More on the California Recall
I received my California special election voter information guide today. It is very interesting to note the wording of the "pro" and "con" arguments for the recall of Governor Gray Davis.
The "pro" reads much like the Declaration of Independence, in that it lists specific, legitimate grievances against Davis.
Davis's response, by contrast, side-steps the indictments by speaking of things that don't matter, such as the cost of the recall to Californians, which is a negligible dip in the bucket compared to the budget. The only acknowledgement he gives at all to the real issues is to say that the recall is "trying to blame one person for all of California's problems." He makes no mention of the 9 BILLION DOLLARS that the energy companies whisked away from California during the so-called energy crisis under Davis's apparently unseeing eye (and under accusations that have yet been laid to rest of him being a participant in the raping of California), or of the oddly-similar 9-BILLION-DOLLAR deficit that California is now experiencing after having been under Davis's questionable guidance. Davis started his governorship with something like a 9 billion dollar SURPLUS. Not only is that money gone, but we are in the hole to the tune of 9 billion more, making a total of 18 BILLION dollars that have vanished from California under Davis's eye.
Yet, instead of responding to these facts and explaining himself, Davis uses inflammatory, emotion-laden words to try to manipulate people into a knee-jerk reaction against the recall.
Don't let him do it. An honest person would refute the charges point-by-point, showing the good things he's done. The fact that Gray Davis isn't able to marshall even one solid argument in his favor, isn't able to point to even one factual, good thing he's done for the state, is truly damning.
Instead, he tries to make you afraid, saying that he is the best choice, not because he is a great governor, but because (ooh! scary!) we don't know who will be our next governor, and it might be someone we don't like. Therefore, in his mind, it would be better to keep him. ("Better the devil you know than the devil you don't"?) Which raises another question: What exactly does Davis mean when he says "voters won't know who the replacement would be when they vote on the recall"? Since when have we EVER known who would be elected? Is Davis trying to tell us that our elections ared all rigged otherwise, but that somehow this one won't be? All the more reasons to vote then, say I, and definitely vote against him if he is involved in any kind of election-rigging scheme.
He also says that the next governor could potentially be elected by 15% of the vote. He doesn't define what he means by "the vote." Does he mean 15% of all potential voters, or only 15% of those actually voting? I would guess the former, since he wasn't specific; it makes his argument sound more drastic. But is it all that drastic, even so? Considering that in the last presidential election, only 17% of those eligible to vote voted for Bush (and another 17% for Gore), what Davis says isn't news; it's normal.
So go read your voter information guide. Think about it. Then be sure to vote. And don't vote out of fear. Vote out of the strength of being informed.