RECALL FEVER

[davidinalameda]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/26/MN78969.DTL

The rule-busting California gubernatorial recall election took a turn for the bizarre Friday as author-columnist Arianna Huffington appeared ready to kick off an independent run to replace Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, and her ex-husband, former Rep. Michael Huffington, prepared to run as a Republican.

"I oppose the recall. . . . I feel it's a real power grab and a very bad precedent," Arianna Huffington said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles. "But at the same time, I think the decision of the Democrats (to stay on the sidelines) is very irresponsible. It could mean handing the state to the Republicans, which at this time is particularly dangerous."

But her ex-husband, the wealthy former GOP Congressman who spent $28 million on an unsuccessful Senate race in 1994, said he had taken out nomination papers from the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder. His spokesman Bruce Nestande said Huffington paid the $3,500 filing fee and will decide by the Aug. 9 deadline.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. The more the merrier

Davis campaign need only focus on the fact that a person with as little as 10% of the popular vote could end up governor if the recall goes through.

[CarlBallard]

2. I got it!

Or my crazy idea for you Californians this week:

After 2 or more Republicans put their names on a ballott, Fienstein throws her hat in the ring. Fiensten wins by splitting the Repubs. As governor, Fienstein gets to appoint the replacement for the now vacant Senate seat. She chooses Davis saying "Everybody who was elected to a statewide seat is in a statewide seat despite the Republican's attempts to circumvent democracy."

[tsipple]

3. Brilliant! I Like It!

Boxer could do it, too. Only trouble is that Gray Davis would have to stand election for Senate rather quickly, but he could serve until then, step down, let another Senate candidate run (such as Feinstein again), then Gray could serve in a Democratic cabinet in Washington (as Energy Secretary).

Got all that? :-)

[NewJerseyDem]

4. Boxer isn't popular enough

Feinstein is much more popular than Boxer so Boxer would have a harder time winning. It would be politically disastrous to do anything except try to make Davis ambassador to Cambodia or something.

[davidinalameda]

5. Hmm Feinstein or a Republican

hard to tell the difference sometimes

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. Feinstein is liberal on domestic issues...

There is a big difference. I would support her over any of these damn Repugs!!!

[NewJerseyDem]

7. There is a difference

Feinstein just isn't very partisan and she tries to things done by working with republicans. I happened to like that but some people prefer partisanship which results in absolutely nothing happening. Also, she can be quite liberal. For instance, she voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. I don't see why everyone here hates her.

[LWolf]

9. I don't hate her. I just don't trust her.

I've been voting for her for years. I think, generally, people are fine with bipartisan cooperation until it strikes their "hot-button" issue, and then it's no longer ok. I'll include myself in that. I am having a very, very difficult time swallowing her support for school voucher experiments in DC. As a California teacher, that would leave me with this huge thorn of distrust should she become the governor of CA. It is the same issue with Davis; he has supported and continued Pete Wilson's attack on public ed here in CA. Even though I will vote "no" to recall, I don't forgive him for that and I don't want to see him in any capacity in Washington.

If a dem ends up on that ballot, regardless of who it is, I will vote for him/her after I vote "no" to the recall. I guess this is my way of compromise; I'll cast a vote for someone I don't like to support the larger goal.

[goobergunch]

8. Although that would be amusing...

the LAST thing we need is yet another competitive Senate seat to retain.

[George_Bonanza]

10. 3% can overturn an election

I think it's pretty ridiculous that a state that's populous as the whole of Canada just needs 3% of its population in order to start a coup of a legitimately elected government. Nine hundred thousand out of 30 million is around 3%. That's just not acceptable, is it? I wouldn't mind if it was like 51%. And will Californians really be in a better situation if a Republican got through? What about all the enraged Democrats in legislation? They're not just gonna roll over. It's Davis' mess, let him clean it up.