The Democrats' bogus recall claims

Democrats throw everything at the recall to see what sticks. Couldn't they find something other than what comes out of a bull's ass?

Gavin Newsom, pondering whether to vote for or against the recall as he reviews qualified immunity clauses for politicians. What's left of California lies behind him. // photo by Office of the Governor of California (seriously, he didn't have to make it that easy for me)

It sure has been a bad month for Democrats. Cuomo has resigned over sexual misconduct though no one seems to care that he had directly caused the deaths of thousands of elderly New Yorkers then covered it up. Biden's approval ratings tanked due to the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

This next month, California's governor, Gavin Newsom's recall election takes place. While early on, it looked like Newsom would clearly survive the recall, new polling shows it about even. It was due to the early polling that Democrats moved the election up, a clear attempt to sway the votes, thinking a shorter timeframe would be better. But due to the new COVID mandates and resurgence of wildfires, it looks like this may be backfiring.

And Democrats seem to be panicking.

Newsom had already been attempting to frame this as a partisan recall effort, even in the official voter's guide, held only by Republicans and Trump backers. There have been efforts by Democrats outside the voter's guide, such as state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks, to frame this as a white supremacist and neo-Nazi agenda, with the AP report bluntly stating, "However, they provided no evidence to support the allegations." I know this claim to be patently false, as I personally know some of the recall organizers in Alameda County. I can assure you that they hate Trump just about as much as they hate Newsom. Those organizers have also told me that in LA County, greater than 50% of those that signed the recall petition were Democrats. With the polls even, do they really think Trump supporters or white supremacists make up 50% of the state? Mimi Robson, the Chair of the Libertarian Party of California, also penned an opinion piece detailing why she and many libertarians are voting to recall the governor (and to vote for Jeff Hewitt), which doesn't necessarily perfectly line up with the stated goals in the voter's guide. There's more than one group of people, with differing opinions that support the recall? I'm shocked that a state with tens of millions of people is more complex than a binary worldview! SHOCKED!

I also know Nickolas Wildstar, whose election website features, I'm proud to say, a photograph I took of him, also pushed the recall effort. He started those efforts when he was still with the Libertarian Party. Although I don't agree with him 100% on all the issues (whoever agrees 100% with someone is a robot, not a person), I find that many of the things I do disagree with him on are things that would appeal him to Democrats more than Republicans. He also told me that while he also talked with Democrats, it was Republicans that welcomed him far more than Democrats. But what's for damn sure is that anyone who calls Wildstar a white supremacist or neo-Nazi should probably check into a psych ward. Similarly, Larry Elder, the libertarian-conservative hybrid radio talk show host, whom I know most as the person who jarred Dave Rubin into flipping from a Young Turks progressive to a classical liberal, is running to replace Newsom and had some scathing words about the current governor, though I don't know that he actually participated in the recall effort. Anyone who calls Elder a white supremacist or neo-Nazi should similarly seek counseling. Maybe they can take a page out of the Democrats' playbook and call anyone who doesn't vote for them a racist.

This is the new face of white supremacy, according to California Democrats, apparently. // photo my own, featured on his campaign site

The claims don't get much better elsewhere in that voter's guide.

Newsom opens by talking about how much the recall election would cost. Please, stop! You're making me cry from laughing so hard! All of a sudden, fiscal restraint is a big issue for him. All of the pet projects he takes on and the cronies he pays off make the recall expenditures look like the cost of a pack of gum, pre-War. Unfortunately, many of these programs like the $2 billion in housing, will result in lots of wasted dollars for nearly no gain. Just ask Garcetti. If it costs $85 million for the recall, like he claims, it would be a clearance sale if it stops his future wasteful expenditures.

Newsom talked up his balanced budget. Sure, considering a raccoon with a lazy eye could balance the budget given that the residents suffer through the highest taxes in the country. Even the property taxes, the one tax that people say are lower than other states is inaccurate, as our government-inflated land values make the actual tax burden higher than anywhere else. Plus, the budget figures are often "balanced" only if you use shady accounting practices like they did in 2020. Besides, California still has a debt of over $150 billion, before accounting for the massive unfunded liabilities brought on by items like CalPERS.

He also talked up the economy but apparently didn't realize that many businesses are fleeing the state or that California lost population for the first time in state history for reasons Newsom is perpetuating.

COVID-19! He actually brought up his record on COVID-19! As if his French Laundry scandal never happened, and the corruption between those that dined there that night. Or when a completely tone-deaf Newsom did a PR stunt at a Mexican restaurant in a zone Newsom's team designated as purple, which is a no-no go-insidey-restaurant color. All the while, Florida, with loose restrictions and a much older, vulnerable population had similar COVID-19 results as California without all of the financial carnage from small businesses. He also talks about his leadership beating the pandemic. I guess that's why mask mandates are up again across the state.

In classic political fashion, he talked about people that endorse him, like police officers, firefighters, first responders, public school teachers, health providers, and business leaders. Of course, voters that are savvy enough (which, unfortunately, constitute very few voters), would know that he is not actually talking about those individuals as if they all have one opinion on the matter. What he, and every other politician that receives such endorsements are actually talking about, are unions that represent those sectors. You know, those entities that receive dues from workers by force and give politicians generous election donations to curry favor from them? It's no secret that Newsom has been in bed with the unions. And "business leaders"? You think he's talking about actual business owners, like this woman whose business was being destroyed by Newsom? Of course not. He's talking about organizations that push political action with respect to businesses, like the LA Business Council and the Valley Industry and Commerce Association. But listing individuals is far more appealing than listing rich and powerful unions and lobby groups. People tend to like teachers. Not so much teachers' unions.

In response to the actual criticisms, he hand-waves the issue, saying that he is "pursuing major new solutions". No, that's it. He didn't go into any specifics, examples, or plans.

He ends by saying something as laughable as what he opened with: "VOTE NO on the recall to stop this Republican power grab." Seriously? The Democrats have a veto-proof legislature. The Republicans in this state barely have enough power in the state to regulate a bus stop in Mono County. The Democrats have all the power in this state. Just as one example, what was AB5, but a power-grab by the Democrats to dictate labor contracts between consenting people? That's just one bill, out of thousands, not to even mention the regulation, culture war, and the sheer amount of people in positions of power, not only in the elected branches at the state level, but city councils, AC Transit boards, and even design review boards. Do they really not understand that all of politics is about grabbing power? Of course they do. That's why they're in the game. It just depends on what you do with that power. With Democrats, it's to force civil issues upon other people, force their preferred way of life on other people, and to take other peoples' money by force to spend on their pet projects. Republicans aren't that much different, though they like to think they are. Libertarians are the only ones who want to take power to remove power from the seat they just won so the people would retain power for their own lives.

Moving beyond the voter's guide is more of the same, with much of it an amalgamation of the same talking points repackaged.

Perhaps the highest visibility ad was the one that featured Elizabeth Warren during the Olympics, where a 30-second ad buy runs up to a million dollars. In it, she said many of the same things, like grabbing power, albeit in a funnier fashion. She actually talked about the recall costing taxpayer money. L-O-freaking-L! Elizabeth Warren talking about wasting taxpayer money? Does she win the Accidental Comedian of the Year Award? She is the one who wants multi-trillion-dollar budgets for her own idiotic plans, some of which would funnel money into the highest income earner segments of the population. The idea that Warren is suddenly a budget hawk makes me think the Democrats are going to make Andrew Cuomo the spokesperson for the #MeToo movement.

Bizarrely, she also claimed that people are abusing the recall process. The "wonkish" senator didn't bother explaining how gathering petitions to force a recall election, consistent with California law, is, in any way, shape, or form, an abuse of the process other than appeals to tribalist emotions. I'm not sure how else utilizing a procedure as outlined by law, for the sole purpose the procedure exists, could constitute abuse.

She went on to say toward the end that a no vote would protect our democracy. I don't think that word means what she thinks it means. Is she claiming that this vote that would overturn the earlier vote is undemocratic? The mental gymnastics this woman must perform to arrive at this conclusion must make her the Simone Biles (whoops - Suni Lee?) of political logic. Gathering petitions - a democratic endeavor - to put it to a vote - literally the fundamental endeavor of democracies - is an undemocratic undertaking? Or maybe she meant that a no vote would put someone in power who would destroy the democratic process. But there are dozens of candidates, and at the point in time the commercial aired, there wasn't any clear front-runner yet. Larry Elder, seemingly the current front-runner had probably just secured his run to be on the ballot pretty much as Warren was filming the ad spot. And if she knows anything about Elder, which I don't imagine she would, she would know that he isn't against democracy at all. Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren misspoke and meant to say a no vote would "protect our Democrats." Yes. That would make far more sense, if not obvious.

I suppose the fear has some grounds if standing in their shoes, as Republicans across the country have introduced laws to restrict voting. But to think those have a snowball's chance in hell in California, even if a Republican governor is elected, is laughable. It would be amusing if it weren't so egregious, that within the state, it has been the Democrats that have been attempting to skirt or otherwise move the goalposts of established rules governing the California democracy suit their fancy. They moved the voting date up to a date thought to be favorable to Newsom, not a first time for Democrats as they voted to delay the vote for Senator Josh Newman to one more favorable to him. The Newsom campaign attempted to sidestep a filing rule. There was a bill introduced shortly after the recall petitions were certified that would change recall petition rules so that signers' contact information would be available to officials to call to verify if the people that signed actually wanted to sign and to tell him how to rescind their signature, though that would not affect this recall election. Still, gotta protect their own in the future. Amirite?

Sentiments about the election from Democrats in the state may have been even worse, with US Senator Alex Padilla saying, "The same Republicans who refused to hold Donald Trump accountable for the deadly insurrection of January 6th are now trying to hold Governor Newsom accountable for the failures of Donald Trump. The recall effort is partisan, reckless, dangerous." Dangerous?? Oh, no! Shall I shelter in place until the recall vote is over? And are they still harping on January 6th, when only one person was intentionally killed...by Capitol police? I could just as easily ask Padilla, who voted to convict, what he thinks of Obama's war against Yemen, a unilateral move that violates the US Constitution, that has led to the deaths of thousands of children. Why the disingenuousness, Padilla? 

This absurdity even transcends politicians, though the following example is far more sophisticated. 

Erwin Chemerinsky and Aaron Edlin, a dean and professor, respectively, at UC Berkeley, made an argument that the recall election is unconstitutional because the election result may have more people vote to retain Newsom than any one candidate receives in the subsequent vote on the ballot and this would violate the equal protection of voters. In short, they claim that every person should have an equal influence on the outcome of an election. But their premise is incorrect.

This election is two parts, as even they point out. The first vote asks whether Newsom should be recalled. Everyone may vote in this. The next vote asks who should replace him, if he is recalled, per the first vote. Everyone may vote in this also. Everyone has an equal say in the outcome of the first vote and everyone has an equal say in the outcome of the second vote. The first and second votes aren't really about the same fundamental thing. Think about it this way. The first vote is whether people think Newsom is fit for office or not. If the vote to recall wins, then you would explicitly be denying the equal protection of the voters to vote him out of office if he is retained because he "got the most votes" compared to a completely different, second vote. 

It is not necessarily the case that people who vote to keep Newsom think he's the best choice, or even shouldn't be recalled. Many will likely vote to keep him on simply because they are terrified of the letter R (voting the lesser of two evils), or to vote strategically, preferring a certain candidate over Newsom, but voting to keep Newsom as a secondary or tertiary choice, since it may be the highest percentage chance to "win". Given this, Newsom has a clear numbers advantage over any of the other candidates since he's the only one you can "vote for" twice, with the entire voting pool picking between him and none of the above, whereas the full spectrum of forty-six candidates plus write-ins split the same voting pool. 

In terms of procedure, it doesn't make sense to just lump all the candidates' names into one vote. A person has to be removed from office first, with the voter indictment focused on him, in order for there to be a vote on who will be the replacement. It is always an important vote on the question of whether someone is abusing power. It deserves its own question that is not some weird normal election with a load of names diluting the recall vote. It would change the question from "Is the governor unfit to serve? If so, who should replace him?" to "Whaddya want?" Hence, the two separate votes. That process actually is outlined in the California Constitution. It would also be absurd to have Newsom's name on the general list of candidates. So people can vote to recall and then vote Newsom right back in if the recall vote splits among multiple candidates? That's just giving the incumbent two tries at avoiding being run out of town. How is that not disenfranchising voters? So it's unclear what these authors would actually prefer the process to be. Surely they don't think there should be no mechanism to remove a politician from office.

Whether you agree or disagree with the recall, none of the above arguments provided by the one-party rule in California and its religious adherents should hold any sway. Base it on whether you think Newsom had done a good job or not. All this other stuff is designed to distract, confuse, and fool.

[edit 8/26/2021: Apparently, the Democrats, in a new ad, are now implying that if you don't vote down the recall, you will die, or just want people to die. My initial reaction is that nobody will fall for this. Then I read Twitter and realize, no, I was wrong. A lot of people will fall for it.]