George Will Calls Recall: "Riot of Millionaires"

[subgenius]

Rather good analysis:

Schwarzenegger conservatives wreak havoc

The right embraces governor-elect who frequently rejects its positions, while making it more difficult to stop tax increases to balance California's budget

California's recall -- a riot of millionaires masquerading as a "revolt of the people" -- began with a rich conservative Republican congressman, who could think of no other way he might become governor, financing the gathering of the necessary signatures.

Now this exercise in "direct democracy" -- precisely what America's Founders devised institutions to prevent -- has ended with voters, full of self pity and indignation, removing an obviously incompetent governor. They have removed him from the office to which they re-elected him after he had made his incompetence obvious by making most of the decisions that brought the voters to a boil.

The odor of what some so-called conservatives were indispensable to producing will eventually arouse them from their swoons over Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger. Then they can inventory the damage they have done by seizing an office that just 11 months ago they proved incapable of winning in a proper election under ideal conditions.

These Schwarzenegger conservatives -- now, there is an oxymoron for these times -- have embraced a man who is, politically, Hollywood's culture leavened by a few paragraphs of Milton Friedman. They have given spurious plausibility to a meretricious accusation that Democrats are using to poison American politics, the charge that Florida 2000 was part of a pattern of Republican power grabs outside the regular election process.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0310/13/a09-295433.htm

The rest is equally piquant, as George might say.

[Regnad Kcin]

George Will
They have given spurious plausibility to a meretricious accusation that Democrats are using to poison American politics, the charge that Florida 2000 was part of a pattern of Republican power grabs outside the regular election process.Meretricious accusation? How 'bout honest assessment?

[specious_reasons]

George Will has style, no doubt about it.

"leavened", "meretricious" - used correctly in a sentence. I'll bet Mr Will has never used "enormity" incorrectly.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Meretricious accusation? How 'bout honest assessment?
Read between the words, that's George's way of giving a dog a bone, which is more than his colleagues will ever do.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by subgenius

Read between the words, that's George's way of giving a dog a bone, which is more than his colleagues will ever do.

No, he's not throwing the Dems a bone...
"Meretricious" as he uses it means " superficially significant" or "falsely attractive".

In other words, the Democratic claim that Republicans are grabbing for power are specious, but the recall election lends it superficial credibility.

[Malachi151]

He's a pompus tard windbag.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


No, he's not throwing the Dems a bone...
"Meretricious" as he uses it means " superficially significant" or "falsely attractive".

In other words, the Democratic claim that Republicans are grabbing for power are specious, but the recall election lends it superficial credibility.
That's a heck of a lot, coming from him. And in politics, perception is a lot.
Even if he's saying superficial credibility, he's acknowledging that it may reinforce some people's heretofore dismissed perceptions.
But the main points in the article are more interesting. He's basically saying it was a raw naked power grab that will of course have unintended consequences.
"Watch what you ask for, you might get it."

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Malachi151
He's a pompus tard windbag.
But this particular article was good, no?
A pompous tard windbag Republican conservative that finds some fault with the lynch mob.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by subgenius

But this particular article was good, no?
A pompous tard windbag Republican conservative that finds some fault with the lynch mob.

He was just complaining because Arnold is not "conservative" enough (or at all really) :p

Basically his only complaint was because he thinks the end result will be bad for Republicans. Had the person elected been Jeb Bush he would have been prasing the exact same action.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Malachi151


He was just complaining because Arnold is not "conservative" enough (or at all really) :p

Basically his only complaint was because he thinks the end result will be bad for Republicans. Had the person elected been Jeb Bush he would have been prasing the exact same action.
I respectfully disagree. I think he made some points about the un-democratic nature of the process.
Very surprising in light of the usually un-self-critical nature of his fellow travelers.
And he knows a lot more about baseball than I, though I never wanted to know that much.
I'm off on my 50cc scooter to a pub 15 miles away to watch one of my least favorite sports, and maybe encounter an old jilted girlfriend or two.
Not to hijack my own thread but, ever in a room with more than one ex-lover? Things get very interesting.

[corplinx]

If you are looking for a big fight, then I think you aren't going to find one. George Will is right, sorta. As a federal republic we do not support direct democracy at the national level. However, this was a state election. Even so, I still think the recall was bad form at least.

California voters should have been stuck with Davis for entire term to teach them a good lesson about apathy.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Meretricious accusation? How 'bout honest assessment?

Because it wouldn't be honest? How "machine count for Bush, second machine count for Bush, 3 county selective recount disrupted" became a republican power grab I will never understand.

How much cognitive dissonance do you swallow every morning with your vitamins to make it through your day?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by subgenius

I respectfully disagree. I think he made some points about the un-democratic nature of the process.
Very surprising in light of the usually un-self-critical nature of his fellow travelers.
And he knows a lot more about baseball than I, though I never wanted to know that much.
I'm off on my 50cc scooter to a pub 15 miles away to watch one of my least favorite sports, and maybe encounter an old jilted girlfriend or two.
Not to hijack my own thread but, ever in a room with more than one ex-lover? Things get very interesting.

Well, I disagree. He just used the election of a Republican as an excuse to rant even more about Democrats and and then say that the state is in such bad shape that its impossibel to fix so when 2004 comes around he wishes a Democrat were still in power there.

If the state were in a fixable position and a Republican that he liked got into office I bet he would have been singing the prasises of the action.

[Zep]

The mechanisms for recall obviously existed, so I don't feel anyone can complain that someone decided to use them. It doesn't look to be an illegal situation, not a coup d'etat or anything. And, barring any extraordinary revelations to the contrary, it looks to be a valid election as well.

That the electorate didn't agree with Will would mean that (a) his point of view is not as popular as he thinks/likes, and/or (b) the average California voter is a brain-dead Republican automaton. So what? That's the way the cookie crumbles, isn't it?

Given the limitations he has to work with, I would be prepared to see what the new Governor actually does and his results, before launching any criticism. It just may prove a bigger can of worms than "Movie Arnie" can cope with. But I could be wrong - we'll see...

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by corplinx
Because it wouldn't be honest? How "machine count for Bush, second machine count for Bush, 3 county selective recount disrupted" became a republican power grab I will never understand.

How much cognitive dissonance do you swallow every morning with your vitamins to make it through your day? In my opinion, you are in error. But, gosh, thanks for the personal attack!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, I disagree. He just used the election of a Republican as an excuse to rant even more about Democrats and and then say that the state is in such bad shape that its impossibel to fix so when 2004 comes around he wishes a Democrat were still in power there.

If the state were in a fixable position and a Republican that he liked got into office I bet he would have been singing the prasises of the action.
That's rather speculative, but what we do know is that the main point of the article was not the bashing of dems.
Do you agree or disagree with the main points of his column, that it was un-democratic, financed by a rich conservative Republican, and that they won't get what they wanted to get?
That is to say that it was:
"a riot of millionaires masquerading as a "revolt of the people"

Maybe boil it down to that one initial main point he made.
Agree or disagree?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius [/B]
Do you agree or disagree with the main points of his column:

1. that it was un-democratic

It was very democratic. California is supposed to be a republic but I guess its in name only.


2. financed by a rich conservative Republican

Warren Buffett isn't a republican. He helped the Ahhhhnold campaign. Some republican helped finance the _petition_. Arnold got much financial assistance for his actual campaign from people on both sides.

3. "a riot of millionaires masquerading as a "revolt of the people"

Two republicans garnered a majority of the vote. Cruz cruised in third. I doubt all of those voters were millionaires.



I think George Will is playing devil's advocate here or maybe just provocateur. His arguements have fallacies but as is normal with Will they are still thought provoking.

And before anyone replies, remember, I thought the recall was a bad idea.

[subgenius]

Sir, the recall wasn't financed by Buffet. He's referring to the campaign to put it on the ballot.

[Roadtoad]

I don't know that it was "riot of millionaires." You still had to hold an election, one which wound up with a 70% participation rate. (So much for Dianne Feinstein and her asinine assertion that Davis would have lost his job with only 15% of registered voters. My suspicion is that little bon mot of hers helped cost her buddy his job.)

Will IS correct, however, when he discussed the mandated minimums this state has passed via the initiative process. Consider that this began with Proposition 13, which passed because people were losing their houses, and assessments, which were rising due to inflation, were not changed. Governments were slow to react, and you literally saw little old ladies being tossed out of their homes on the evening news.

Howard Jarvis, who represented large property owners who were getting soaked by local authorities, and Paul Gann, one of the best public servants this state ever had, (God, I miss him!), took action through the initiative process.

Ultimately, though, Gann saw the abuses, and tried to bring a halt to it. Jarvis, who profited from it, saw no point in doing so. What we now have is a mandated minimum for public school funding, which means you have school districts with Taj Mahal headquarters, but schools with rest rooms that are falling apart, roofs that leak, and too few textbooks for the kids. You have mandated minimums for state prisons, and an ultra-powerful guard lobby, but an increasing recidivism rate, and a self-perpetuating leviathan roaming loose in our political arena.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. My only hope is that Schwarzeneggar is smart enough to work towards eliminating these mandated minimums. Then, we might have something to work with. Otherwise, it's the same old same old.