He was California's governor and hoped to be his party's next nominee for president or vice president. His slim chances were dashed -- at least for the time being -- when activists who didn't like him, his tax increases or his plans to cut school and health care funds mounted a campaign to recall him from office.

At first, politicians from the opposing party kept their distance. No past attempt to recall a governor had succeeded. But the recall seemed to have legs, and by June his supporters were worried.

The scenario may sound familiar. But the target was actually Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan and the year was 1968.

Several governors prior to Reagan and all who followed have been the subjects of recall drives in California. Most drives fizzled fast. A 1940 attempt against Democrat Culbert Olson and the 1968 campaign against Reagan went further but still fell short of qualifying for a special election.

Thirty-five years later, a campaign to oust second-term Democratic Gov. Gray Davis is gaining momentum. What worries the governor's supporters is that this campaign, unlike earlier ones, is financed by a multimillionaire congressman who wants to replace Davis as governor.

The state faces a $38.2 billion budget deficit, far worse than Davis was predicting during last year's re-election campaign. Californians are upset about likely tax increases, rising college tuition and cuts to health care services. The budget problems come on the heels of an energy crisis. Davis also lacks the Gipper's people skills and has historically low approval ratings.

Davis and his supporters call the campaign an abuse of the recall process, noting Davis is being blamed for a budget crisis, not corruption, and that Rep. Darrell Issa, a San Diego Republican who wants to be governor, is bankrolling the recall drive.

"I think recalls should be reserved for very substantial violations, when an elected official has violated the law or engaged in corruption," said Steve Smith, Davis' labor secretary, who is on leave to direct a union-funded anti-recall campaign. "That's simply not the case here. You can agree or disagree with this governor's positions. But he has certainly not violated the law, and frankly he has led the state through some very tough times."

A survey of history books, newspaper clippings and recall petitions housed in the state archives suggests that in all 31 earlier gubernatorial recall campaigns, the key driving factors were something other than outright corruption. Rather, they were spurred by frustration with the economy, dissatisfaction with specific policy decisions or just plain dislike of the incumbent.

California's recall system was established in 1911 under reformist Gov. Hiram Johnson. Progressives, who were enacting similar initiatives across the West, believed Californians needed remedies against political bosses and powerful entities such as Southern Pacific Railroad, which was thought to wield too much control over state politics.

But the wording of California's recall provisions leaves open to debate just what should trigger the process. The provisions, included in the state Constitution and California election law, spell out the administrative requirements that must be met for the process to move forward: Before a gubernatorial recall election can be held, at least 12 percent of voters in the previous election must sign a petition of support; for Davis, that means recall organizers can't hold an election unless they gather 897,158 signatures.

But the provisions don't set forth any standards of corruption or ineptitude that must be proven or even alleged before a recall can be launched -- leaving lots of room for interpretation.

Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a public interest group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, argues the provisions should be viewed in the context of the times in which they were written and used only in extreme cases: "It was really intended to be an emergency stopgap measure," Holman said. "It really wasn't designed to be used as what appears to be a political ploy."

Counters Tony Quinn, a former GOP consultant who co-edits a nonpartisan elections guide: "They said you, the people, should decide. If you don't like what he's doing, that's a good enough reason."

It was 1936 before a governor became a target. Republican Frank Merriam was a Depression-era lieutenant governor who ascended to the top spot when Gov. James Rolph died in June 1934. Merriam was elected outright later that year, in an election that pitted him against a controversial Democratic nominee in socialist Upton Sinclair.

But from the start, he was on shaky ground. The economy was in shambles and unions were on strike; at one point during Merriam's tenure, the National Guard was sent to San Francisco to keep the peace. To keep government running, Merriam proposed raising taxes on alcohol and establishing a personal income tax. He was accused of caving in to oil and power interests on an array of issues.

A recall petition accused him of "misleading and false reports of the financial condition of this state," of "plunging this state deeper and deeper into debt" and of being controlled by "monopolistic lobbyists." The recall was a dud, but Merriam lost the next election in 1938.

His successor, Democrat Culbert Olson, faced three recall tries.

Olson made the controversial decision to commute the sentence of a labor leader convicted in a fatal bombing. Some wanted Olson to block tax increases and cut back on Depression-era relief programs. Meanwhile, the Ham and Eggs movement, which wanted a weekly pension for senior citizens, blamed Olson when the movement failed. The last recall effort against him came close to qualifying but fell short with the Nazi invasion of France.

Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, said the Olson and Davis cases have parallels.

"A governor caught between the left and the right," Cain said. "A budgetary crisis with this demand on the right for no tax increases."

And the potential foreign policy impact: "War ended quickly in Iraq, as opposed to the invasion of France ... but if (Middle East conflict) were to cook up this summer, you could once again have a distraction."

Recalls were not attempted against Republican Govs. Earl Warren and Goodwin Knight. But three were aimed at Democrat Edmund "Pat" Brown for his alleged waffling on the death penalty, raising taxes, promoting racial mixing, "appointing a carpetbagger" and favoring special interests.

Recalls were tried in 1979 and 1980 against Reagan's successor, Democrat Edmund "Jerry" Brown, by those who disliked his presidential ambitions and what petitioners described as "ultra-liberal" ways.

Republican George Deukmejian was targeted several times over budget cuts for the poor and by a critic who accused him of poor coastal protection policies. Unions and critics of Proposition 187, which sought to deny state services to illegal immigrants, went after Republican Pete Wilson.

Davis supporter Smith said the current recall drive ought to go the way of the previous ones.

"Virtually all of those failed because the issues raised were not substantial enough to convince enough voters to sign petitions," he said. "Were it not for a very substantial infusion of money from one particular Republican politician who wants to be governor, the same thing would be happening in this situation."

But election handicapper Quinn said Davis' political maneuverings could turn the public against him. Davis spent $10 million in last year's Republican primary, undercutting former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan so that he instead could run a general election against novice Bill Simon. Then, Quinn said, he understated the depth of state budget problems.

"There's a feeling with a lot of people that we didn't have a fair choice," Quinn said. "And that's a legitimate argument in the minds of what the progressive reformers intended."