Why is it wrong to have a backup plan?

Last night while surfing news stations as this media junky is apt to do, I heard Alan Colmes, the "liberal" half of Hannity and Colmes, arguing the point with Ann Lewis that it was not pure for the California Democrats to both oppose the recall and to support Cruz Bustamante as a backup candidate. I've heard others make this point, but usually from the right, so I was surprised to hear Colmes go down this road, but I guess, as Dylan once said in his born again phase, "you gotta serve somebody", but I don't think he meant Fox News.

Maybe Futurballa is too much of a pragmatist to see the contradiction here. I don't see the problem with taking the stance that A) Davis has the fight of his life coming up and his chances of winning are 50/50 at best. B) This recall was heavily funded by Republicans who failed to take any major office in California in the last election and see this as the only way to rest the Governor's mansion from the Democrats. C) In a normal situation if Davis could not continue to serve out his term, Bustamante would be the legal and natural successor. Taking A+B+C, why should the Democrats roll over for the right wing and hand them the Governorship when a proper succussor is standing in the wings. It would be nice if the law said that when a Governor is recalled it is the same result as if he died, resigned or was impeached, but the recall law is an anomaly.

One thing though where I agree with some of Cruz's critics, get a new name for your website. This is just too unwieldy...

www.noonrecallyesonbustamante.com