Well, it’s going to be a fun September here in California!! Here’s what we have on the plate:
1. The Recall. Do we vote 2nd term Governor and former Presidential aspirant Gray Davis out of office and send him home to his little-used West Hollywood condo? If we do that, are we damaging the Democratic Party? Are we damaging the State?
Assuming we do send him home, we have:
2. The Replacement. Who do we vote in to replace him? As of this afternoon, we have (in order of my perception of their electability) some major candidates…Arnold Schwartzenegger
Cruz Bustamente
Arianna Huffington
John Garamendi
Tom McClintock
Darryl Issa – the guy who funded the recall effort with $1.7 million of his own cash, just pulled out about an hour ago.
We also have
Audie Bock (ex-Green Assembly member from Oakland)
Peter Camejo (ex-Green candidate for Gov)
Larry Flynt (pornographer)
Jack Grisham (lead signer for punk band T.S.O.L.)
And last, but not least, Angelyne!!
If nothing else, it’s the full-employment-for-political-consultants month, and since some of them are my friends, I’m all for it.
As a voter, however, it’s kind of confusing.
First, I think that the recall is a Good Thing. I know it’s going to cost us money, and distract our politicians’ attention from the current set of crises. But I think that it’s a giant bucket of ice water splashed in the political establishment’s face, waking them up to the peasants with pitchforks standing outside the building howling with rage.
If you’ve read much of my stuff, you’ll know that I’m one of them. I’m tired of ‘seagull government’, I’m tired of paying taxes for programs that don’t work while ones that do get cut off and abandon people in real need, I’m tired of a government that manages to lack compassion, common sense, a sense of humility, and a sense of purpose beyond lunch and eventually getting a nice retirement paycheck … and here I’m talking about the elected officials, not the folks working at the DMV or the Welfare Department. It’s their management that makes them act the ways we don’t like, and their management that can and must change them. It’s the leaders who select that management who need to be kept accountable.
The system needs a slap in the face and a kick in the ass. It needs a lot more as well, stuff that will only come with long patient work and commitment, and the challenge will be to take that anger and turn it into fuel for the long haul ahead. But for now, we’ve got to get started someplace, and someplace feels like my local polling place in October.
I’m personally torn between the desire to have a grownup come in and clean up the mess – a Leon Panetta (Bustamente might make that level with me, I’ll have to think very hard), and someone who will come in, hang the legislators out of the window and shake them by their ankles until they see their way to more meaningful change – which would be an Arnold.
I’m going to be researching Bustamente with my friends in Sacramento. I’m disinclined to support him because supporting him dodges the larger-scale issues set out above…it doesn’t respond to change with anything except handing the job to the next guy in line for the job. But that’s not a firm position.
Panetta would be my ideal candidate – has enough political weight to have relations up and down the line, can call in friendships and favors, is smart about budget issues. He doesn’t address the ‘soft’ issues, but he probably would do the best job on the hard ones. Sadly, he isn’t in the race, and with today’s developments, is unlikely to jump in.
Ah-nold would probably be next. I’ve met him twice (once in the context of business, and once accidentally – a long time ago, pre-Terminator – in the gym, where he stopped to criticize my technique and wound up giving a half-hour seminar to fifteen people on situps), and frankly been impressed both times. He’s a smart businessman who has managed to surround himself with competent people in his chosen fields of endeavor – and that’s one of the first things I look for in judging someone. His policy mix is probably right down the middle for California – although he shoots, he’s probably pro-moderate gun regulation, pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-education. He has shown himself canny in his use of celebrity to further his goals – whether business or political – and he has the communication skills to use the bully pulpit, if he really has a message to give.
Jesse Ventura is the obvious comparison, and he turned out to be an awful governor. But…he was a commentator (a solo contributor, as opposed to a manager), and at the end of the day, he broke trail for Tim Pawlenty, who is from all accounts a damn good governor.
So it’s likely that Arnold has a better chance than Jesse to be competent (although he has the horrible disadvantages of no political relationships in Sacramento), and he may well serve the same function in breaking trail for someone better.
At this point, barring Panetta showing up by Saturday, or some news about Arnold that will shock me (a movie star who likes women!! The horror!! The horror!! Sorry, unless he’s a rapist, I can’t get upset about that…), I think I’m tipping his way.
There’s a problem…
…if he brings a GOP infrastructure with him, it will be an issue in the ’04 Presidential campaign, and if I believed it would be a close race in ’04 and that California was critical, I might waver a bit.
Lots to think about, and meanwhile, sit down, strap in, and hang on…this is definitely going to be interesting.
Issad made the recal happen, therefore now he’s the de facto leader of the California Republican party.
Don’t just brush him aside.
“if he brings a GOP infrastructure with him, it will be an issue in the ’04 Presidential campaign, and if I believed it would be a close race in ’04 and that California was critical, I might waver a bit.”
That’s interesting, given what you’ve said before. Is it because you wouldn’t want anything that would hurt Dean’s chances? Or is it because you’ve decided to take it on faith that a good, strong-on-the-war-and-defense Democratic candidate will miraculously appear?
Well, as for the Recall itself; interestingly, I’m on the other side. I understand all the reasons, but I don’t think any of those rise to the level of a Recall – they are, IMO, reasons to express in a regular election. If the problem was that less than a year ago, there wasn’t a suitable candidate through which to express that, well, I don’t think those are grounds for what is, in effect a “do over” election.
Davis and the other clowns really aren’t behaving any different than they all were when they were re-elected by fairly substantial margins last November.
That’s my personal but, that said, lets go to the candidates (because regardless of how I would vote on the Recall, I’m betting it will be successful):
IMO, if you think either Bustamente or Panetta (a career Pol and career Democrat) are going to overturn the tables in the Temple and upset the apple cart in Sacramento, I think you’re fooling yourself. (Btw, on your list of major candidates, I don’t see Simon; isn’t he running?)
If you decide that Arnold isn’t going to fit the bill, it sounds like perhaps Arianna is running on a platform similar to what you’re looking for (I know, I know: “but she’s a blowhard and a shameless opportunist”. Nobody’s perfect and she wouldn’t be *my* choice either).
Speaking of Party infrastructures, though: Gore today disproved one of the theories often put forth by those trying to explain in a less-damning fashion why the Democratic candidates are behaving as they are. I’ll expound on that in a post that’ll be up tommorrow.
Matt: A.L. brushed Issa asside as a candidate because Issa brushed himself out of the running, withdrawing from the race. So he’s not a factor in the race anymore.
Speaking of the recall campaign, the mud have already starting rolling. Katie Curric basically asked, point blank to an Davis campaign worker about voting for the son of a Nazi… Which is helpful, since it’s Schwarzenegger himself who asked Simon Wiesenthal Center to reseach on his father’s past.
Well, the politics of personal destruction and guilt-by-association dirty-tricks innuendo are certainly going to be subcontracted out as much as possible to the D’s loyal minions in the media – as usual.
That’s how these things are done on that side: Democratic operatives dig up dirt (like “accidentally” intercepting and “just happening” to tape cell phone calls and slipping it to the “objective, non-partisan” media, or digging up dirt to slip to friends in the media on the friday night before the election-eve weekend, who will then act as if it’s “new” even if it’s been out for awhile, if it hurts the right people, or slipping out the story that certain individuals who need to be discredited are just “stalkers” – something that backfired only once because physical evidence was preserved on a garment, otherwise it would have worked as it always had in other cases).
That way the official campaign aparatus can claim no involvement – they’re just reacting to “news” stories published by others when they “respond” to the dirt that they themselves slipped into the waters – and can then act all innocent, like *they’re* the victims of “the politics of personal destruction” rather than the perpetrators to any response nailing them for it.
So it’s not a surprise that the usual suspects are fronting in an effort to discredit and defame people.
I interviewed Bustamente three or four years ago. He described some issues that he was focusing on as lieutenant governor. Then he proved uninformed on those issues. Nice fellow. Very dim bulb. I left the meeting praying for the continued health of Gray Davis, and I am not a fan of Davis.
I’ve also interviewed Leon Panetta. He’s a very sharp guy with federal budget experience. BTW, he started as a Republican and switched parties. Panetta would make a good governor, but I doubt he’ll run, given the competition.
The hit on Schwarzenegger for being the son of a Nazi is absurd. His father was a local policeman who joined the Nazi party. There may be other dirt that will stick, but who’s going to blame the guy for what his father did before he was born?
Well, there’s always this article on Arnie’s grabby hands and space ‘issues’.
Trying to trash Ah-nuld will be a very stupid strategy. Unlike Davis’ previous opponents, Ah-nuld can’t be defined to the public by negative ads: his preexisting Hollywood image is too big and too persistent; we already -know- who the guy is (somewhere between the Terminator and Kindergarten Cop), or think we do which amounts to the same thing. Ah-nuld could screw it up himself by appearing trapped in the Hollywoodness of his persona, a misfit for politics, but I think he’s too smart for that. Anyway it’s his race to lose.
Btw AL, you forgot the other Arnold!
Oh, I agree that Panetta’s a sharp guy and if you want an insider who knows how to handle the levers of power and will work with the legislature and the various interest groups effectively, then he’s a good choice.
But that wasn’t what A.L was describing in the qualities he was looking for in a candidate. Panetta would be very status-quo; he would be more effective about it and would be something of a “clean slate” in replacing the hack, Davis, who is only good at campaigning, not at governing. Panetta would be better at governing – but in accord with those very things that A.L. says he wants cleansed.
(I know he started as a Republican, but when he switched, he switched and meant it; now, he’s about as much a Republican as Phil Gramm was a Democrat in his last term in office).
In any case, it’s only for Governor – everything else is not up for grabs, and believe me, whoever gets elected will get a “message” from the State Legislature, an offer he can’t refuse. . .
A significant number of Californians have exercised their legal privilege and petitioned their elected government to recall Gray Davis. Truly democracy in action.
Defending Gray Davis is a little like defending Saddam Hussein. Everyone admits he ought to go, and it’s difficult to justify opposing a movement to make that happen. Davis is just plain bad for California, and over half of the voters in the last election said so.
No matter how you spin it, it’s not about George Bush. It’s about the mismanagement of the State of California by Gray Davis, and by an entrenched legislature owned by special interests. This only way it becomes about Bush is by denying the realities of the current governance of California.
Is Arnold the best possible candidate for governor? Maybe not. Can he win? Probably, he only needs to get the highest number of votes if the recall succeeds.
*More here*
Not to be the classroom scold, but the Lt. Gov’s name is Bustamante, not Bustamente…
And I’ve been close enough to the Legislature in Sacramento to confirm Joanne Jacob’s assessment of Bustamante’s intellectual capabilities. Recalling Davis in ’03 and replacing him with Bustamante will only enhance Republican chances in ’06, as Cruz would very likely prove even more incapable of making tough decisions and imposing discipline on the Legislature than Davis.
What is interesting about Arnold’s candidacy is that he alone is the only one who might bring new voters to the election. No one else (Flynt? Huffington? Camejo?) will do so in enough numbers to really influence the outcome. Finally, I think the most interesting dynamic to watch in this race will be the choices of the “No” voters on the recall. I am not convinced they will prevail (and no one should dismiss that they could…) on the recall itself, but I think they will prove decisive in electing Davis’s replacement.
For secondary entertainment, follow the rising tension between CA Latinos and organized labor. California Democratic Party splitting…?
linden, interesting article. I especially liked this part at the end:
The author’s slant is so obvious that I’m unwilling to accept anything he’s claimed there at face value.
And as for Bustamante and his intelligence, not to mention his electability, let’s not forget this little oopsie:
This was, of course, during a Black History Month speech. Can you imagine the anti-Bustamante campaign commercials? The possibilites are endless…
Christopher, I’ve never heard of that soundbite either but as I’ve heard, Arnie is fond of suing and never sued regarding that article. I’ve read Premiere fact-checked it to hell and could back up everything in it with legitimate information.
Thinking of Dukakis as the “Terminator” and then thinking of him in that tank does not compute.
Reason says he has *libertatian leanings* .
Reason says he has *libertatian leanings* .
This is just a test.
I give up. Joe the code you have posted for including urls doesn’t work or I’m a dunce. more likely the latter. What did I do wrong?
Simon
Reason says he has * <a href=”http://www.reason.com/sullum/080803.shtml” > libertatian leanings * .
This is just a test.
Actually, my big confusion was how campaigning for Bush (and uttering inanities) equated to “espousing right-wing politics”.
It seems likely, though, based on this and quite a few other tales that are rapidly coming to light, that Arnie has a history of sexually inappropriate behavior. I’ll be pretty suprised if any of the other candidates try to use that against him, though (certainly Bustamante, as noted above, shouldn’t be throwing too many bricks).
Probably because if you espouse a certain candidate you must believe in at least some of his views? So if you go for a Republican you must at least, agree with some of the views on the right side of the aisle? It seems logical to me.
Here’s something positive about Arnie. (This is an excellent blog btw.) There are quite a few rumors he is or was good friends with Jörg Haider:
“Critics have been quick to point out that Gustav Schwarzenegger, Arnold’s father, was a Nazi party member, but it should be noted that the primary reason that this is public knowledge is because Arnold himself approached the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles (to which he donates money on a regular basis), requesting they conduct a full investigation. The Center could find no indication Gustav had been involved in any atrocities; I would surmise that perhaps Gustav’s joining the Nazi party was motivated by opportunism rather than ideology.
Various sources corroborate the story that Jörg Haider, former leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, was visiting the Center and was incensed to see his portrait on the “Wall of Shame” (next to Idi Amin) and said he’d “complain to Arnold.” After examining Haider’s record, Schwarzenegger called him to tell him that, yes, his picture belonged on that wall. By all accounts, Schwarzenegger has gone to great lengths to break with, and make some restitution for, one of the more unsavoury periods in Austrian history.”
M. Simon…
My code was the problem, it wasn’t displaying correctly up top. Since I always type the URLs out and never look for instructions, I never saw the problem.
Apologies. Fixed now, as you can see.
So if you go for a Republican you must at least, agree with some of the views on the right side of the aisle?
The right side of the aisle, of course. I think we can agree that that’s not the same as “right-wing”–I usually vote for Democrats, and that certainly doesn’t make me “left-wing”, even though my picks are usually on the left side of the aisle. In other words, campaigning for Bush no more indicates de facto support for right-wing ideologies than campaigning for Gore equates to the left wing.
Sorry to be splitting hairs, I just think that the author’s bias is a little too much in the concluding passage, and for me it somewhat stains the rest of the article.
Liberal is a FILTHY 7 letter word!
Christopher wrote:
“I’ll be pretty suprised if any of the other candidates try to use that against him.”
The key word there is “candidates”, though; they’ll just have their proxies, like Katie Couric and Tim Noah and their ilk, do the dirty work for them, as folks like Linden are showing (thanks, btw, to the people who have posted in this thread to prove my thesis, initially posted here, true. I like it when I can get such theories proved quickly).
By the way, just so I can keep up with the whipsawing, I’m to take it that sexual misbehavior matters again? For the last several years Libs have been saying how it doesn’t matter and should be kept out of politics. Or was that just another case of what Christopher Hitchens called “thinking like an aparachick” – keeping two sets of moral books; “everyone does it” and it doesn’t matter when it’s their guy, but now it can and should be used?
Christopher also wrote:
“right-wing ideologies than campaigning for Gore equates to the left wing”
So would you characterize Gore’s latest speeches, such as the one he gave to the Leftists at MoveOn yesterday, as moderate? Or Left wing? Seems to me that as soon as Gore stopped worrying about election politics, he’s revealed the real him to be fairly far to the Left, not analogous (IMO) to G.H.W. Bush.
Btw, regarding this and various assertions about how Dems. are just tacking Left for the primaries and will go to back to the center for the General Election, and what Gore indicates regarding that thesis, see here.
I’m sorry. Are you trying to indicate I’m an ‘apparatchik’? Or that the information I’ve brought to the table makes him look good and bad? Frankly, for me, this is a traveling circus and damn fun. I’m hoping Webster and Silvester Stallone run as well.
they’ll just have their proxies, like Katie Couric and Tim Noah and their ilk, do the dirty work for them
Uh-oh, it’s a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy!
Seriously, they’ll have their proxies act for them? Do you honestly believe that there’s some great collusion between Democratic politicians and media personalities (“journalist” seemed too strong a word)?
…I’m to take it that sexual misbehavior matters again? For the last several years Libs have been saying how it doesn’t matter and should be kept out of politics.
Who’s been saying that it doesn’t matter. Lots of people said that lying about blowjobs wasn’t an offense that the President of the United States should be removed from office for, but I don’t recall hearing too many people say it didn’t matter.
By the way, you might not have noticed that I made no statement about whether allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior should be an issue in Shwarze–oh, forget it, Arnie’s campaign. But I’m happen to provide target practice for you, anyway.
So would you characterize Gore’s latest speeches, such as the one he gave to the Leftists at MoveOn yesterday, as moderate? Or Left wing? Seems to me that as soon as Gore stopped worrying about election politics, he’s revealed the real him to be fairly far to the Left, not analogous (IMO) to G.H.W. Bush.
This may or may not be true, and has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Linden wrote:
“I’m sorry. Are you trying to indicate I’m an ‘apparatchik’?”
Depends on whether the shoe fits on you or not – I’m commenting on an attitude transformation noticable in some of the information you brought to the table, where some folks are clearly evidencing that.
Christopher wrote:
“Seriously, they’ll have their proxies act for them?”
Read my comments in this thread. In any case, I was agreeing with you, but if you don’t think that stories are being spread in a rather partisan way about Schwartzenegger, and you can scoff and sneer if you’d like but that’s not a rebuttal of empirical reality, nor does it an argument make.
“but I don’t recall hearing too many people say it didn’t matter.”
Then you haven’t been paying attention to the various comments and remarks made right up to the present. I invite you to go back and read the various remarks in comments threats to posts in this very blog for just one sort of sample. ; the dismissive attitude boiling it down to “lying about sex” &tc. . .but now all the sudden very many people who scoffed at similar stories about Clinton and were dismissive about them are, as we see, very interested in digging up dirt on Schwartzenegger and spreading it about.
By the by, Clinton and his minions, like Sidney Blumenthal, did more than “lie about blowjobs” – again, re-read my comments in this thread: efforts to portray Clinton’s Women as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” (as one of his people in charge of managing “bimbo eruptions” – note, again, the characterization of the women by the “feminist party” here, put it), the “politics of personal destruction” aimed at them, was very active and for the most part very successful, for all that this behavior has been slipped down the memory hole by those who blindly support “their side” in this – slipped down the memory hole after the garment I alluded to in the above comment I am refering you to was produced, which caused these efforts to fail in one (and only one) case.
“But I’m happen to provide target practice for you, anyway.”
Actually, that’s my fault because I was unclear – I left the impression that that part of my comment was directed at you, when it wasn’t. It’s related to some of the things that are being brought into the campaign, that I was refering to (and were linked to and mentioned by others in this thread). I plead guilty for leaving the impression that was directed at you, though, since it was in a paragraph after another paragraph that was in response to something you wrote. My fault for not making a clearer distinction.
“This may or may not be true, and has nothing to do with the point I was making.”
Well, then there you were the one who was being unclear, in how you invoked Gore by way of comparison.
See here for more.
Snerk. Any attitude adjustment is more closely related to my insatiable appetite for gossip. See FameTracker.com Check out the reports on JLo and Ben while you’re at it. The Schwarzenegger topic is hopping as well. (It’s a pretty liberal site but extremely funny as well. There were quite a few arguments over the war in the topic forums.)
Well, if salacious gossip is the angle you’re comming from, then that’s fine; however, my reference – in the way I put it (which wasn’t directed at you specifically any more than it was directed at Christopher, but certainly *does* apply to how some folks are handling this), is not refuted just because some folks are only reacting to the salacious nature of things and gossipmongering.
Thanks for the link, but I don’t really care about J-Lo and Ben’s lives, except in respect to the South Park episode, and celebrity gossip isn’t really my bag. Also, just to clarify something: if anyone is coming to the conclusion based on my posts in this thread that *I’m* the one hung up on all this stuff, I invite anyone who cares to to peruse all my comments in reply to other posts on this site, including ones where other people referenced Clinton & sex, and also enter “Clinton” into the search engine on my weblog (www.porphyrogenitus.net) to see the degree to which I have or haven’t made mention of these matters.
I will however say that that stuff was “all about sex” in the same way that Nixon’s got nailed for “a third rate burglary”, for all that partisans on both sides try to slip a lot of things out of their memories.
Oh, come now. There were some interesting rumors recently about Ari Fleischer and George Stephanopolous…
I wrote:
“This may or may not be true, and has nothing to do with the point I was making.”
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Well, then there you were the one who was being unclear, in how you invoked Gore by way of comparison.
The original subject of my statement was (to me) the fallacious equation between campaigning for Bush and “espousing right-wing ideologies” in the last paragraph of the article linden linked to above; my point was that campaigning for Gore (in 2000, I’m thinking) hardly made one an espouser of left-wing ideologies, and even though I voted against Bush and disagree with a lot of what he believes and does, I hardly think the man is right-wing, and good ol’ Arnie’s a lot less right-wing than him.
Linden wrote:
“Oh, come now. There were some interesting rumors recently about Ari Fleischer and George Stephanopolous…”
Different strokes for different folks; the degree to which I, personally, have interest in that is probably summed up in the fact that I haven’t a clue what you might be alluding to. That might also be why though you’re coming at this from the point of view of being titilated by salacious gossip, that wasn’t even a possibility that had even entered my mind. Again, though; different strokes for different folks. I’m sure I have interests and hobbies that *you* would find uninteresting or inane or pointless.
Christopher wrote:
“The original subject of my statement was (to me) the fallacious equation between campaigning for Bush.” [&tc]
Fair enough.
I am sort of surprised more people don’t just think the Recall of Davis is a bad idea – not because he’s a good Governor (he isn’t), but because there was a choice made less than a year ago, and Davis was no better a Governor then, and the people of California collectively decided that they prefered him over the option(s) available.
I’ve had more critical feedback for my Blog posts comming out against the Recall than any other post I’ve made on my Blog; but I really see this as a sort of “do over election” more than a Recall and I think the consequences down the road could be worse than the “cure”. Especially since simply removing Gray Davis IMO is hardly a solution (I mean, it isn’t as if he’s a rogue Governor acting without the support of the State Legislature – which passed the budgets that got everything into the huge deficit as well); I understand why California voters are disgruntled and disgusted, but IMO that would have been reason to vote them out last year, or reason to vote them out in the next Election – perhaps supporting Democratic challengers in a primary if the voters are Democrats but don’t like how the establishment apparatus is mishandling and bungling things. Yes, the deficit is bigger than Davis claimed it would be, but it was known that it would be (his opponents said it would be), and IMO that’s not a rationale for Recalling him.
IMO, and just IMO, a Recall should be reserved for when things come to light between elections that can’t wait till the next one – arguably, Gary Condit could and should have been Recalled. But Gray Davis isn’t any worse a Governor than he was prior to last November, voters prefered him to the other options available to them anyhow. A do-over to get a new slate of candidates seems like. . .well, almost like abuse-of-process.
My analogy on this has been somewhat similar to my arguments against the ballot-switch in the New Jersey Senate Election last year – nothing new was discovered about “the Torch”, it’s just that when what had already been known by the cognocenti got out and it became clear that it would *matter* in the election, they decided to chuck out normal proceedure and swap candidates (I also think that Republicans who were up in arms about that should think about how that relates to their support – if they support it – of the California Recall).
I think that there will be unwelcomed ramifications to removing a Governor under the circumstances that Davis is likely to be removed over – and I say this having no love for Davis, nor any sense of shadenfreude over the California situation (which is dragging the whole country, considering how big a factor California is, down too). But if I lived in California (which I don’t), I would vote “No” on the first question.
In light of the current mess, Hasn’t anyone realized the real candidate is Ronald Reagan?
#1: He’s done it before.
#2: He’s handled worse crisises.
#3: He can insult anybody and not worry about re-election.
#4: The Federal Government pays for his security detail.
#5: If he screws it up, and says “I don’t know how it happened”, It’ll be the truth!
#6: Isn’t eligible for a pension.
#7: They already have an official portrait.
#8: Combines wisdom of age with the freshness of inexperience.
#9: Can be excused if he cat-naps all day long.
#10: Won’t argue with the Legislature about anything except “Where’s Gorbachev?”
#11: If any member of the Executive or Legislature demonstrates incompetence / stupidity greater then him, Nobody’ll mind their euthanization.
#12: Didn’t have a single thing to do with the Electric Power crisis ( that he can honestly remember).
#13: Will sign anything for a cookie and chocolate milk.
He’s ineligable, though; California’s Constitution has term limits for the Governor.
See, I’ve *also* been telling people that term limits suck, but no one listens. . .