News: New Candidate for California Governor

[KenH]

You know, if Grey Davis is recalled, and then Arnold wins election, I won't be surprised if some liberal federal judge finds a reason to throw out the whole thing.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by KenH:
You know, if Grey Davis is recalled, and then Arnold wins election, I won't be surprised if some liberal federal judge finds a reason to throw out the whole thing.

Federal judges would have no power, since this falls under the umbrella of the State. The procedure for a gubernatorial recall is concisely spelled out in the California State Constitution (which was passed in accordance with the US Constitution). So long as proper procedure is followed, there would be no grounds for nullification of the procsdure or its results.

I'm really amused how the whole nation is looking at us in California right now. Most folks here are taking it in stride, with little more than a nod. Regardless of whether persons plan to vote yes or no on the recall, just about everyone here is pleased with the efficiency of the process.

 

[KenH]

But a judge threw out the initiative that was passed overwhelmingly to stop taxpayer money going to illegal immigrants. Liberals are not afraid to overstep their authority and override the properly expressed will of the people.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by KenH:
But a judge threw out the initiative that was passed overwhelmingly to stop taxpayer money going to illegal immigrants.

Which initiative are you referring to? There have been many initiatives in many states that have been overturned. Bills and initiatives that are uconstitutional get passed all the time. The fac that they are overturned have nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism, they have to do with constitutionality. As for the current recall effort, the procedures are constitutionally mandated, and as such, the recall is not unconstitutional.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Johnv:
the recall is not unconstitutional.

We'll see, we'll see.

 

[KenH]

By the way, it was illegal in New Jersey for the Democrats to change U.S. Senate candidates the way they did but they managed to do so anyway. Political parties have judges in them and political parties tend to try to keep power anyway they can - legal or not.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by KenH:
By the way, it was illegal in New Jersey for the Democrats to change U.S. Senate candidates the way they did but they managed to do so anyway. Political parties have judges in them and political parties tend to try to keep power anyway they can - legal or not.

How was it illegal? Please enlighten us.

 

[donnA]

I saw just the other day Arnold is pro abortion and pro homose*ual. Not a very conserative Republican or Christian.

 

[PastorGreg]

The New Jersey situation was illegal because NJ state law says that the ballot cannot be changed within a certain number of days of the election. (I forget the exact number) When the incumbent (senior moment here too!) was clearly going down in flames, the Democratic party got him to step aside and illegally ran Frank Lautenberg.
As to the topic of this thread - Arnold has candidated for Ted Kennedy. He is definitely not conservative, being pro-abortion, pro-gay, and anti-2nd amendment. I think it's time for Christians to wake up and look at principles, not party.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by katie Bond...007:
I saw just the other day Arnold is pro abortion and pro homose*ual. Not a very conserative Republican or Christian.

Abortion: He's against abortion from a moral standpoint, but is also against the government regulating abortion from a legal standpoint. He's also against the government paying for abortions.

Homosexuality: He's not pro- or anti-. His view is that a person should not be discriminated against because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Political affiliation: He's a republican. His views are moderately conservative. As I said in a previous post, Californians are not staunchly partisan. Dems vote for Repubs all the time, and vice versa. Most Californians are politically moderate.

Religion: Arnold and his wife Maria are Christians, and have professed so publicly. They are saved. Biblically, it's inappropriate for us to judge them otherwise. I've had the privilege of being involved with organizations that Arnold supports, and I can tell you first hand that the man produces fruit that abounds. It's too bad that the other 49 states don't know Arnold the way the local communities do. He's a treasure, and he lets his hands be Christ's hands. I find it frustrating that the news media is attempting to portray him as though he were a career politician.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by PastorGreg:
Arnold has candidated for Ted Kennedy.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has always supported republican candidates. However, he has a rule that if a republican runs against a family member, he would stay out of it, since it involves family (Schwarzenegger is married to Ted Kennedy's niece). Arnold chose to not endorse the republican candidate who ran against Kennedy. He did not campaign for him.

God forbid someone choose family over politics!!

I think it's time for Christians to wake up and look at principles, not party.

Yeah, that Jimmy Carter fellow was a heathen

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by PastorGreg:
The New Jersey situation was illegal because NJ state law says that the ballot cannot be changed within a certain number of days of the election.

From what I could tell, there's no law in that district that says a candidate cannot be added or removed from the ballot within x number of days. When the deocratic candidate bowed out, the democratic party replaced him before ballots were printed. The new candidate appears to have met the deadlines and legally required qualifications for the office. The issue was taken before the Federal court. The court heard the case, saw nothing illegal, and refused to block the new candidate. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The USOC saw nothing improper about the lower court's ruling, and refused to hear the case.

The bottom line is, while Republicans may not like it, it was not illegal.

 

[mioque]

Assuming the election results of 1980's italy are anything to go by, the next governor will be the porn actress Mary Cook (Mary Carey).
Ilona Staller who ran for the italian parliament in that decade gathered a record amount of votes.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Johnv:
From what I could tell, there's no law in that district that says a candidate cannot be added or removed from the ballot within x number of days.

In the State of New Jersey, there is.

Just because a judge/judges rule/rules a certain way doesn't mean he/they are following the law.

 

[Gina B]

As the third page has been reached, this thread will close no sooner than 5 am EST.
Gina

 

[John Alden]

John V. You seem to really know what you're talking about. It's nice that someone from California can offer insightful posts to help the people from other states get their facts straight.

Is it me, or does it seem that this Government Election is getting a lot of attention from people it doesn't effect?

I wouldn't comment on who was running for Governor in Tennessee or Alabama, even if it was a famous person.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by John Alden:
Is it me, or does it seem that this Government Election is getting a lot of attention from people it doesn't effect?

Maybe because California was hailed by liberals as the place to try out big government, socialist ideas. And now the results are in.

 

[Gina B]

It's closing time folks.
Gina