|
||
|
||
Recall result could spell national consequences
WE ALL HAVE definite feelings about Gray Davis’ possible recall. Maybe he should be taken out of office and replaced by another candidate, possibly by a conservative, or maybe he should be left to finish out his term. We all have a very real concern as to how it will affect each of us as California residents, and will have either a welcomed positive result or a very deprecating aftermath. A key consideration will also be the power of the party that occupies the governor’s office, especially when the presidential election arrives. We all remember from our political science class—or from Fox News—that incumbents have a greater strength than those running to replace them. This is key reason why most incumbents receive a much larger cut of campaign contributions from corporations and political action groups. With more money, the acting officials are able to strengthen their hold on their particular office. This natural strength, enhanced by “quid pro quo” contribution system, will give the new candidate a monumental task that only swells as the power of office grows. An illustration to clarify this idea would be the idea of placing a new president in office, even though the presiding one has one more term that can be served. LET’S SAY WE HAVE a president in office—a republican for the sake of argument—that may not particularly care for our state or the affairs that are encompassed within it—especially the economy. Let’s say that this president, who hails from a more conservative state, is looking to clinch his victory and crush the democratic opposition by taking a state that votes democrat the majority of the time, what would be the perfect tool to secure a massive amount of electoral votes? Could it be accomplished by installing a republican governor? THROUGH THE POWER of incumbency, when a particular political party is in the Oval Office, the House of Representatives and the Senate usually share that affiliation when congressional elections occur. California would make a handy source of votes for President Bush and the republican that handed over that state. After turning its democratic voting tide, hypothetically to President Bush, would have won the favor of the most powerful person in the free world. That republican would also have their political party in their corner for the next election, whatever it might be. WHAT MIGHT FOUR more years of George W. Bush mean? Beside oodles of jokes for Letterman, Conan and Leno, it could mean the abolishment of Roe v. Wade. For those who think that is too farfetched, I suggest you look to the Supreme Court and note that two justices are retiring soon, and who gets to appoint new justices? The president. Who confirms the appointments? Congress. Both of which are republican and would have the same political objectives. What about a bill opposing same-sex unions? With four years securely attained, nothing will stop Bush from enacting such legislation, especially with a House and Senate backing his whims. THE CALIFORNIA RECALL is a vital part of the future of our wonderfully-liberal state. We must recognize the connotations that our votes will enable and promote. A vote for Cruz Bustamante may help put Bush in check while a vote for a more conservative candidate might give him free rein. — This columnist can be reached at collegian@csufresno.edu |
