[AutoJC]

First it was the groping incident.

Now ABC sees fit to report ON THIS

Attacks like these serve to vilify what, in my opinion is, a good, hard working, successful businessman who is in the public eye.

I hate the media for doing this ****.

Why the **** doesn't the media come out and say what Schwarzenegger replied when asked "What is the secret of your success?"

To which he replied, "I believe in following the adage, 'Stay Hungry.' "

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
First it was the groping incident.

Now ABC sees fit to report ON THIS

Attacks like these serve to vilify what, in my opinion is, a good, hard working, successful businessman who is in the public eye.

I hate the media for doing this ****.

Let me introduce you to the Democratic Party. They can't win on issues, but who needs ito win on issues when you can destroy a candidate's reputation and achievements.

[BlackGriffen]

*sniff*

I gotta admit, it smells like a hatchet job.

I knew Davis was a devious bastard from the description t_f and Crash gave, but.. *shakes head*

The allegations of the gropings, if true, mean Ahnold is reprehensible. The timing of the allegations is also suspect.

Welcome to dirty politics. Those with skeletons and skeleton-shaped stuff in their closet need not apply. Ahnold knew this, but jumped in to swim with the sharks and pirañas anyway.

BlackGriffen

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Let me introduce you to the Democratic Party. They can't win on issues, but who needs ito win on issues when you can destroy a candidate's reputation and achievements.

That's right- and the Democraps are using this spin because they know the people in California want Arnold!

I hope and pray that those who really want Arnold as governor follow their convictions and vote for him anyhow, and send that schmuck Bustamante to the showers.

[Logic]

Well I must say that if he said those things it should be brought up. But also that back in the days he tried to get publicity by doing these things.

But I agree, the personal "attacks" need to stop if we want to be able to keep up the standards.

I just hope he continues to do what he does best, and that is work hard. And win of course

[lil'babykitten]

Heh, American elections,

Less sensationalism and more substance would do better than this crap.

[macvillage.net]

I'm for allowing it to happen.

Lets see the bad in everyone, and let them defend themselves.

Then lets decide with all the facts out on the table.

I'd perfer to know someone's history, before they take a job like that.

By running, you know this is going to happen. Arnold new well ahead of time this was going to happen. And he decided that was Ok.

I want the dirt on everyone. I want to know who was an accused what, who is a convicted what, and who is suspected of what.

Then when I know all the dirt, i will decide if having an unpaid parking ticket is a sign of bad character, or various charges of assault is a bad thing.

If your going to serve the public... the public should know who you are.

Obviously, Arnold (or anyone else) shouldn't have to stand up and say who he had sex with, and every mistake he made. But should aknowledge that people will do research, and they should aknowledge the truth.

But if someone can uncover it... then it's notworthy.

I'd have much more confidence behind someone who admits wrongdoing in the past... then someone who denies it over and over again.. that's bad character.

You don't know much about how good someone will be in office... have to use what's available, and within reach.


take all the info, sort the good from the bad... and see what you have.

If he's got the best character and integrety of them all, and is best suited... nothing will matter.

If he's a real sicko, immoral, and unethical... lets find out now.


It's a good system. Allows the public to get good insight.

And false testimony doesn't go far. It gets discredited rather quickly. The media picks it appart and it becomes obvious if someone was looking to just be a jerk and screw someones chances at getting into office.

[icruise]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Let me introduce you to the Democratic Party. They can't win on issues, but who needs ito win on issues when you can destroy a candidate's reputation and achievements.

Folks, anyone who thinks that only one party plays "dirty politics" is fooling themselves on a grand scale. The sad fact is that this kind of thing happens on both sides with more or less the same regularity. The Republicans have been shameless in their demonization of Clinton, for example.

But on the other hand, I'm not really sure that these are so off base. If a candidate for office expresses admiration for Hitler, that should give people pause, don't you think?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Icruise:
But on the other hand, I'm not really sure that these are so off base. If a candidate for office expresses admiration for Hitler, that should give people pause, don't you think?

Exactly my point.

Lets see the data... and let the public decide.

That's what elections are about. Unlike what some conservatives think... it's up to the general public, not an the parties to choose who gets into office.

If the dirt on an individual is bad... they will not make it.

If it's harmless garbage... it won't harm them at all.

[chris v]

If he really said it, it's not dirty politics, it's the truth. Dirty politics would be if it were a lie, and so far Arnold merely "Doesn't remember" making those remarks. the same as he "doesn't remember" groping those women. He's not even really denying that he originally said it.

CV

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Folks, anyone who thinks that only one party plays "dirty politics" is fooling themselves on a grand scale. The sad fact is that this kind of thing happens on both sides with more or less the same regularity. The Republicans have been shameless in their demonization of Clinton, for example.

Clinton lied to a grand jury in a sexual harassment case against him. Have there been any charges files against Arnold?

Furthermore, we always hear liberals saying "Both sides do it...both sides do it". I don't think that's the case, at least not with the same frequency, intensity, or trashiness. As a matter of fact, many political pundits claim that it was Bush 41's reluctance to throw the trash around that cost him the reelection.

And the left has the press in its hands as well. With this instance, headlines read "Arnold Admires Hitler", when the appropriate translation should have said 'Arnold astounded by Hitler's Rise to Power'.

Both sides don't do it - not with the hatefulness and verocity of the left. However, after having trash thrown at you constantly - from every direction - by the Clinton team, one is inevitably going to throw some crap back at them.

That's how the Clinton's have changed politics. To run for office, a Republican must now be willing to smear-monger. Sitting idle in this Clinton-era of politics will cost Republicans elections.

Just look at the threads here - one can smell the left's hatred. And any Republican is fair game. That, my friends, is why i think we are going to see another civil war in our lifetimes, and it's going to be pretty damn bloody.

But on the other hand, I'm not really sure that these are so off base. If a candidate for office expresses admiration for Hitler, that should give people pause, don't you think?

"I don't remember making those comments because I always despised everything Hitler stood for, I hated the regime ... hated the Third Reich and the whole Nazi philosophy,"

Doesn't sound like admiration to me, and those statements were made in front of the whole world, and recently as well.

The alleged 1975 statements, from an unpublished book proposal with quotes from what it calls a "verbatim transcript" of the interview, clearly indicate that the two things Arnold "admires" (foreign translation should more appropriately have been "to marvel at" or "astounded by" - funny how 'admire' was the chosen translation) Hitler's ability to speak before a large crowd as a leader, and his rise to power from humble roots.

I see the spin you wish to continue on the alleged statements, but even the so-called author of the transcripts states that this "hitler-loving" interpretation is far off.

Keep digging.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Heh, American elections,

Less sensationalism and more substance would do better than this crap.

Yeah, like a military coup d'etat!!! humphhh. Gimme a break.

[icruise]

I never fail to be amazed at how people can have such radically different interpretations of events.

The left is a bunch of dirty-throwing scandal mongers? Have you listened to ANY of the right-wing talk radio or TV personalities? Most of these people are so hateful, they make me want to cringe.

Actually, I was being magnanimous when I said both sides do it -- I personally think the right takes the cake for hitting below the political belt. Read Al Franken's new book for a few examples.

[macvillage.net]

All that changed was Clinton made politics sexual. Sex is now associated with poltiics and the word "scandal".

Another change Clinton made was that there was no limit. Previously, you could only comment on prior political background. Clinton came to a suprising realization. Not everyone coming into poltics is an aristocrat anymore. Clinton himself wasn't. He was poor with a drunk dad as a kid. Politics wasn't for rich Virginians anymore.

With that, there is a gaping hole. Who are these people? Who is this guy who just came into the spotlight?

Many people don't question the media. They assume if the media talks about him... he must be important.

What they fail to see is that not everyone in politics gets a background check like in the past (where you had to have a clean image to be "in" with that crowd).

Clinton realized this (30 years late, but he did).

Clinton, among others decided to use that for himself. By showing Americans who his candidate really was, rather than who his candidate was trying to look like...

what he didn't realize, was that his own image wasn't very good... in fact, it was dreadful. He got caught in his own game.



As a sidenote Arnold was born in Austria. What has been for years (and is considered by most of Europe to still be) a Nazi sympathetic country.

That's not to say all Austrians love Hitler... that's not at all true. But many rich Nazi's fled to Austria after the war, and hid there for years. Many still do (now to old and weak to stand trial).

He is of course going to have different views on the topic of nazi's, and hitler, as he was born and grew up in a country where the perspective of the topic was quite different (depending on who you knew, and were you lived).

That doesn't make Arnold a Hitler lover. That doesn't make him a Hitler hater.

It should just be noted that his views will reflect his upbringing. Which may not be the same bias as the US or it's allies during the war have.

I don't think the statements say anything about him. They are of a different slant. That's all. Doesn't say much of anything really, other than he was in a history class in another country.

To be honest, a British child is going to have a bit different take on the American Revolution. Doesn't mean every british child is anti-american. Just means they learned things a bit different.

There are two sides to every story. That's what it means to be balanced and fair... showing both sides.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
All that changed was Clinton made politics sexual. Sex is now associated with poltiics and the word "scandal".

Another change Clinton made was that there was no limit. Previously, you could only comment on prior political background. Clinton came to a suprising realization. Not everyone coming into poltics is an aristocrat anymore. Clinton himself wasn't. He was poor with a drunk dad as a kid. Politics wasn't for rich Virginians anymore.

With that, there is a gaping hole. Who are these people? Who is this guy who just came into the spotlight?

Many people don't question the media. They assume if the media talks about him... he must be important.

What they fail to see is that not everyone in politics gets a background check like in the past (where you had to have a clean image to be "in" with that crowd).

Clinton realized this (30 years late, but he did).

Clinton, among others decided to use that for himself. By showing Americans who his candidate really was, rather than who his candidate was trying to look like...

what he didn't realize, was that his own image wasn't very good... in fact, it was dreadful. He got caught in his own game.



As a sidenote Arnold was born in Austria. What has been for years (and is considered by most of Europe to still be) a Nazi sympathetic country.

That's not to say all Austrians love Hitler... that's not at all true. But many rich Nazi's fled to Austria after the war, and hid there for years. Many still do (now to old and weak to stand trial).

He is of course going to have different views on the topic of nazi's, and hitler, as he was born and grew up in a country where the perspective of the topic was quite different (depending on who you knew, and were you lived).

That doesn't make Arnold a Hitler lover. That doesn't make him a Hitler hater.

It should just be noted that his views will reflect his upbringing. Which may not be the same bias as the US or it's allies during the war have.

I don't think the statements say anything about him. They are of a different slant. That's all. Doesn't say much of anything really, other than he was in a history class in another country.

To be honest, a British child is going to have a bit different take on the American Revolution. Doesn't mean every british child is anti-american. Just means they learned things a bit different.

There are two sides to every story. That's what it means to be balanced and fair... showing both sides.

Ummmm, didn't Arnold deny ever saying anything about Hitler?

[Jansar]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Let me introduce you to the Democratic Party. They can't win on issues, but who needs ito win on issues when you can destroy a candidate's reputation and achievements.

Yeah. Democrats make NO SENSE. They're the same people that think that both Arnie and Bush are "stupid" because they don't pronounce words correctly. For God's sake, one of the most brilliant physicists in history (Stephen Hawking) can't even talk without a machine that makes his voice sound weird. He's GOT to be stupid too, right?

And here's proof. I found it from the Fourth Edition Cruz Democratic Dictionary:

stu·pid (stoo'pid, styoo'-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est

1. One who cannot pronounce words like a typical American. (Arnold Schwarzenegger is stupid because he can't correctly pronounce the word "California.")

2. Marked by a lack of pronunciation skills; a foolish pronunciation.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Clinton lied to a grand jury in a sexual harassment case against him. Have there been any charges files against Arnold?

Furthermore, we always hear liberals saying "Both sides do it...both sides do it". I don't think that's the case, at least not with the same frequency, intensity, or trashiness. As a matter of fact, many political pundits claim that it was Bush 41's reluctance to throw the trash around that cost him the reelection.

Both sides don't do it - not with the hatefulness and verocity of the left. However, after having trash thrown at you constantly - from every direction - by the Clinton team, one is inevitably going to throw some crap back at them.

Yeah, right. Republicans never get dirty. No, they just 'out' an CIA operative in a time of war because her husband dared to criticize administration policy.

That's not trashy at all, is it? More like treasonous, hateful and criminal because it put real lives at risk. Get real. Both sides do it.

Back to topic: Even though it'll never be traced directly to Davis it has his fingerprints all over it. Every campaign he's been involved in has gone below the belt. I mean, WAY down below belt. He compared Diane Feinstein to Leona Hemsley once.

I don't know why any of them do it anyway. It just emboldens each side even more. The accused supporters' point to the other as being dirty and ignore the substance of the charges and the accuser's supporters get accused of dirty politics and don't score points with the dirt.

I don't think it changes anybody's mind.

Plus, comparing Monica-gate and Arnold's actions isn't valid. Clinton's actions, and I don't condone it, was a consensual act between two adults. Arnold's were not.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Yeah, right. Republicans never get dirty. No, they just 'out' an CIA operative in a time of war because her husband dared to criticize administration policy.

Firstly, the leak was not a concerted part effort. From what's been gathered, it looks to be a single source or two who inadvertently mentioned the woman's name. Furthermore, the woman's name was already out - It's on his bio at the Middle East Institute web site,, and has been since 2002.

From Mr. Joe Wilson himself:

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

From this story:

Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

Plus, comparing Monica-gate and Arnold's actions isn't valid. Clinton's actions, and I don't condone it, was a consensual act between two adults. Arnold's were not.

Clinton lied to a grand jury in a sexual harassment case brought against him. (revisit: Clinton disbarred from practicing law). Sexual harassment cases aren't brought against individuals if the act was consentual.

What charges were brought against Arnold? None. These women have had 10, 20, 30 years to tell their story. Why wait until he's a candidate to finally say something?

Additionally, the LA Times had this woman-groping story done weeks ago - at least 2 weeks ago by the smallest estimate, others involved have said longer. Why wait until 'Dirty Thursday' (infamous for bringing out the dirt the thursday before an election)? Add in the Limbaugh stories (including the Sunday comment whose firestorm was not unleashed nationwide until 'Dirty Thursday' approached to coincide with the pain pills story, and the whole Democratic Party stinks.

Both parties do not behave the same. Republicans will fight with law and issues. Democrats attack with coordinated personal smearing and destruction tactics.

Arnold apologized to the women he's offended, which is leaps and bounds more than Clinton's non-apologetic deceit towards his victims. Republicans who find themselves in scandals will, for the betterment of the party, will often step down (Bob Livingstone, Trent Lott) or resign (Limbaugh). Democrats will try anything to hold on to their power (Clinton, Toricelli), even if it includes more lying.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Have you listened to ANY of the right-wing talk radio or TV personalities? Most of these people are so hateful, they make me want to cringe.

Conservatives will challenge the arguments, positions, views, and voting records of Democrats, no doubt. But this is not hateful. It's debate.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
If a candidate for office expresses admiration for Hitler, that should give people pause, don't you think?

And what if a candidate (or Senator) was a longtime member of the Ku Klux Klan?

FYI- Both the LA Times and NY Times are backing off the Arnold-Hitler story, and their doing it fast. Chalk another one up to forgetting the check the facts.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Arnold's tasks on his first day as governor:

1. Pile on a little EXTRA make-work for his *ahem* Lt. Governor. Nothing too menial or degrading- fairness you know. See about tripling or perhaps quadrupling the Lt. Governor's taxes in the form of a *ahem* pay cut that any tax increase actually is. Hey, just a little TOUGH LOVE there Cruzer!

2. Audit Arianna.

3. Kick back in his new Sacramento digs. 1 and 2 are enough good deeds for one day!

[spacefreak]

4. Drive his Humvee over to the Statehouse and leave it running while dashing in to veto some far-reaching, non-sensical environmental legislation.

[Face Ache]

I really hope Schwarzenegger gets in.

American politics is like an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies.



Very entertaining (from a distance).

[spacefreak]

And for those of you wondering why the Democrats and media held up the release of the groping stories and Hitler 'admiring' for many weeks, it because they wanted to make sure the rest of the coordinated campaign was ready.

Religious and Women's Groups Unveil Anti-Schwartenegger Ads

Just when you thought the Democratic Party could stoop no lower.

[Macaddict06]

Let me throw me two cents in here. In a time of budget crisis, you are going to throw out your leader, then SPEND 45 MILLION DOLLARS to have another election? I knew Californians were odd, but never knew them to be downright stupid. You all fail to realize that by goign through with this process, your means negates your cause. You all are a product of Republican brainwashing. For shame.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I really hope Schwarzenegger gets in.

I hope so too...not because he's a Republican (well - a little), but more so because i think the public needs to say their tired of these Clinton-style, hold-onto-power-at-all-cost, political hack jobs.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by Macaddict06:
Let me throw me two cents in here. In a time of budget crisis, you are going to throw out your leader, then SPEND 45 MILLION DOLLARS to have another election? I knew Californians were odd, but never knew them to be downright stupid. You all fail to realize that by goign through with this process, your means negates your cause. You all are a product of Republican brainwashing. For shame.

$45 mil is chump change in Cali...in Wisconsin, well that would be a different story now.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Macaddict06:
I knew Californians were odd, but never knew them to be downright stupid. You all fail to realize that by goign through with this process, your means negates your cause. You all are a product of Republican brainwashing.

Well, isn't that just so elitist of you. Someone has a different view than you, so you accuse them (and me) of being brainwashed.

You don't live in California, nor are you aware of the issues. Yet you seem to think they are stupid (and odd). Let me guess...you're a liberal. Probably even a Dean fan? i can tell by the negative, hateful tone of your post.

What matters is that Californians want the measure on the ballot. If they wish to keep Davis, they can. Or they can choose someone else. But you (in Wisconsin) and I (in NJ) have no say in the matter. So accept that they're going to be voting on Tuesday.

If you want to discuss an issue, bring it on. I'll be more than happy to debate you - but please spare me the elitist, condescending attitude. You're no better than the next guy.

[icruise]

He's a condescending elitist, but when you say essentially the same thing about the left it's ok?

The re-election thing in California was totally engineered by the Republican party. This was no grass-roots uprising, but rather a concerted effort on the part of a few Republicans to get a Democrat out of office and a Republican in.

[Spliffdaddy]

So if the voters toss Davis - then you'd be wrong.

I'm thinking you're gonna be wrong.

It stands to reason that if the majority of California's voters choose to recall Davis - then it doesn't much matter who initiated the recall. It was the public's desire to see it done, if it happens.

[macvillage.net]

The great thing about republicans is that they always back their man.

Bush intentionally and knowingly lied during the state of the union...

If that was a Democrat, Republicans would have went nuts. And one Democrat would have spoken out, creating a serious rift. That would have been the end of that politicians career.

Republicans defend republicans it regardless of what they do, no hesitation.

That's why people feel more comfortable with republicans. Nobody can backstab you.

Librals, constantly trash eachother.

Democrats want to outdo each other.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So if the voters toss Davis - then you'd be wrong.

I'm thinking you're gonna be wrong.

It stands to reason that if the majority of California's voters choose to recall Davis - then it doesn't much matter who initiated the recall. It was the public's desire to see it done, if it happens.

No, the point is that this "public desire" was drummed up by the Republicans who started a media/petition campaign to convince people that they were unhappy enough with him to remove him from office.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The great thing about republicans is that they always back their man.

Bush intentionally and knowingly lied during the state of the union...

If that was a Democrat, Republicans would have went nuts. And one Democrat would have spoken out, creating a serious rift. That would have been the end of that politicians career.

Republicans defend republicans it regardless of what they do, no hesitation.

That's why people feel more comfortable with republicans. Nobody can backstab you.

Librals, constantly trash eachother.

Democrats want to outdo each other.

Conservatives, almost by definition, have something to defend: The status quo.

Liberals on the other hand have dreams* for the future. They just can't agree on what they are.



* No plans though, just dreams.

[clarkgoble]

Conservatives, almost by definition, have something to defend: The status quo.

It is very hard to see the actions of neo-Conservatives as seeking the status quo.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Icruise:
This was no grass-roots uprising, but rather a concerted effort on the part of a few Republicans to get a Democrat out of office and a Republican in.

There was a concerted effort on the part of a few Democrats to get a Republican out of office since... well... gee, EVERY governor since Reagan.

And there were attempts to oust EVERY Democrat governor as well.

Thirty one Gubernatorial recalls to be exact. Considering there haven't even been that many Governors of California since the recall was created, it's probably a safe bet that EVERY SINGLE GOVERNOR since the recall's inception, has had at least one brought against them… and most probably average two or three. (I believe this is Davis's second or third).

As with so many things, a ‘big lie’ has been manufactured around the current recall- making it out to be some 'dastardly deed' that wily Republicans just cooked up one day out of the blue, just to 'Get Davis.'

The reality of course is, recall efforts happen so frequently in Cali, I could set my watch to them and achieve the same precision accuracy as I can setting it to the absolute for-certain frequency that leftists will spew out false-alarm accusations of racism and nazism! (Well, okay, okay, I do exaggerate- NOTHING else on the planet is quite that predictable!)

Anyway, despite this current “everyone close your eyes let's pretend” conspiracy nonsense, recall efforts are nothing new in California. Not by a LONG shot. Sorry to disappoint. Nor are they all part of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It's a VERY common thing in California.

But the thing is, despite their alarming frequency, recalls RARELY, if ever work, and they’ve NEVER worked against a governor of Cali!

Whooooops! There goes a big wedge off the ‘big lie’-the idea a recall is such an easy thing to smack together ‘right wing conspiracy style’- sailing right out the window! Darn it all! Could someone go catch that? The ‘big lie’ is lookin; a little shabby all of a sudden!

Democrats are just mad that THIS recall, the FIRST out of 31... actually worked! ‘magine that!

Apparently some people can’t!

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
First it was the groping incident.

God, I agree, the media thrusting all sorts onto us, we had to endure more than a decade of his bollocks movies being put out by the film industry, then the media hyping them up, when will the torture end.

[chris v]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
God, I agree, the media thrusting all sorts onto us, we had to endure more than a decade of his bollocks movies being put out by the film industry, then the media hyping them up, when will the torture end.

I'm at the point of hoping he wins, just so California can get what it deserves.

CV

[gadster]

It's weird how the media have stayed so quiet about Enron.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
He's a condescending elitist, but when you say essentially the same thing about the left it's ok?

The re-election thing in California was totally engineered by the Republican party. This was no grass-roots uprising, but rather a concerted effort on the part of a few Republicans to get a Democrat out of office and a Republican in.

How many registered voters' signatures were collected in petition for the recall? My guess is that it is a lot more than a few. The left wants to portray the recall as a right-wing conspiracy, but the truth is that thousands upon thousands (upon even thousands more) of individuals place calls to the recall office to request petitions, which they then would float around to neighbors, coworkers, etc.. The initial publicity behind the recall was funded by Republican Issa, but it was the citizens of California who made this a reality.

If your point is true, then we should see the recall measure defeated with an 85% - 15% vote. If this occurs, then I will say your argument has some strength behind it. Otherwise, the recall will show that yes, indeed, the people of California want to and are willing to oust their governor.

Regardless, your argument plays into my hands. Republicans will battle with laws and arguments based on the issues. Democrats attack with smear campaigns and personal destruction tactics.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If your point is true, then we should see the recall measure defeated with an 85% - 15% vote. If this occurs, then I will say your argument has some strength behind it. Otherwise, the recall will show that yes, indeed, the people of California want to and are willing to oust their governor.

That's bull. Just because Davis gets recalled doesn't mean that the recall initiative wasn't exclusively the desire of the Republicans at first. It's possible that a lot of people, as in enough to get him recalled, didn't like Davis to begin with, but not enough to go to the effort of getting him recalled. It's also possible that a lot of people have been swayed by negative portrayals of Davis by the Republicans into moving more against him when they were neutral or even slightly favorable before. There are many possibilities that would lead to Davis being recalled even if the recall wasn't the desire of the people of California.

The outcome of the vote does not necessarily reveal the driving force behind it or the motives of the voters.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
That's bull. Just because Davis gets recalled doesn't mean that the recall initiative wasn't exclusively the desire of the Republicans at first. It's possible that a lot of people, as in enough to get him recalled, didn't like Davis to begin with, but not enough to go to the effort of getting him recalled. It's also possible that a lot of people have been swayed by negative portrayals of Davis by the Republicans into moving more against him when they were neutral or even slightly favorable before. There are many possibilities that would lead to Davis being recalled even if the recall wasn't the desire of the people of California.

The outcome of the vote does not necessarily reveal the driving force behind it or the motives of the voters.

The outcome of the vote reveals the desires of the people.

Why don't liberals ever want to discuss the issues involved? Instead, it's all "Republican conspiracy" theories.

Gray Davis campaigned for reelection on the premise that the state finances were in good shape, and increases in taxation were unlikely.

Immediately after being reelected, Davis suddenly declares that a $35 billion dollar defecit and budget crisis exists. Massive tax increases are needed ASAP, and significant cuts to public safety and education budgets have to be made.

That's why he's being recalled. He completely and thoroughly lied to the voters in order to be reelected.

When, as a voter, you're going to receive a tax bill that is three times what it was last year, and you just voted for a governor who said everything is fine, you tend to become pretty pissed off.

Republicans were definitely interested in passing around the petitions, this is true. But the petitions and arguments were based on issues and actual voter sentiment, not some fabricated "myths" that you accuse Republicans of devising.

[icruise]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The outcome of the vote reveals the desires of the people.

Since when do Republicans care about the "outcome of the vote" or the "desires of the people"?

But anyway, I'm curious. If Schwarzenegger were a Democrat, (or, if it were Tim Robbins running for office instead, for example) how would you react? Something tells me that the Republicans would be the first to say that he was unqualified, a representative of a liberal media, etc etc and wouldn't think twice about bringing up any minor incident in his past. Can you really deny that?

[pooka]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Can you really deny that?

That.
Is.
Politics.

Arnold is a freaking Democrat and Clark is a freakin Republican.

Everything is assbackwards and pretty soon people will be saying "Goodbye" when they greet and "Hello" when they leave. Or would it be "Badbye"?

Fire and brimstone. Cats and dogs living together. It's the apocalypse or something.

Soon America will collapse upon itself and the Aussie's shall inherit the Earth. May God have mercy on us all.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The outcome of the vote reveals the desires of the people.

Why don't liberals ever want to discuss the issues involved? Instead, it's all "Republican conspiracy" theories.

Yes, the outcome of the vote reveals the desires of the people, but the desires of the people may have been manipulated by the Republican party by their initiation of the drive for a recall. People who were borderline supporting Davis might have changed sides, people who didn't like him but never would have thought of a recall all of a sudden were presented this idea by an outside party. That's why it's not going to be an accurate indicator. The data has been tampered with.

I hope you're not insinuating that I'm a liberal. I voted for Bush, supported the war with Iraq (though not at first, and I don't approve of the way it's been handled since), and generally take the Republican side of arguments. Though I'm not by any means a Republican, I am certainly not one of the liberal Democrats the majority of conservatives on this board seem to despise so much.

And, for the record, I'm a Californian, despite my current locatoin.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
[B]It is very hard to see the actions of neo-Conservatives as seeking the status quo.

On a global scale I think that's exactly what they're trying to do.

Originally posted by pooka:
Soon America will collapse upon itself and the Aussie's shall inherit the Earth. May God have mercy on us all.

We don't want it. It sounds like work.

We'll have New Zealand though. Nice icecream.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
If Schwarzenegger were a Democrat, (or, if it were Tim Robbins running for office instead, for example) how would you react? Something tells me that the Republicans would be the first to say that he was unqualified, a representative of a liberal media, etc etc and wouldn't think twice about bringing up any minor incident in his past. Can you really deny that?

We're not talking about Arnold's qualifications in this thread. It is about the media attacks on Arnold, attacks that could have come out months ago, but were held back, coordinated, and specifically timed to hit on Dirty Thursday.

It is this coordination and timing of attacks, and the willingness and participation of the press, that I have problems with.

I don't live in California, so I wouldn't endose any candidate. From what I've read and seen in the televised debate, I'm probably more of a McClintock guy. But there is no need for me to soul-search to decide who I would vote for and why, since I'm not going to be voting.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by pooka:
Everything is assbackwards and pretty soon people will be saying "Goodbye" when they greet and "Hello" when they leave.

Read "Time's Arrow" by Martin Amis. Hysterically funny, beautifully written, about a man who experiences everything backwards. The funniest bits are about catching a taxi and having sex, albeit not with kitty cats.

[chris v]

It gets worse.

Three more women accuse Arnie.

As to the timing, is it at all possible that these women have finally come forward out of a renewed sense of horror at the idea that this guy might actually be on the brink of getting elected, and that they're tellling the truth, and have been galvanized to action by the current political circumstances?

I mean, that is within the realm of possibility-- that maybe he simply is a boorish groper.

CV

[nforcer]

Originally posted by Macaddict06:
Let me throw me two cents in here. In a time of budget crisis, you are going to throw out your leader, then SPEND 45 MILLION DOLLARS to have another election? I knew Californians were odd, but never knew them to be downright stupid. You all fail to realize that by goign through with this process, your means negates your cause. You all are a product of Republican brainwashing. For shame.

Thanks for the generalization that all Californians are "downright stupid". You are obviously informed on all the issues.

What you (and a lot of demos and other recall opponents) fail to recognize, is that spending $45 million on a special election to get the current guy out and get someone in who can fix the economy, will save a lot more than $45 million in the long run. It will only be a waste if Bustamonte wins, because his financial plans are as backwards as Davis's. Davis is a consistent loser who has failed to turn in results. Keeping a guy in office who is a proven loser is riskier than kicking him out.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by chris v:
It gets worse.

Three more women accuse Arnie.

As to the timing, is it at all possible that these women have finally come forward out of a renewed sense of horror at the idea that this guy might actually be on the brink of getting elected, and that they're tellling the truth, and have been galvanized to action by the current political circumstances?

I mean, that is within the realm of possibility-- that maybe he simply is a boorish groper.

CV

In California, we already have a freak for governor. His name is Gray Davis.

NOTE: Do a search on Google using keywords Jill Stewart, Gray Davis. Its all over the net.

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004099.html

"I guess Gray's biggest lie," says his former staffer who notes he often flies into a rage, "is pretending that he operates within the bounds of normalcy, which is not true. This is not a normal person. I will never forget the day he physically attacked me, because even though I knew he had done it before to many others, you always want to assume that Gray would never do it to you or that he has finally gotten help."

On the day in question, in the mid-1990s, the staffer was explaining to Davis that his perpetual quest for an ever-larger campaign chest (an obsession she says led Davis to routinely break fundraising laws by using his government office resources and non-political employees to arrange fundraisers and identify new sources of money) had run into a snafu. A major funding source had dried up. Recalls the former staffer: "He just went into one of his rants of, '**** the ****ing ****, ****, ****!'" I can still hear his screams ringing in my ears. When I stood up to insist that he not talk to me that way, he grabbed me by the shoulders and shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing! Think what you are doing to me!' And he just could not stop."

Perhaps the worst incident--long known to Davis-adoring editors of the Los Angeles Times but never published by them--was Davis's attack four years ago on a loyal aide in Los Angeles who for years acted as chief apologist for his "incidents."

The woman refuses to discuss the assault on her with the media, but has relayed much of the story to me through a close friend. On the day in question, State Controller Davis was raging over an employee's rearranging of framed artwork on his Los Angeles office walls. He stormed, red-faced, out of his office and violently shoved the woman, who we shall call K., out of his way. According to employees who were present, K. ran out clutching her purse, suffered an emotional breakdown, was briefly hospitalized at Cedars Sinai for a severe nervous dermatological reaction, and never returned to work again.



There are many more incidents. Including the one where Davis groped my ass while reaching for my wallet.