I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Dean's Police State of Vermont
In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint judges willing to subvert the bill of rights. Now the fallout from Dean's appointments are before the US 2nd Circuit at Foley Square, NYC in two outrageous cases. Docket #s 03-7036, 02-6150, 02-6199, 02-6201 One case is being prosecuted by Washington, DC first amendment attorney Robert Corn-Revere against two of Dean's judges for their banishment of a Vermont "citizen-reporter" for life from all state courthouses because he criticized one of Dean's judicial appointees. The other case features Dean's judges violating Double Jeopardy, First Amendment, State law and the State constitution. See Docket No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000), aff’g, Docket No. 167-1-99 WmCr (Windham D. Ct. Aug. 30, 1999) Both cases have been briefed before the Manhattan Court awaiting oral argument. Also filing a brief in federal court against Dean's appointees is the Thomas Jefferson Center For The Protection of Freedom of Expression.
Below are links regarding Dean's voicing his problem with the Bill of Rights. He constantly complains about "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill of Rights) as he did in the June 22 meet the press interview.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
gove...overnment.shtml
http://www.txtriangle.com/archiv.../
coverstory.htm
A link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
http://www.freedomforum.org/
temp...ocumentID=13300
A commentary on Dean's subversion of the public defender system.
http://www.talkleft.com/
archives...681.html#003681
Dean's statement on "re-evaluation" of our "civil liberties".
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/N...tory/
33681.html
Criminal sentences doubled during Dean's tenure as a result of his appointments. I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean's Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans' subversion of the public defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?
In the Meet the Press interview with Dean while discussing the death penalty he stated,
"So I just—life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed when I was lieutenant governor— the problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn’t come back and go through the second trial. "
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159...12159.asp?
cp1=1
Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has "nothing to do with justice". In the above quote, is he saying that if someone was unconstitutionally convicted
Also, any other Democrat running for governor should say:
1. Vote "No" on the recall
2. My first act as governor will be to resign, leaving Bustamante to take my place
It's about the principle, people. Do the right thing.
Oh, I forgot. GO ARNOLD!
CRUZ! CRUZ! CRUZ!
-
Do you honestly think, that even if Davis remains or the Lt Gov takes his place, that the thugs will stop there?
If a Democrat wins again this time around, expect another recall soon.
>>Oh, I forgot. GO ARNOLD!
scott huminski
how nice of you to stay on topic, Scott
I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean's Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans' subversion of the public defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?
Those are some great questions. Problem is, they are hypothetical questions and arise from no evidence or specific instance. You haven't sited any cases where this may have happened.
Of course, we all know of a certain Texas governor who made fun of prisoners facing capital punishment and routinely rubber stamped executions with only a cursory glance at any problems with their trials or cases.
Nice try.
And anyone who thinks an ex-bodybuilder meathead actor can run the world's 5th largest economy is a moroff. You're not even smart enough to be a moron.
Bustamante is a different kettle of fish.
Two reasons: He's Latin, so it will be called racist; and two, a second recall effort would be so obvious a bunch of sour grapes that it wouldn't fly.
>>If a Democrat wins again this time around, expect another recall soon.>>
Seraphiel: As ugly as that sounds, another recall would be game, set, match for the rest of the country . . . wingnuts would be seen for exactly what they represent; tyranny.
Political Wire notes that Bustamante screws up Davis' strategy of calling this recall a right wing conspiracy.
I think it's early to line up behind Cruz, however. Garamandi and possibly Leon Panetta will get in this thing in the next 24 hours.
Hell, I bet Feinstein gets in.
Wasn't Cruz a big supporter of that "three strikes" law and didn't he once make an argument for executing SEVENTH GRADERS? This isn't going to be a walk for Cruz.
Feed the goal, not the troll!
Personally, I see Bustamente as a maverick who is busting party discipline when we have a chance to make a very solid statement about Republican disrespect for democracy and elections. I'm highly displeased with his decision. If I still lived in CA, I would vote no and Arianna.
Theoretically, independence of thought and mind is a great virtue, but this ain't theory, it's war. Right now, party loyalty is one of the very first things I evaluate when looking at a politician, which means that Cruz just took a tumble in my estimation.
Trickster,
I'm displeased with his decision as well, actually, but nonetheless.
Well, in any case it looks like Caesar Davis has just been stabbed by Brutus, with the backing of the whole Democratic "Senate."
Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, but I must say:
By the entrance of serious Party players (in fact even the discussions by major names like Feinstein) the Democrats have opened the door for Californians to think that, instead of this being a ridiculous attempt to thwart democracy by the Rethugs, that it's more along the lines of a "do-over" with a more acceptable slate of candidates.
Riordan vs. Bustamante sounds like a sane election, for instance.
But the color of sanity isn't what the Demos need to allow the Rethugs to operate under.
Oh well. Damned if you do (put up a reasonable Dem candidate), double damned if you don't and lose the statehouse.
Well, trickster, you don't live in CA so your theories are meaningless. I do, and I am glad as most dems are here that Cruz stepped up to the plate. He is the only hope of thwarting this latest GOP attempt to subvert democracy.
Will they start assisnating dems if the recall fails? I would not put it past them. GWB has no problem killing people to hold onto power.
If a Democrat wins again this time around, expect another recall soon.
I think it would be very hard for them to time it not to correspond with either the Primary or the General Election next year, both of which they'd probably like to avoid doing.
Atrios, thanks for posting this, although I disagree that Bustamante's "busting Party discipline" is necessarily a bad thing. Since the start I have said the Dems need a credible alternative/insurance policy on part two of the ballot, and a campaign: vote no on part one, but don't let the Repubs complete the takeover. Let's see how Bustamante frames his campaign when he formally announces in a couple of hours.
Look, if Garamandi puts in now he's a fool and an idiot, and I can't imagine Panetta would follow them, given his previous reluctance. The biggest problem for Bustamante is that Arianna will syphon votes just to his left and Schwarzenneger just to his right. He is going to have to run a very smart campaign and hope that conservatives turned off by Ahnuld's (apparently) moderate social views will go to Simon, Issa, and McClintock.
Oh well. Damned if you do (put up a reasonable Dem candidate), double damned if you don't and lose the statehouse.
Exactly.
Jim J sez: "a second recall effort would be so obvious a bunch of sour grapes that it wouldn't fly."
I never thought the Texas governor would call for a second special session after the first one failed to pass the redistricting thing either...
I, for one, always thought California would be better off with Bustamante than Davis. I think a lot of Democrats feel the same.
As for busting party discipline, his entrance into the race just might stop Arnold from becoming the next governor with 30% of the vote (the other 70% spread out over the other 100 candidates.)
And that's a good thing.
Ahhnuld is Cruzin' for a bruisin'
Bustamante will Cruz to victory
California will soon be safely under Cruz control
(Sorry, had to get those out of my system.)
Seriously, though why be mad at Bustamante for breaking ranks? If the "Yes" vote prevails, who's going to stand in the way of the Terminator & the Human Car Alarm? Arianna? She's not a big enough celebrity to overcome her lack of institutional support.
Lefty, I had the impression this was a forum for discussing ideas, not a count of registered California voters. Plus I tend to think that the California Democrats who have received $1,200 of my money in the last year might disagree with you about whether my ideas should be totally discounted.
Presuming I am allowed to speak, I would like to say that I'm not crazy about Gray Davis either, but if we Democrats wanted to select another candidate then the time to do so was during the Democratic primary season in 2002, and not less than a year after the election when we are dancing as Darrell Issa's puppets.
I don't see the slightest thing Gray Davis has done to merit recall. The major mishap of his term was the energy crisis, which was in no way, shape or form his fault. In fact, if you will recall, major extended blackouts were predicted that summer (1999? 2000? I don't recall the year) and did not materialize thanks to time-pressured deals that Davis negotiated in the face of price-fixing by Enron, Duke Energy, and the like.
The current budget deficits are no more Gray Davis' fault than of any other California politician. If you want to put the blame on the right person, try Howard Jarvis.
The guy hasn't been a great governor, but he has done a quietly competent job. He shouldn't be the victim of yet another Republican attack on democracy.
For some hilarity, google Scott Huminski's name and look at his police record/court history in Vermont. Well, funny/sad.
Mr. Bustamante is no different than the rest of the Repugnant-cans; he's an opportunist who is running his own version of the power grab. He would have no chance in a general election. He's also bee lying through his teeth since the beginning. Party loyalty and the future of the state mean nothing to this man. This is just his -- and the other losers -- opportunity to gain the Governorship without having to deal with the democratic process. I'll vote no on the recall and for any other Dem but the two-faced Mr. Bustamante.
Mr. Bustamante is no different than the rest of the Repugnant-cans; he's an opportunist who is running his own version of the power grab. He would have no chance in a general election. He's also bee lying through his teeth since the beginning. Party loyalty and the future of the state mean nothing to this man. This is just his -- and the other losers -- opportunity to gain the Governorship without having to deal with the democratic process. I'll vote no on the recall and for any other Dem but the two-faced Mr. Bustamante.
Sorry for the double-post.
Scott Huminski, "amateur reporter".
I thought he was just another troll, but now I see he has an ax to grind. How justified he is in that is something I couldn't tell you yet.
But really the thread-hijacking has gotten out of control lately...
.
"Moroff," heh.
Meanwhile, California's Supreme Court justices huddled behind closed doors for hours Wednesday to decide whether to consider several challenges to the recall election, including a petition to bar any replacement candidates from the ballot.
The justices were expected to announce Thursday whether they would hear the petitions, a spokeswoman said.
As Feinstein has said the recall race was becoming "more and more like a carnival every day"
And Arinie says something about having lots of money. Well Michael Jackson has lots of money too. Does Mr. Jackson live California so maybe someone should ask if he wants to be govenor as well.
California's Supreme Court Justices should think long and hard about this one.
Are we can all do like Weintraub suggest...Now we have engagement, and we have choices. Relax. Enjoy it.
You know like those reality TV shows on or reading those funny, entertaining books Ann Coulter writes.
Trickster,
Leave it to the Naderites to make a statement.
The Dems need to retain the governorship. That should be the sole focus, not making a statement.
Someone needs to knock heads and settle on a single candidate.
The current budget deficits are no more Gray Davis' fault than of any other California politician. If you want to put the blame on the right person, try Howard Jarvis.
Bullseye!
Actually, that whole post was a very cogent appraisal of this entire situation...
Actually, I think making a statement is pretty important. California is a basket case and the governship is no prize. If Arnold takes it, he will be exposed in short order, and I see NO chance that Bush will prevail in '04 regardless of who the Governor is.
What I think is important is to keep the focus of the election on the Republicans who engineered it. Republicans have a pattern of anti-democratic and disenfranchising practices and they should be called on it. This whole vote is their puppy. Let's not forget it.
And by the way, the recall statute is severely flawed and needs to be fixed before this happens again.
Damned if this isn't ANOTHER job for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). With IRV, you could give your first choice vote to Huffington (I) or Camejo (G), and still cast a second- or third-place vote for Cruz (D who is in favor of the Death Penalty and 3 Strikes and who was in favor of energy deregulation)... all without worrying about inadvertantly helping Arnold (R).
The Green Party is busting their ass to help bring IRV to CA, and nationwide (they already use it in Australia, Ireland, and London elects their mayor with IRV). Please, PLEASE, PLEASE won't you Dems help us, so we don't gotta have the Nader/Gore argument again and again?!
Go to WWW.FAIRVOTE.ORG
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles, CA
The need is to assure there will be a Democratic Governor. A strong Republican Governor could be a problem in the next election, so9 we have to try to defeat the recall or elect another Democrat. If Governor Davis is recalled, LG Bustamante would be a strong Governor.
I don't see how the Democrats hoped to make their "strategy" of having no available Democratic candidates workable.
I 'get it' if it's a show of loyalty, solidarity, or even Davis throwing his weight around. But how on EARTH would having no other Democrats on the ticket help save Davis?
Everything I've read suggests that Davis is just not a popular guy, justly so or otherwise.
Which means the yes/no portion of the recall almost certainly will come out to "yes".
Which means that whoever gets the most votes wins. Which really in this day and age -- especially in California -- means it's all about name recognition.
Which means Arnold's a shoo-in.
.
The comment about Howard Dean is, of course, rubbish!
>>Meanwhile, California's Supreme Court justices huddled behind closed doors for hours Wednesday to decide whether to consider several challenges to the recall election, including a petition to bar any replacement candidates from the ballot.
>>The justices were expected to announce Thursday whether they would hear the petitions, a spokeswoman said.
Does anybody doubt that even if the Cal recall law is fatally flawed and blatantly unConstitutional, that if the Cal SC changes anything we will hear shrill GOP charges, ala Florida 2000, of Democratic judges "making law"? I think the whole thing needs to be left alone, let it play out however the chips fall, and then have a movement for the legislature to change the law as soon as possible afterwards.
I think tampering with the law, once the process has gone this far, will only serve to pour more fuel on the fire. The last thing I want to see is the USSC "Felony Five" give the recall to Issa because his "equal protection rights" were violated.
Questions:
1. If you vote for keeping Davis, can you still vote for a replacement?
2. If the answer to question #1 is no, doesn't that give the Republicans an advantage? Pro-Davis Democrats will be taking out of the voting pool, leaving it artifically titled towards Republican voters?
3. If the answer to question #2 is yes, if there anything we can still do to counter this anti-democratic gerrymandering?
The only thing that having no prominent Democrats on the recall ticket could do is ensure that the Dems lose the California governorship.
So, go Cruz! You might not be a white knight, and you're probably going to lose, but I salute you for having at least a leetle tiny bit of political savvy, unlike the majority of your party!
.
Pontificator --
1. If you vote for keeping Davis, can you still vote for a replacement?
YES.
.
Andy X: most of the CA Supreme Court justices are Republican, so they can go ahead and try.
Pontificator: a judge has ruled that voters who vote "no" on the recall can still vote their preference on the successor if Davis loses.
Yes, if you vote to recall Davis, you still get to vote for a "replacement."
Unless, of course, the California Supreme Court properly utilizes the rules of statutory construction, determines that a successor ballot is not "appropriate" because the governor has a designated successor (the lieutenant governor)who "SHALL" assume the office if vacated, and strikes the replacement ballot.
State of Vermont vs. Scott Huminiski
Defendant was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice, arising out of allegations that he had created false evidence and threatened a potential witness in a landlord-tenant dispute. Defendant entered into a plea agreement in which the State dismissed the charge on Count 1, and defendant pled no contest to an amended charge of disorderly conduct on count 2.
Gee, I can see why Scott is rather peeved. Hope he takes the hint and crawls back under his bridge.
The perfect bumper sticker:
Another car thief for Issa
More seriously, why not return one of the Mayors Brown to Sacramento? Both Willie and Jerry have been there before, and the citizens of SF or Oakland wouldn't mind one bit.
Am I missing something here? Wouldn't it be best if Davis just resigned? Then the whole fucking recall would disappear -- Davis would go quietly and the GOP gets fucked over by its own evil plan.
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions.
What a relief!
What would happen if Davis were to resign???
The recall is already certified, it will go on regardless of whether Davis resigns or not.
If he had resigned before the certification, all this could have avoided.
...have BEEN avoided. Jeesh!
Calls of ala SCOTUS 2000 would be a bit ironic.
Calls of rights violations would be joke after 2000 because that IS the damage of December 12, 2000. Geez when did "jimmying" with elections become such a sordid affair?
Florida 2000 were frightened of doing what 5 members of court in SCOTUS did -- were 5 Justices picked their choice of a criminal lying president that ignored his intelligence briefs and defrauded a nation into war.
The French think that this is hilarious.
Once the recall has been certified (and it has), it doesn't matter if Davis resigns -- the vote goes forward anyway.
What Davis should have done was resign *before* the recall got certified, then at least the Dems would have kept the governor's mansion, since the position would have devolved onto Bustamente.
It's too late now. Once more the dems SCREWED UP.
.
Puke alert. GWB in flightsuit action figure.
Last night I was flipping through the channels and I heard Ann Coulter say that 'she' was glad that Arnold was running -- he's a 'liberal republican' (her words). She went on to say she was glad he was NOT a conservative (as in a 'real conservative repub') because California is 'ungovernable' (her word). Just curious whether anyone thinks that might be the 'real conservatives' strategy -- to egg Arnold on so they won't lose any face if and (according to Coulter) when he fails. Not that it matters ...
Ok. I know saying "subverting democracy" is fun to throw around, but how is using a recall process that is built into the State Consitution and has been in it for looonngg time, subverting democracy?
Call it stupid, I think it is, but the initiative petition process is the closest thing the U.S. has to an actual direct democracy.
From Chris' post --- (BIG BARF ALERT IF YOU READ FURTHER):
"BBI proudly introduces the latest issue in its Elite Force series of authentic military 12- inch figures, President George W. Bush in naval aviator flight uniform.
....
"This incredibly detailed figure is a fitting addition to the collection of those interested in U.S. history, military memorabilia and toy action figures. Actual figure may vary slightly from item shown."
Looks like some of that package has been pared down just a little, hmmm?
Joe Mama,
No, Bustamante is not being twofaced. The Dems had to place someone on the ballot. The risk was too great. Arnold is not the worst alternative. It's some stealth candidate with no public life and lots of money who then gets good press.
Arnold isn't going to win with all the Republicans running and he's no Jesse Ventura with a solid military record and public service. In fact, as Howard Stern joked, he's running on the No taxes or jews ticket for fuherer, er governor.
Yeah, Arnold won't have an easy time.
The French think that this is hilarious.
The French also think Jerry Lewis is hilarious. What's your point? 
"On July 29, Prince Saud el-Faisal paid an extraordinary visit to the Bush White House. For an hour, he and George W. Bush discussed the 28-page section of the joint Congressional report on 9/11 that evidently implicates
agents of his country's government in the terrorist attack."
So, we're not allowed to know the contents of the 28 pages, but a Saudi
prince from the family that financed the terrorists can? Doesn't anyone
see anything wrong with this?"
Joe Conason
Does anybody doubt that even if the Cal recall law is fatally flawed and blatantly unConstitutional, that if the Cal SC changes anything we will hear shrill GOP charges, ala Florida 2000, of Democratic judges "making law"?
Um, the Cal. SC is largely Republican appointees, so that would be hard; also, at least some of the main claims are based on Bush v. Gore, so it would be even harder for them to credibly claim it was inappropriate action if the Court applied that precedent. Unless, of course, they want to admit that W. shouldn't have won...
The recall is already certified, it will go on regardless of whether Davis resigns or not.
Isn't there something rather ontologically bizarre about voting to remove someone from office who doesn't, in fact, hold that office?
More to the point, shouldn't a rational state supreme court invalidate an election premised on a recall when that person being recalled is already out of office?
I still think Davis should resign, and a legal challenge to the validity of the recall should follow.
But how on EARTH would having no other Democrats on the ticket help save Davis?
1) No viable Democratic replacement means democrats are more likely to vote "no" on the recall.
2) No Democrat gathering and spending money on a "vote me" campaign means its easier for the Democrats to gather and spend money promoting "vote No" on the recall.
Can't wait for the Arnold - Gary Coleman debate.
On a slightly more serious note: Why will Arnold be treated as a legitimate political entity while porn stars and former child actors will be ridiculed? Seems like a double standard, but I guess if you’re a hack actor and a republican you receive instant credibility as a viable candidate. Seem like a pretty low threshold for republican legitimacy.
More to the point, shouldn't a rational state supreme court invalidate an election premised on a recall when that person being recalled is already out of office?
No, a rational legislature might want to change that. Its not the courts job to make the law good policy. There is no conflict of laws to resolve, and no justification for the Court to invalidate such a recall.
We may not like the game, but we have to play to win. The ideal scenario would be for Cruz to enter as the sole prominent Democrat, and 3 of the multiple-time GOP losers with a hard-on for the governorship enter simulataneously and thus be hoist by their own retard and greediness when they split the vote. That would be karmic justice.
I think one of the first issues a new governor should deal with is how to fix California's governement, which is so severely broken right now.
No, a rational legislature might want to change that. Its not the courts job to make the law good policy. There is no conflict of laws to resolve, and no justification for the Court to invalidate such a recall.
Then you reject the premise of Marbury v. Madison, that courts have the right to determine if a law is constitutional?
Bustamente had to get on the ballot, and I don't think it's being disloyal. This recall law is fundamentally, amazingly flawed: a marginally unpopular governor could be recalled with 49.9% of the electorate voting for him, and a successor could be chosen out of the 500 candidates with 5% of the ballot. So, the guy with 5% of the vote beats the guy with 49.9%. THIS is the problem. Cruz has to step in to overcome this huge anti-incumbent bias.
I think the supreme court will step in and nix the replacement-vote circus. It's extremely justifiable from a statutory construction argument, plus the idea of approving of this circus of an election has to be giving the judges cold sweats.
I don't see what's so great about Bustamante. He's a Lieberman supporter!
Would have liked to have seen Arianna win, but her prospects have now vanished.
In fact, as Howard Stern joked, he's running on the No taxes or jews ticket for fuherer, er governor. ???
I do not understand.
Avi
We have no choice but to support Bustamante, besides I find him an attractive candidate if the recall is successful.
Arnold is toast
http://dir.salon.com/people/col/...pwed/
index.html
February 07, 2001 | Politics, as usual?
Just as Arnold Schwarzenegger sets to rambling on yet again about his plans to run for governor of California -- "If [Gov. Gray] Davis goes on the way he is then eventually there will be a vacuum in a year and I could" make a run, he tells the Los Angeles Times -- he's getting the sort of press treatment that can terminate a political career.
Yep, thanks to Premiere magazine, which has seen fit to publish rumors that have been swirling around Schwarzenegger for months, Arnold's got his own sex scandal.
In an upcoming article headlined "Arnold the Barbarian," the magazine alleges that Schwarzenegger has caused pain in his marriage. Lots of it.
One journalist claims to have seen Schwarzenegger "making out" with his "Total Recall" costar, Rachel Ticotin. A former employee says he pawed Linda Hamilton while her then-boyfriend, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" director James Cameron, looked the other away. And two witnesses say they watched horrified as the brawny actor accosted a female crew member working on "T2," "put his hands inside her blouse" and sent her crying to a nearby trailer.
But feeling up a crew member may not have been Schwarzenegger's most shocking transgression on the "T2" set. According to the magazine, the actor was fond of humiliating his dresser. "Sit, you ugly dog," he'd reportedly bark. And the man would be required to drop to his knees.
Doesn't sound like old Ah-nuld's governor material, does it? President, maybe ...
Arnold is toast pt 2
http://eightballmagazine.com/
dia...iatribes493.htm
During his promotional visit to Britain this week Arnold Schwarzenegger groped Denise Van Outen on the Big Breakfast and behaved in a similarly oversexed and over here fashion with a clearly panicked Melanie Sykes on ITV's Celebrity.
The Sun in England newspaper reports that Sykes was chatting with Arnold when, as cameras rolled, he grabbed her around the waist.
She pushed his hand away, saying: "Get your hands off me - I'm scared."
I don’t blame her. Any actor who excels at playing barbarians and robots and has trouble understanding English is not the kind of guy that I want to have to tell to get his hands off my ass.
Big Screen presenter Anna Richardson also claims that Arnold actually groped her breast during an interview for the show. She went to shake his hand, he pulled her on to his knee and said: "I want to know if your breasts are real." Arnold is a smoothie isn’t he?
Anna says: "I told him they are an F-cup."
"Before I knew what was happening he circled my nipple with his finger and gave it a squeeze." He then said of her triple-D breasts: "Yeah, they are real," Richardson recalled.
related riot fuel
Sorority Sisters Fingered in Date Rape Plot. Sorority Sisters Are Ruthless.
What Does It Take To Go To Hell?
Man Sues Governor For Not Doing Shit To Protect Them From Alien Abductions
Just be glad they let you come back.
Ann Nicole Smith Gets 450 Million For Giving Old Bastard One Year of Pussy
Apparently, A $450 million pussy will kill you within a year. For now on I want my pussy off brand.
Anna, 29, adds: "I was angry. I wanted to say 'you dirty bastard, "But you can't tell a powerful man like him to fuck off. He kept saying how fantastic I looked and staring at my [breasts]."
Marty Singer, Schwarzenegger's lawyer called all the complaints an "outrageous fabrication" by "people trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. Quite frankly, my client didn't do anything inappropriate."
Thank God for film. Look at the expression on his face. Look at her face. What you are looking at ladies and gentlemen is what Marty Singer likes to call an outrageous fabrication.
Here is a gal I can support
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/polit...654/
detail.html
orn Star Says She'll Seek Governor's Office
Candidate Wants To Swap Guns For Porn
POSTED: 3:43 p.m. PDT August 5, 2003
UPDATED: 4:19 p.m. PDT August 5, 2003
LOS ANGELES -- Promising to make lap dances tax deductible if elected, porn star Mary Carey Tuesday collected signatures outside Los Angeles City Hall in her bid for California's top political post.
"My goal is to bring happiness to the streets of California,'' the 5' 9" blonde told a small group of reporters.
Sporting a star-spangled bikini top, Tommy Hilfiger shorts and 4-inch-high platform sandals, 22-year-old Carey stopped passers-by in her bid to gather the 65 signatures needed to run for governor in the Oct. 7 recall election.
She was flanked by her manager and two supporters, one carrying a sign that read "Californians Prefer Blondes.''
Carey said her platform includes taxing breast implants to generate revenue; hiring adult film stars to help negotiate better wholesale electricity prices; and creating a "Porno for Pistols '' program, where gun owners can to swap their weapons for X-rated films.
"If more guys had orgasms, they'd be less violent,'' said Carey, who said she'd run as an Independent.
Her solution to global warming?
"Wear less clothes.''
As Saturday's filing deadline to enter the October recall election nears, an eclectic crew of potential candidates have pulled nomination papers. Few have yet to officially file and pay the $3,500 fee.
Besides more serious potential contenders such as former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, prospective candidates include Hustler magazine publisher and self-described "smut peddler'' Larry Flynt and aspiring platinum-haired billboard queen Angelyne.
Indeed, if you stop and think about this "election," the issue should be, if it's to be about anything, Gray Davis. Why does there have to be an election for a successor? The thuglicans complaint is Davis, not Bustamante, the petitions were recall Davis, not pick a new governor. There should be challenges to that part of the "election" right left and center.
And if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, so therefore, "Arnold, he's just another actor whose opinions and ideas don't matter. Ask rush, he'll tell ya, coz he already told you about Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and Barbara Streisand and Martin Sheen and Janeane Garafolo!"
If there's any constant in this mess, it's the goppers hypocrisy, it knows no bounds.
Then you reject the premise of Marbury v. Madison, that courts have the right to determine if a law is constitutional?
Um, no. If the law is in conflict with the Constitution, there is a conflict of laws. That's not the issue that some people here have been raising.
Now, if you want to raise a specific Constitutional objection to the recall provisions, that's a different story.
Then you reject the premise of Marbury v. Madison, that courts have the right to determine if a law is constitutional?
Um, no. If the law is in conflict with the Constitution, there is a conflict of laws. That's not the issue that some people here have been raising.
Now, if you want to raise a specific Constitutional objection to the recall provisions, that's a different story.
Ok. I know saying "subverting democracy" is fun to throw around, but how is using a recall process that is built into the State Consitution and has been in it for looonngg time, subverting democracy?
Call it stupid, I think it is, but the initiative petition process is the closest thing the U.S. has to an actual direct democracy.--
The first part is a red herring. Just because something is law for a long time doesn't mean it's democratic. See the 3/5 Compromise for an example.
And this process isn't "direct democracy", because a small, well-financed minority can force a change in a popularly decided decision. Should 12% be able to overturn 46%?
It is disingenous to argue actors are stupid and shouldn't speak up. Most of us are stupid to some extent or another.
But, there is something to be said for putting it on the line in an election.
" And this process isn't "direct democracy", because a small, well-financed minority can force a change in a popularly decided decision."
Except it happens everyday. Corporate backed bills frequently circumvent the will of the people.
Both sides of the aisle propose those bills.
So, while this recall stands as an obvious will of the minority, the other type is far worse because it slips by with very little notice.
cmdicely --
But Recall Yes/No is gonna come out YES. Even the dems have to realize this. No amount of marketing is going to change that.
Rich --
Davis isn't "marginally" unpopular, he's *wildly* unpopular...
http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull.as...ull.asp?
id=4194
(KXTV is in Sacramento btw...)
Dear OOPS --
This is *California* we're talking about... issues will take a back seat to image every time.
I lived there for 14 years. So believe me, I know. It's not a pretty picture.
I (gratefully) left CA right after the dot-collapse and just as Davis was paying exorbitant rates for guaranteeing that the lights would stay on (start of the summer of 2001). Both the mess that Cali is in now budget-wise, and the mess that Davis is in career-wise are 100% related to what happened to the state then.
Enron was involved yknow... they hadn't yet fallen from grace... they were gauging everyone they could, manufacturing fake shortages to drive up the prices.
Davis did the only thing he *could* do -- make sure the Precious Juice kept flowing.
.
Why should we back Bustamante, particularly since he is a part of this failed administration? I'm leaning towards Arianna Huffington, and her interview with Tompaine.com today pretty much explains why.
No, a rational legislature might want to change that. Its not the courts job to make the law good policy. There is no conflict of laws to resolve, and no justification for the Court to invalidate such a recall.
Give me a break. The law's intent is to allow voters to replace an officeholder they don't like. If that officeholder is gone, then the election is being held to remedy a problem that's already remedied. It's absolutely appropriate to ask a court whether that defies the intent of the legislature -- or defies common sense.
Now, if you want to raise a specific Constitutional objection to the recall provisions, that's a different story.
Without experience in the CA state constitution, I’m afraid I don’t have a direct reference to help out here, but consider the notion that someone who gets fewer votes than the current occupant can be elected – that means a governor could “lose” to someone who got fewer votes than he did. This is a nonsensical result. The law is deeply flawed at a common sense level. If the courts cannot reject nonsense laws then there is an even deeper problem with our system.
Here, probably not the most reliable source, but it's very clear about the Enron-CA 2001 Energy Crunch connection:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../cali-
a25.shtml
At the same time, she said, “Enron divisions set astronomical prices up to $2,500 a megawatt hour [the standard price at the time was less than $340 a megawatt hour]. By selling power to itself at inflated prices, Enron helped skyrocket prices in California’s deregulated market.”
.
Anyone registered for LATIMES?
Just saw an article, can't find it now, about Riordan being " stunned" that Arnold is running. One Riordan staffer claimed it was like being mugged.
I guess Riordan spoke with Arnold within the last couple of days, and had no idea he was planning a run.
steve_gilliard,
I beg to differ, Bustamante *is* being two-faced. He has never been able to hide his dislike for Davis, and as recently as 7/24/03, Bustamante has stated he would not break ranks to enter the race. He wanted to get in the race from the beginning, but the Dems put pressure on him to show a united front. At the first whiff of a crack in the dam, Bustamante jumped out to begin his own power grab. The Dems did *not* place him on the ballot, he broke ranks.
As for the race itself, I don't see any of these jokers doing anything but sullying their own names; Davis will win the recall because Californians are stupid, but not that stupid. The people CA will walk to the cliff to get a view of the carnage ahead, but they (we) won't step off. IMHO.
Ebie
There are all sorts of fine studies and evidence on how the California energy market was gamed by Enron et al. Note Paul Krugman for sources....
We should back Bustamante because he is the only Democrat who can win. If he is not ideal, I do not care. The idea is to win. That is what Republicans have learned. We must win, not have our favorite Democrat lose!
Anyone registered for LATIMES?
Try using "clipjoint" as password and ID.
GOV. CANDIDATE BRIAN FLEMMING WITHDRAWS FROM RACE
LOS ANGELES, August 7, 2003 -- Democrat Brian Flemming announced today that he has withdrawn from the California governor's race. His decision was prompted by Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's entrance into the field.
"My thanks to everyone who volunteered for and supported my campaign," said Flemming. "My platform, 'If elected, I will resign,' was intended to put Bustamante into the governor's office. I am pleased that Bustamante now intends to do this himself. On Oct. 7 I plan to vote against the recall, and then cast my vote for the lieutenant governor, for whom I now plan to volunteer.
"With a cast of characters out of some absurdist drama, including Angelyne and even less credible candidates such as bodybuilder and inarticulate popcorn-movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bustamante is the only sane backup plan for any Californian, Democrat or otherwise.
"As the press oddly predicts that it will give Mr. Schwarzenegger reams of 'free publicity,' I hope reporters, editors and producers remember that the fate of this great state hangs in the balance. Nobody deserves a free pass, and every candidate, whether lieutenant governor or kindergarten cop or professional wrestler, needs to be held to the highest standards."
Flemming's candidacy, announced only 12 days ago, electrified California with its unique premise and garnered coverage in the Los Angeles Times, the San Jose Mercury News and National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." Flemming now returns his attention to his critically acclaimed feature film "Nothing So Strange," which will be released in theaters later this year.
Michael Jackson is, in fact, already running. So is Bob Dole.
(But it's some other guy.)
I like Arianna as a commentator... but as Governor? Um. No. She's still pretty detatched from ordinary people...
The only problem with Davis is that he has no charisma. This is perhaps why he was unable to hold the legistlature in line, even though he proposed two quite workable budgets early this year.
Bustamante is the head of the Lieberman campaign in CA. Yech...Vote no on the recall and then for Arianna...
To EBBIE THE TROLL AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO ARE NOT CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS OR REGISTERED VOTERS: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA IS DAVIS, HE WAS ELECTED IN AN HONEST ELECTION, NOT LIKE THE US APPOINTED PRESIDENT.
WHY SHOULD ANYONE LINED UP BEHIND ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT? WHY SHOULD HE RESIGN? BECAUSE A DISHONEST FAT ASS LIKE ISSA, THE CAR THIEF WANTS TO BE GOVERNOR AS BAD AS FEY BOY WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT AND FIGHTER PILOT?
IF CALIFORNIANS VOTE FOR ANY OTHER THAN DAVIS THEY ARE PLAYING THE REPUBLICANS GAME...I ELECTED GREY DAVIS TO BE THE GOVERNOR, WHY SHOULD I CHANGE MY MIND NOW.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY HERE WASN'T HIS DOING. I LIVE HERE, I PAY TAXES HERE, I VOTE HERE, DON'T FUCKING TELL ME WHAT TO DO!
"Enron was involved yknow... they were gauging everyone they could... Davis did the only thing he *could* do -- make sure the Precious Juice kept flowing."
Believe me, I love to blame Enron for EVERYTHING under the sun. But let's also recall that Davis took hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Enron, PG&E, Reliant, and the many other happy beneficiaries of this artificial power crisis. Also, Davis (as Lt. Governor) supported and pushed the energy deregulation plan in the first place.
Sorry, no Free Pass for Davis on the deregulation fubar.
Vote for Camejo (Green Party)! He got 5% last time, without accepting a single penny of corporate cash!
And support Instant Runoff Voting, so we don't gotta worry about the spoiler issue anymore!
Visit WWW.FAIRVOTE.ORG
p.s., FWIW, I am a California resident. Vote Camejo!
Just so we're all clear -- Bustamante is a nightmare. He's leading the Lieberman campaign in California. He supports the death penalty. He supported energy deregulation. He supported 3-strikes and the insane prison-building spree that robbed millions from social programs for lock-'em-up justice.
In other words, he supported everything that got Davis kicked out of office. There is NOTHING even vaguely progressive about him.
That being said, I ain't into political purity, either. Cruz is the lesser evil.
My 3-part strategy: 1) vote no on recall; 2) support the Huffington campaign; 3) vote Bustamante if that's what it comes down to.
And if he gets elected, go into it with eyes wide open.
I don't understand all you people who keep saying "support Davis and no one else." What's the point of that? You can do both (or neither) if you choose. You can vote against the recall and most Democrats will, on principle, and still vote for a successor. I agree that the principle is important and I urge everybody to vote against the recall. But are you then going to abstain from the second half of the ballot? Is that being a responsible citizen? I don't get it. Somebody explain.
rezboscace, in my opinion you should vote no and then vote for the Democratic or progressive candidate who has the best chance to win--but you should not campaign for anyone but Davis.
The focus of the campaign should not be on choosing between Davis and Bustamente and Huffington and Garimendi and whomever else. The focus of the campaign should be on the electoral abortion the Republicans have wrought by creating this mess.
Now that multiple candidates are jumping into the ring that focus will be almost impossible to maintain.
I live in Oakland. I had to hold my nose to vote for Death Penalty Davis in the first place. I'm opposed to the recall in principle, but as I expect him to get (mostly deservedly) hammered, I'm grateful for any halfway respectable fallback candidate.
The Terminator that doesn't know a soul in Sacramento, so even if (urgh!) there are enough nimrods to elect him, he won't be able to do jack unless the (largely Democratic) Legislature allows him to. OTOH the Speaker of the Assembly will be all-powerful. And a new Willie Brown is born...
Trickster-
I agree with you. Sadly, though, events have taken us elsewhere. And speaking of multiple candidates, I just read that Garamendi is throwing his hat in the ring.
Oh Patrick Meighan I figured you were a monkey, ehr...a Green, sorry. Camejo indeed! The man who forges alliances and is in bed with the republicans...To say vote Camejo only proves one thing...Greens are too naive to know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Trickster the same one who used to post at MWO? you dont' live in CA, obviously.
Rezboscace, why do you call us "You people"? that's how the bigots address the minorities.
I suppose it would be immoral and illegal to encourage, financially or otherwise, huge crowd of candidates (all on the Republican side) who happen to have names like Muhammed Ali, Michael Jordan, Ronald Reagan, etc.) Too bad.
Icarus - no offense intended. If you're not people, I apologize. How would you prefer to be addressed?
When speaking to a group of unruly Germans years ago, Arnold was reported to say "it always took an Austrian to keep you Germans in line."
D-icarus seems very cranky. poor baby.
Phil writes:
Pontificator: a judge has ruled that voters who vote "no" on the recall can still vote their preference on the successor if Davis loses.
That had already been established. The ruling, as I recall, was that voters who abstain on the recall can still vote for a successor. The ruling was issued just before the ballots went to the printers.
Yes, I'm Trickster from MWO. You're right about my not living in California but I don't quite understand how it is obvious. I moved from Palo Alto to my native state of Alabama in March, but I have lived in CA 15 of the last 25 years, and in fact--but don't tell anybody--I am still registered to vote there.
Were you Icarus on MWO? I'm not sure I remember you.
If I lived in California I'd vote for Larry Flynt. Sorry, Bustamente, but you're neither a delightfully perverted old man NOR one of the nation's foremost defender of first amendment rights.
cmdicely writes:
Um, the Cal. SC is largely Republican appointees, so that would be hard; also, at least some of the main claims are based on Bush v. Gore, so it would be even harder for them to credibly claim it was inappropriate action if the Court applied that precedent. Unless, of course, they want to admit that W. shouldn't have won...
The Bush v. Gore decision explicitly stated that it applied only to the immediate case and did not establish any precedents.
We should back Bustamante because he is the only Democrat who can win. If he is not ideal, I do not care. The idea is to win. That is what Republicans have learned. We must win, not have our favorite Democrat lose!
- Emma
YES! RIGHT! EXACTLY! SAY IT AGAIN!
Seriously, folks, this is why we get our butts kicked. Reagan's 11th commandment has done more for Republicans than anything else in the last 20 years. We'd be wise to follow his lead, at least until we're out of the wilderness.
Please, please recall Davis and vote in Bustamante.
The bottom line is what is best for Cali. This is a golden opportunity to get rid of the crooked Davis who is a blight on the Democratic Party.
Keith Thompson, you aren't a lawyer, are you? Bush v. Gore will be used as precedent and followed slavishly by lower courts in any situation where it is closer to the facts in the case than is any other Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court has said something along those lines (i.e., "this decision is limited to these facts") in at least scores and probably hundreds of cases, but lawyers still find the closest Supreme Court case they can find, take it to the judge, and the judge, who doesn't want to be overturned and has no other information that would give him/her a better idea of the Supreme Court's position on a matter, accepts it as binding precedent.
What's "best for Cali" ain't Bustamante or Davis. Obviously it ain't Ahnold either - hell, Riordan would be superior to the asinine Austrian.
Both Bustamante and Davis are Squarely in the pocket of the prison system, and have been for quite some time. Both support the death penalty, and while both have "reservations" about locking people up for life without having committed violent felonies, both are unwilling to do a goddamn thing about it.
This is Not a Good Thing.
This is Not a Progressive Thing.
The Democrats Need to put someone on the ticket who is not in favor of putting bad-check writers in jail for the rest of their lives.
What's going on here? Where's the support for Arianna? I'm not from California, so this really isn't my business, but I find it weird that she's not exciting an audience like the posters at Eschaton? (Nor was she hardly mentioned (at all?) on Talk of the Nation today, which truly pissed me off.) What the hell's up?
lemon -
Arianna may be a compelling columnist, but she is a one-time conservative pundit turned progressive with no government experience whatsoever. She also was involved in a weird cult-like organization with her former (now outed) husband Michael.
Also, I'd wager she Would have some vocal support here.....if she were only a Democrat.
If I lived in California I'd vote for Larry Flynt. Me too. He is the kind of Democrat everyone can get behind. Go Larry. We need more good Democrats like Larry!!!!!!! Go Larry Go. If he can run a successful porn operation he should have no trouble running California. The Democrats should be proud to call him one of their own. He sure helped Clinton to stay in office and now it is time to pay him back.
Also, any other Democrat running for governor should say:
1. Vote "No" on the recall
2. My first act as governor will be to resign, leaving Bustamante to take my place
It's about the principle, people. Do the right thing.
Do the right thing? Lie to the people? Whoa. The Salt River here in Phoenix will freeze over is when Gray Davis does the right thing.
ditto to what icarus said.
I'm voting "yes" and Arianna. The whole thing is an abomination, but given the chance to replace a typical corporate Demo hack with Arianna, how can anyone resist?
"The Salt River here in Phoenix will freeze over is when Gray Davis does the right thing."
Pish tosh.
Please, from your superior vantage point in Phoenix list Republican governors or gubenatorial candidates who would have stood up the energy providers and demanded that Bushco compesnate the state for the artificially inflated prices we paid thanks to his close friends at Enron and Perot Systems.
There aren't any, I am sad to say. Every Republican governor in this state in the last thirty years has been incompetent, inept, out of touch with his electorate, or has had no policy ideas whatsoever and was little more than a character actor and figurehead.
None of the current Republican or Democratic candidates would have done any better on the whole in Davis' position.
Davis is merely representative of the mediocrity that is at this point, essentially required of CA candidates in order to get enough votes from the vacuous Orange, San Bernadino, LA county and San Fernando drones in order to win.
My big question is why are progressives so eager to jump on the Arianna bandwagon? Yes, I suspect that Cruz and Gary are probably worse choices, but we forget that this woman was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican at one time, a figure of scorn among the left.
We also forget about her goofy association with John-Roger, the cultist. I suspect that Arianna's idea of leadership is to find a crowd and stand in front of it. Can't even BEGIN to understand why the Greens are thinking of throwing in their lot with her. Is Arianna really the best we can do?
I distinctly heard Arianna say she would step out if a democrat entered the race. So, is she?
Arianna's smart and her views reflect my values. That's how I vote. I think the choices are great, every state should have such a low threshold for getting on the ballot. Then we wouldn't walk into the voting booths to face such dismal choices.
I can't think of anything more cultish than the Catholic Church right now -- a scary cult, and I was raised one. At least the John-Roger thing is pretty harmless new age "love and light" stuff.
Arnold is a pig, and his wife is going to be embarrassed by how much sympathy she gets for being married to him when it all comes out.
So, you think Cruz will get the votes of the nigg--, oh, sorry, only Cruz gets to say that...
Oh, look at the time, gotta catch a flight to Hymietown to meet with Jessie.
I distinctly heard Arianna say she would step out if a democrat entered the race. So, is she?
She said she would step out if a STRONG Democrat entered. Cruz isn't that, so she's still in. Luckily DiFi hasn't either...I'd vote for Arnold before I'd vote for her.
But, as it stands now, I'm voting No and Arianna. It's time we had someone at least close to the left in power.
rimedon, per kiu ni venkis jam multajn gvidistojn -- malsago kaj idiotaj demandoj. Ci tiuj kreitajoj nenion suspektas -- ili tute ne komprenas la sarkasmon. Neniam dum mia vivo mi estis tiel kontenta, tiel trankvila, tiel plena de bena paco, kiel hierau, kiam mi eksciis, ke Mikel-Angelo ne vivas plu. Ni eltiris ci tiun sciigon el nia gvidisto. Li kondukis nin tra mejloj da pentrajoj kaj skulptajoj en la
rimedon, per kiu ni venkis jam multajn gvidistojn -- malsago kaj idiotaj demandoj. Ci tiuj kreitajoj nenion suspektas -- ili tute ne komprenas la sarkasmon. Neniam dum mia vivo mi estis tiel kontenta, tiel trankvila, tiel plena de bena paco, kiel hierau, kiam mi eksciis, ke Mikel-Angelo ne vivas plu. Ni eltiris ci tiun sciigon el nia gvidisto. Li kondukis nin tra mejloj da pentrajoj kaj skulptajoj en la
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
