's just the beginning of the tax revolt you are starting today.

So go ahead. Make my day.
 
Originally posted by PAUL
He has Warren Buffet on his side who will be helping him with the planning; and Buffet is a hell of a lot more socially/economically conscience the Arnold ever will be.

Too bad Arnie didn't hire Jimmy Buffett instead. He may not be able to help your economy, but you guys would have a rockin' good time in the process. ;)
 
Back
Top