Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Recall Effort on CA Gov. Newsom Underway; Who Should Replace Him?
The recall effort to bring down Gov. Newsom here in California is less than two weeks old and already has over a quarter of a million signatures. Citizens need to sign the petitions for the recall and succeed in having 1 million-plus signatures. This means we must go for 2.5 million, as many signatures will be discredited. Our deadline is February 2020.
Of course, should the movement be successful, then we need to figure out who would be a decent replacement?
Someone mentioned this man over at Facebook: “we’d better come up with ideas as to whom we are going to replace Newsom with. I don’t know if he would do it, but Sacramento’s retired Sheriff John McGinness would be an awesome start. He’s honest and been through the political machine.”
That poster had me at “honest.”
Do others here have any thoughts on this?
Published in General
Apologies, I missed that.
Even when they manage to vote for something good, like saying “No” to same-sex “marriage”, a lefty judge strikes it down . . .
Perhaps you were thinking specifically of Senate races? I believe since the top-two system passed in 2010 there have been 3 Senate elections, and of them the only time a Republican made it to the General was in 2012.
That’s true, state residents have voted for a number of conservative ballot props, going all the way back to Prop 187 in ’94 that would have cut off most state benefits to illegal immigrants. That one passed with 58% of the vote but was blocked in court, imagine how different the state might be today if that law had ever been enforced.
There are two recall efforts underway – and both apparently have people out at various locations like Local Walmart’s and grocery stores across Calif with the petitions to sign.
So there are two different websites:
recallNewsom.tv
and
recallNewsom.org
You can go to either or both sites and decide if you want to support one or the other or both.
In any event, the system makes it very difficult to go anywhere with a new start up of a third party, in situations where a person believes that is a necessity.
And it puts Republicans in a very bad place, overall.
Um, if they’re serious about it, shouldn’t they join forces?
Who should be the next governor of California? Obviously either @peterrobinson or @josephstanko. @garymcvey is also a Californian but I wouldn’t want running the state to take him away from writing RSR on Ricochet.
If Arnold came back, it would be Total Recall! Can’t wait.
It will be whomever Californians choose. You guys are screwed.
In no particular order:
Elon Musk
Steve Bannon
Donald Trump Jr.
Shepherd Smith (for the lolz)
Many thanks, Randy. Nuthin’s gonna stop me from bringing the slam-bang action of RSR to this noble website.
I once had dinner with James Woods, at Dan Tana’s showbiz restaurant. It was before 9/11; he hadn’t yet been radicalized to the right, but he was already coming our way. Our host was Dan Tana himself. When Woods left, Dan leaned over and said, in a confidential voice, “Jimmy’s had some bad luck with his girlfriend”, apparently a bit of a crazy lady.
There’s only one thing you can do, California bros! And that is….Escape From LA.
If it’s good enough for Snake, it’s good enough for you.
Yes. Since I’ve been in California, it has gone from a state that elected Republican governors and mayors on a regular basis, and voted reliably for conservative propositions, to one where there is not a snowballs’ chance in heck that a Republican will ever be elected again. And just in case some conservative idea does happen to make it through the proposition process, it will be struck down anyway. So I understand the impulse to recall-it’s how we got our last Republican governor if you can call Arnold that. But I still don’t favor it as a regular solution. Californians could have voted for a Republican governor this time, they did not, and their lights got turned out. What did they expect?
Which party imported millions of non-citizens, from the 50s through the 80s? The Republicans, to provide cheaper labor for hotels, restaurants, and farm fields. (The Democrats resisted, because their Black constituents resented the competition, which is why the California GOP did it. The Latinos would be “ours”, and religion was going to keep them in our corner forever)
Which party insisted on running “lifers”, when the state had gone “choicer”, ever since Reagan signed the nation’s most liberal abortion bill–urged on him by his father-in-law, a doctor?–the Republicans.
Which party secured the aerospace and defense contracts that helped make the state a leader in electronics and computers? The Republicans. At the time, it really helped California, and the country. It shifted industry here away from unionized jobs into safely conservative non-union ones.
Sometimes people make a false site to draw power and attention from the real site.
According to ABC 10:
While I hate to throw cold water on the party, this smells more like a publicity stunt than a real grassroots movement with a plausible chance of success.
That is a concern that I have as well.
there must be an online petition we can sign?
never mind, i noticed the 2 links provided above.
how do i delete a comment?
Wait, wait, wait! Wouldn’t this be an immoral and unconstitutional COUP!
Gavin Newsome was Constitutionally elected Governor!
To recall him would be wrong!
7,700,000 voters voted for Newsome. To remove him would be a grave insult to each and every one of those voters who would never believe in elections again.
When Newsome was elected, the voters made a sacred compact that must be respected for a full four years, regardless of how unstable or corrupt or mentally ill Newsome turned out to be.
To remove California’s duly elected governor would be nothing less than a lynching.
Recalls are a democratic process, not secret meetings in the dungeons of Congress. How about letting the people decide who governs?
Go away Gary.
Just as Recall is part of the California State Constitution, Impeachment is part of the United States Constitution.
Don’t be obtuse. In one case the sovereign people choose. In the other the Democrats who want to take our freedoms and their useful idiots in the GOP choose.
Except that if Trump committed an impeachable act, then the remedy is impeachment. I believe in the constitution.
Impeachment is a constitutional method of removing a president who commits crimes against the sovereign people. Trump has been the best thing to happen to the sovereign people since Reagan.
Your hatred of him has blinded you to that fact and put you on the side of the commies and fascists who want to nationalize business (AOC’s recent speech in NY for Bernie), have us pay for the world’s abortions, control how and whether we can get around (cars), take over the energy grid (hello, California? Anybody home?), etc.. etc..
I know you think you hold the moral high ground. You really, really don’t. Friends of the founding are friends of Trump.
Abuse of Power is not per se a crime, however it is clearly a ground for impeachment.
We would have President Pence and Vice President Haley, a ticket that can win in 2020.
For me, Trump is disqualified not for reasons of policy or personality, but for reasons of character, integrity and capacity.
Trump is not disqualified for reasons of policy. I support some of his policies (judges, taxes, regulations) and oppose others (national defense, NATO, the national emergency funding of the Wall, Dreamers, Charlottesville https://thebulwark.com/the-charlottesville-hoax-hoax/).
Trump is not disqualified for reasons of personality. I detest Trump’s rude and intemperate behavior. But that is not sufficient, by itself, to oppose Trump.
Trump is disqualified by reasons of character, integrity and literally capacity.
Let me suggest the following five examples show that Trump lacks the character, integrity and/or capacity to be president.
First, Birtherism. This was Trump’s original sin. Once Obama’s birth certificate was produced there was no reason that any thoughtful person could continue with this screed other than to punk the opposition, which I would submit is unworthy of any candidate. Either Trump was stupid or lying or didn’t care. However, he promoted himself at the great damage he did to race relations. Recently, according to Maggie Haberman and Jonathon Martin of the New York Times, Trump has promoted birtherism to a Republican Senator. Anyone who promotes birtherism is disqualified to be president.
Second, did Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, help Lee Harvey Oswald murder JFK? Trump suggests he did. This meme was presented to “Fox and Friends” who disgraced themselves by not challenging Trump. I believe that Trump said this given Ted Cruz’s reaction when Trump attacked Ted Cruz’s wife Heidi. No one I know of can support this nonsense. Anyone who promotes the screed that Ted Cruz’s father helped kill JFK is disqualified to be president.
Third, did Trump win the popular vote? Trump lost by 2.9 million votes. There is simply no credible evidence put forward that Trump actually lost the popular vote due to a net of 2.9 million votes being cast fraudulently.
Fourth, Trump has insisted that he had a larger inauguration crowd than Obama. Who are you going to believe, Trump or your lying eyes? Not has Trump made this argument over and over again, but he has insisted that his Press Secretary promote this trope.
Fifth, did Trump actually make the statement from Access Hollywood about grabbing women by the “[redacted word for female genitalia]”? During the campaign Trump admitted making “locker room talk” statements. But recently, Trump has questioned if the voice on the recording is not really his. (This is despite a part of the recording shows Trump speaking.) Who are you going to believe, Trump, or your lying ears?
These five examples speak to Trump’s complete lack of character and integrity.
Then there is the issue of capacity. Let me simply say that there is something not right with Trump, however that is a further tangent.
Let’s go over the five points.
First, birtherism wasn’t nuts at first. Obama had an unusual background, and his campaign seemed oddly reluctant to just answer the question. Of course, once he did, game over. There were some people on the right who beclowned themselves over it, and frankly I don’t remember when Trump got off the train, so I can’t say whether or not he was one of them. It got to be nuts when people claimed that the 1961 birth announcement in Hawaiian newspapers was a CIA or NSA or KGB plant, that therefore all the libraries with microfilm copies of the paper had their microfiches altered. But that wasn’t Trump.
Second, the stuff about Cruz’s father was bizarre, strange, weird, whatever, but not disqualifying for the presidency. Insulting Cruz’s wife wasn’t either, but I disliked him for it. It wasn’t funny, it wasn’t politically necessary, it made Trump look like a jerk, but it wasn’t by itself significant.
Third, you have a point here. All the yada yada about the SJWs and the LIVs doesn’t add up to anywhere near that kind of fraud. I’ve seen things about voting in California on this and other conservative sites that’s simply ignorant. But it’s irrelevant how many dim witted righties pile on: the fact is, we don’t elect via popular vote and never have. The Dems knew the rules as well as we did. Trump won.
Fourth, Washington has a very high percentage of Black residents, who were only a subway or bus ride away from the inauguration of the first Black president. Of course it was jammed. If JFK had been inaugurated in Boston, you can bet that too would have been a record breaking crowd. Trump should have stuck to that as a defense of his crowd size. (He didn’t, of course.) If the inauguration had taken place in, say, Houston, it would probably have been comparable.
Fifth, the Access Hollywood tape did hurt him with women in particular, but it was years before he became a candidate and is not, regrettably, all that different from what other men and even other presidents have said before reaching office. It’s a dirty joke, not an incitement to sexual assault. He paid the price in 2016–probably (a guess) 50,000 votes from religious people.
None of these defenses makes him a saint, needless to say, but they aren’t disqualifying.
The best defense for being a conservative woman and voting for him anyway was expressed as “We weren’t looking for a husband, but for a bodyguard”. There’s a hard pithy truth there, and before we get too cheery about it, we should remember that the coldness of the statement doesn’t reflect that well on Trump.
Gary, you can’t possibly believe the article you linked that parses Trump’s actual words about Charlottesville and twists them into some sort of conclusive proof that he was praising white nationalists. Any reasonably competent English speaker can understand Trump’s exact words when he said “And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” What is so hard to understand about that?
Only a person who willfully does not want to accept this (for instance Democrats) can convince himself that Trump was actually praising white nationalists.
OK guys, time to get these horses back in the corral. The topic of this post is Who should replace Gain Newsom if he is recalled. Surely there are other posts that debate the impeachment of Donald Trump.
Agreed.