I heard this story from the local NPR radio station in San Diego, CA, KPBS FM ... Friday morning broadcast.

__________________
1992 500E (Daily Driver)
2004 Porsche RUF 955 Dakara 550

Is there any provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to take over an insane State where the majority lost touch with reality??
Oh, wait, what am I saying...

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Correction on my earlier post. The Washington Post says its $3500 and 65 signatures (not 76 as I mentioned above).

So far I have seen nothing about restrictions on length of residence required to run. Probably part of some other election law. Otherwise rich people are going to fly in, get a California driver's license, and get on the ballot for kicks.

Ken300D

__________________
--------------------------
1982 300D at 351K miles
1984 300SD at 217K miles
1987 300D at 370K miles

I'm not rich, but I'm thinking about doing it. Great story for the grandkids, plus our company brochures can list me as "former California gubernatorial candidate..."

Hes got my vote.
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

I just read a Chron Watch article http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3640 that suggested that the Davis recall could be the start of the overall collapse of liberalism.
It further stated that Davis won his elections by attacking hi oponents. That is true for all libs that I know of. An attack is made with the follow up that " I can do it better, elect me." Well Governor Davis has not done well at all. He has given the state a debt that is to be expected from a politician that believes in big government. How can anyone prefer that type of govternment?

I'm not a liberal, and I don't like Davis. In his defense, though, ALL politicians run negative these days, it's apparently the only way to win. Neither Davis nor the Democrats have a monopoly on mud-slinging (though their shredding Riordan in the Republican primary last year was a cynical move that Karl Rove or Lee Atwater would be proud of).

California's problems have been growing for years. The electricity debacle from two summers ago was the result of a poorly thought-out half-assed deregulation plan enacted under Pete Wilson. Davis could have played it better, but he didn't invent it. The state's fiscal problems are more the fault of the legislature than the governor - they thought the capital-gains driven bubble tax revenues would last forever, so like ALL politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, they started passing it out like candy in the form of increased expenditures. The tax revenue base reverted to its pre-bubble level, but the legislature was stuck with longer term obligations. Davis didn't stop it, and should have, but you could say the same thing about the Republican minority in the legislature - California's supermajority budget approval means, (as they're proving right now) that they can keep a budget from being enacted if they want. Why didn't they do it when they could have saved the state from its current fiasco?

I suppose the repub's were following the old addage "To Choose your battles". As you can see in our federal legislature right now, yes you can keep votes from happening, but at what cost? The public will not tolerate stonewalling for long. Debate and compromise is how our government works. Not stall and philabuster.
I guess I could say that the republicans who compromised did the right thing to keep government moving. But it looks like we have come to the place where they are taking a stand.
By the way, I heard an interview last week that said that Davis really ran the state while Wilson was in power. They said Wilson was off promoting his idea to put California satelites into space. and other types of grandiose ideas, while Davis took care of the day to day government. Is this true?

Arnold announced today that he will not run.
Rush said last week that he wouldn't, that it was always a movie publicity stunt.

Interesting question. We have a distinct separation of state and federal power that was a hard fought issue 225 years ago. The right of a state to secede from the govt. was tested in the civil war. I suppose the issue hasn't come up because the states are usually busy fighting for a resolution of their problem. But what would happen if California would continue to spend itself into an even deeper hole of brankruptcy? Good question.

I guess my estimate of 200 people on the ballot may be a little low. AP is reporting today that 250 people so far have filed preliminary paperwork to get on the ballot.

Ken300D

__________________
--------------------------
1982 300D at 351K miles
1984 300SD at 217K miles
1987 300D at 370K miles

The Fed first addressed the issue of federal vs state (or loca) jurisdiction during a couple of tax revolts in the late 18th century. Both were suppressed by federal intervention. The civil war settled a point of law concerning secession, never mind that several states specifically reserved teh right to withdraw from the union when they signed-on. But that's settled law based on the lives lost in support of the union, and total capitulation by the losing side.

Starting with Eisenhower's federalizing troops in Little Rock up through the present forced integration of state-funded schools, the civil rights era has allowed federal intervention in state issues that would have been inconceivable even by Lincoln's government. I don't think its too wild a stretch to imagine a time when the federal gov thought a particular state's government was too far-out and might assume control of the state.

The balance of power between state and federal, conceived of by the founding fathers as a protection of the people from federal power, has irrevocably changed in the favor of federal government. As an example, if anthing goes wrong anywhere in our lives, we don't blame our local governor, we call upon Washington and blame the President.

I'm curious what Libertarians (I believe there are a couple on this forum) think of federalism as compared to the Republicans and Democrats. I don't see a lot of difference between the parties.

Botnst

I see more similarities between Lebertarians and Republicans than I can ever see between dems and repubs.
To get back on the subject of Grey Davis and to show a point, last week during an NPR interview with a Davis supporter, mention was made how Davis had helped enact a new employee leave bill. I think a Libertarian would certainly not want that type of government intervention. I know that Republicans would say to let business make those decisions on their own. Only a Democrat, during a time when leadership and fiscal moderation should have been at the top of the agenda, considering the CA deficit, would be considering this type of bill.