[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
California can't be the cause of ALL those problems.

I agree. I think one of the biggest problems is the huge drop in taxable income the last three years due to the stock market bubble bursting. Not only is the stock market as a whole not producing the same amount of taxable income, many people are writing off $3000 a person in capital loss. I'm sure this is having a huge impact not only on the federal gov't tax revenue, but also at the state level. In Virginia, personal property tax on vehicles was being phased out. After the bubble burst, the state government was forced to 'freeze' that phase out because it would devestate their tax income.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, quite a few governors have no experience "running anything before." Your argument makes sense against a neophyte like Perot or a number of others who have run for president (Sharpton, anyone?), but not governor. Governors fairly often come out of nowhere and get elected to that position with little or no previous political experience. Look at Reagan, for goodness sake! Or Bush!

Yeah, you're basically giving the 'fresh perspective' reason you get around here whenever someone questions his qualifications. Sorry, but I'm unconvinced of the logic in that move. So, for example, you go to the doctor for a rash, he gives you medicine. It works for a while but you have a relapse. So your next move is....where? A beautician? Plumber? Maybe an actor?

'Scuse me if that seems a bit of a risky way to fill a job position. Especially when it's the Chief Executive of the state that's the 5th largest economy in the world. That seems like a rational direction to you?

Plus, it doesn't make Arnold anymore qualified than Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman, or my butcher (if he got his papers in ).

As I said before , if he had ANY prior political experience I MIGHT be inclined to listen to him on the issues. Unfortunately, there is virtually NO discussion of what these people plan to do about the budget crisis. The only substantive thing Arnold has said is that he'll repeal the auto registration tax that was recently tripled.

Reagan was, at least, involved in unions (the Screen Actors Guild, I think) and was involved in the Congressional investigations into communism in the film industry. Jesse Ventura was the mayor of a city in Minnesota before his election.

I don't know Bush's prior history but I'll bet it didn't involve walking into a a situation where there was a $38 Billion budget deficit. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I think that is much more serious than just waltzing into status quo situation.

(edited for spelling correction)

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
'Scuse me if that seems a bit of a risky way to fill a job position. Especially when it's the Chief Executive of the state that's the 5th largest economy in the world. That seems like a rationale direction to you?

I agree with you, to a point. It is important to note, however, the arnold (or whomever gets elected) will not be formulating economic policy, he will hire supposedly competent professionals to do that. In this sense, it seems to me that one of the most important qualifications in elected officials (other than honesty) is the ability to judge character/intellect. In other words, a governor needs to be an effective manager, not an expert in politics.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
I agree with you, to a point. It is important to note, however, the arnold (or whomever gets elected) will not be formulating economic policy, he will hire supposedly competent professionals to do that. In this sense, it seems to me that one of the most important qualifications in elected officials (other than honesty) is the ability to judge character/intellect. In other words, a governor needs to be an effective manager, not an expert in politics.

Sorry, but that's not quite right. That's a fundamental portion of the Governor's job. Setting economic policy and setting spending for the state is one of his primary duties.

That's one of the reasons for the whole recall. Dissatisfaction with Davis and the mess with the budget. I don't believe the fault is entirely his but that's another topic.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Sorry, but that's not quite right. That's a fundamental portion of the Governor's job. Setting economic policy and setting spending for the state is one of his primary duties.

That's one of the reasons for the whole recall. Dissatisfaction with Davis and the mess with the budget. I don't believe the fault is entirely his but that's another topic.

Two points:

A)Sure, the Governor is technically responsible for setting economic policy and spending, but he (like any other elected official) will hire an expert staff to do this. He will put in as much input as possible and then sign it. Technically, it is the President's job do send a budget proposal to congress, but do you think Bush (or any other pres) writes it out himself, or even knows what half of it means?

B)As far as Davis being at fault for the budget... maybe, maybe not. I'm not too up on California politics/economics. I do know that California's Capital Gains tax revenue fell from 17 Bil to 4 Bil due to the bubble bursting. That's hardly his fault.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Two points:

A)Sure, the Governor is technically responsible for setting economic policy and spending, but he (like any other elected official) will hire an expert staff to do this. He will put in as much input as possible and then sign it. Technically, it is the President's job do send a budget proposal to congress, but do you think Bush (or any other pres) writes it out himself, or even knows what half of it means?

B)As far as Davis being at fault for the budget... maybe, maybe not. I'm not too up on California politics/economics. I do know that California's Capital Gains tax revenue fell from 17 Bil to 4 Bil due to the bubble bursting. That's hardly his fault.

As I understand it, other huge contributing factors are Enron losses, and 10 years of deregulation of the energy companies...since he's only been in office one year I don't see how that can be pinned on him.

I'm not in California, though, so there might be other mitigating factors I'm unaware of, but as a very casual outside observer, it appears that he's taking the heat for at least some things he had no control over, initially by a guy who just wanted him out of the way to get his job.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
As I understand it, other huge contributing factors are Enron losses, and 10 years of deregulation of the energy companies...since he's only been in office one year I don't see how that can be pinned on him.

I'm not in California, though, so there might be other mitigating factors I'm unaware of, but as a very casual outside observer, it appears that he's taking the heat for at least some things he had no control over, initially by a guy who just wanted him out of the way to get his job.

I believe he was in office for one term prior to last years election...
Link

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Two points:

A)Sure, the Governor is technically responsible for setting economic policy and spending, but he (like any other elected official) will hire an expert staff to do this. He will put in as much input as possible and then sign it. Technically, it is the President's job do send a budget proposal to congress, but do you think Bush (or any other pres) writes it out himself, or even knows what half of it means?

Sorry, I don't know what the Gov in Virginia is responsible for but the CA Governor is VERY involved in the budgetary process. He's more than just a figurehead signing off on subordinates work. Apportionment of money is the primary way of shaping public policy and priorities. The battles between the Gov's office and the State legislature over large and small budget decisions have been a major topic in CA politics in the last few years.

As for Bush...I have no doubt that he doesn't understand half the budget (is my democratic slip showing? ). It would interfere with his month long vacations to be more involved.

Davis is a policy wonk. The guy is hands on with everything. His administration kind of reminds me of Jimmy Carter. Well-meaning guys but maybe a step over their heads. That still doesn't qualify Arnold to step in.

Lerk, this is Davis' second term. He's barely one year into his re-election from last November. Again this is off-topic, but during his first term he had to deal with the energy crisis. That's a REALLY involved topic. We don't want to go there. People were steaming about that last Nov but his opponent was so undesirable that he was considered the lesser of two evils. The complaint now is that he knew that the budget crisis was very severe ($38 billion in the red) but hid or never discussed the seriousness of the situation. That's a very short synopsis.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Sorry, I don't know what the Gov in Virginia is responsible for but the CA Governor is VERY involved in the budgetary process. He's more than just a figurehead signing off on subordinates work. Apportionment of money is the primary way of shaping public policy and priorities. The battles between the Gov's office and the State legislature over large and small budget decisions have been a major topic in CA politics in the last few years.

I'll take your word for it, since you live there I will take your word for. As far as being a figurehead, he is probably more of one than you would like to believe. Most are, if not all, to some extent. Having an MBA in Finance is not a requirement for elected office, last time I checked. Just about every major expense a state government makes has a corresponding department.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by vmpaul:

As I said before , if he had ANY prior political experience I MIGHT be inclined to listen to him on the issues. Unfortunately, there is virtually NO discussion of what these people plan to do about the budget crisis. The only substantive thing Arnold has said is that he'll repeal the auto registration tax that was recently tripled.

You don't get elected talking about substantive policy. After three minutes, your prospective voters fall asleeep. If you can't explain what your big ideas to address problems are inside of that time, then your ideas aren't going to get you elected. - This goes for dems as well as Repubs --- Begala and Carville HATED when Clinton would open his mouth on policy during the campaign. It detracted from his message and put people to sleep.

It seems to me that your real bone to pick is that Mr. Schwarzenegger has never held political office prior to this run. Well guess what: neither had Jimmy Carter. Neither have 90% of the folks in State Legislatures. Neither had Sen. John Edwards, who won Senator his first time out. You get experience by getting elected, period.

You seem to want people to either have had political background and experience before running for their first time, or to have run for every lower office first, from Dog Catcher on up. But the truth is, plenty of people come from inexperience to troubled situations that the previous office holder has left behind, and succeed. Mr. Davis has had a term, and has not done much good with the legacy of his predecessors. If folks want his election recalled (and they appear to) then it's an open season. Mr. Schwarzenegger nor anyone else needs to have held office as Soil and Water Commissioner first.

[Spliffdaddy]

I guess it's no secret why the other 49 states think California is seriously strange.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
As I understand it, other huge contributing factors are Enron losses, and 10 years of deregulation of the energy companies...since he's only been in office one year I don't see how that can be pinned on him.

California energy was never truly deregulated.

Why the crisis in California? Not because of deregulation, but because of an absence of deregulation. The system that existed prior to ''deregulation'' in California -- and indeed, still exists in most of the country -- was like a grocery store network that was owned by the fishing industry. Access to the market (sales of food to grocery store customers, or the electricity distribution ''wires'') was wholly controlled by the people who manufactured the finished product (the fishermen, or the power generators). California legislators rightfully recognized that this system is inherently non-competitive, since the generators -- the fishermen -- had a vested interest in preventing access to the distribution system -- the grocery stores -- to anyone but themselves. Not only did this system prevent competition in the market (e.g., lower fish prices), but it also eliminated any opportunities for providers of new products, be they steam turbines, solar panels, or broccoli to enter the market.

The utilities were broken up into generation and distribution companies. What has been called deregulation in California was actually only the deregulation of the markets by which generators sold power to the distributors. Recognizing that power prices would become more volatile, these legislators then took the further step of not deregulating the only market that matters -- the market within which consumers bought power from these distribution companies. These legislators acted with the best of intentions -- they truly believed that the market would be better off if ''protected'' from market forces. However, this cannot truly be considered deregulation. By extension of the metaphor above, this would be comparable to ''deregulating'' the grocery industry by deregulating the market for fishing licenses.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by vmarks:

It seems to me that your real bone to pick is that Mr. Schwarzenegger has never held political office prior to this run. Well guess what: neither had Jimmy Carter. Neither have 90% of the folks in State Legislatures. Neither had Sen. John Edwards, who won Senator his first time out. You get experience by getting elected, period.

You seem to want people to either have had political background and experience before running for their first time, or to have run for every lower office first, from Dog Catcher on up. But the truth is, plenty of people come from inexperience to troubled situations that the previous office holder has left behind, and succeed. Mr. Davis has had a term, and has not done much good with the legacy of his predecessors. If folks want his election recalled (and they appear to) then it's an open season. Mr. Schwarzenegger nor anyone else needs to have held office as Soil and Water Commissioner first.

Listen. You seem to be a thoughtful, logical guy. I don't know you. I don't know your life experience. I don't know if you've ever been in the position to hire and fire people. I have. I've filled many positions. I don't know if you've ever been held accountable for the people you've hired. But I have to tell you, I would LOVE to hear you go into your bosses office and tell them you've just hired a guy for a senior management vacancy with VIRTUALLY NO EXPERIENCE in the position. Where the duties include handling a $70 BILLION budget, managing thousands of employees, dealing with two fractious political parties, hundreds of special interest groups, and generally being responsible for the welfare of 35 million citizens. To look them in the eye and tell them YOUR MOST LOGICAL CHOICE is someone who's never worked in that situation AT ANY LEVEL. Just hearing you explain your decision-making process would be highly entertaining.


Arnold was on the Today Show the day after he announced. (FYI - the major issues in CA are the budget deficit, energy crisis, worker's comp, and a new paid family leave bill) When asked about specifics concerning the paid family leave bill, he said he didn't have any specifics, would get into them down the line and was 'Pro-family'. Say what? Pro-Family! Holy cow, how radical. He better watch out he may alienate that HUGE Anti-Family contingent. I wonder if he's going to take other brave stances like that? What do you think? Where do think he'll stand:

Cancer: pro or con?
Puppy dogs: cute & cuddly or messy & whiny?

Seriously. That's the level of discussion around here. Well, not the puppy or cancer level but CLOSE! He was stumped on the TODAY SHOW! Not exactly known for it's hard-hitting investigative journalism.

I'm beginning to think that people turn on their televisions and think they're watching the latest Reality TV series on FOX. Let's see...it's set in California, stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, a stripper from LA, a bartender form Ventura(don't those shows always have some dumb bartender?), it lasts 6 weeks , people drop out along the way (i.e. stop campaigning) and the winner becomes Governor of California! What a wacky concept. Those crazy TV people...

So, an actor comes along who wants to be Governor of this state. He's got NO administrative experience, and vIrtually NO political involvement beyond supporting a few initiatives before. He offers no plan or answers. Yet he expects ME to take HIM seriously.

So, yeah, I'm skeptical and I want to hear specifics of how he's going to solve problems instead of cliche tag lines from mediocre action movies.

Tell me vmarks, am I being unreasonable?[list=a][/list=a]

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by vmpaul:

So, an actor comes along who wants to be Governor of this state. He's got NO administrative experience, and vIrtually NO political involvement beyond supporting a few initiatives before. He offers no plan or answers. Yet he expects ME to take HIM seriously.

So, yeah, I'm skeptical and I want to hear specifics of how he's going to solve problems instead of cliche tag lines from mediocre action movies.

Tell me vmarks, am I being unreasonable?

Nothing wrong with skepticism about Arnold. I think part of his appeal, however, is a reaction against who DO have the qualifications you seek but have made such a mess of things. California IS in a budget crisis and Schwarzenegger had nothing to do with that. Gray Davis' qualifications and experience don't look all that impressive right now. Think how lousy of a job you have to do in order for that to be true.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Where the duties include handling a $70 BILLION budget, managing thousands of employees, dealing with two fractious political parties, hundreds of special interest groups, and generally being responsible for the welfare of 35 million citizens. To look them in the eye and tell them YOUR MOST LOGICAL CHOICE is someone who's never worked in that situation AT ANY LEVEL.

Sometimes, my friend, you want the devil you don't know instead of the devil you do- to turn an old truism around. The governor is responsible for governing, but he is not responsible for the welfare of 35 million citizens, unless California is a nanny state and 35 million people are solely dependant on the state and not themselves. Certainly the role wields influence and power, but is mitigated by the Lege so as to avoid tyranny over populace. I don't think it's as horrible as you're making it all out to be.

Arnold was on the Today Show the day after he announced. (FYI - the major issues in CA are the budget deficit, energy crisis, worker's comp, and a new paid family leave bill) When asked about specifics concerning the paid family leave bill, he said he didn't have any specifics, would get into them down the line and was 'Pro-family'.

Let me ask you to consider:

Sometimes, candidates reflect on running and begin campaigning and raising money as much as a few years in advance.

Sometimes, a candidate is asked by the party or his friends and supporters to file for candidacy at the last minute. Where the first and most prioritized event is filing for candidacy, and decisions about policy positions come later. Most candidates don't run on their own personal feelings on issues, they reconcile those feelings with what will be (a) easier to implement and (b) popular with the people who would elect the candidate.

Have you never hired someone who didn't possess the knowledge you needed, but knew they would learn it to rise to the challenge? If not, I surmise you're missing out on some of the best people in the workforce, who push themselves to meet the challenges required of them.

So, an actor comes along who wants to be Governor of this state. He's got NO administrative experience, and vIrtually NO political involvement beyond supporting a few initiatives before. He offers no plan or answers. Yet he expects ME to take HIM seriously.

So, yeah, I'm skeptical and I want to hear specifics of how he's going to solve problems instead of cliche tag lines from mediocre action movies.

Tell me vmarks, am I being unreasonable?

It is never unreasonable to be skeptical of a candidate. The candidate is asking you to let him represent you. OF COURSE you want to look closely and decide the worth of that proposition.

But, none of this means that Mr. Schwarzenegger isn't entitled to do the asking, and wouldn't be better than the folks who've made their careers in government. Abba Eban, prime minister of Israel once advised aspiring politicians to maintain other interests, as well. "Very early in my life I understood that in political life there is no guarantee of tenure in status, and that your position is not a function of your capacities or deeds," he said in an interview. "Politics can be precarious and parochial."

Davis should have heard Eban's advice.

I know that what I've said here will not satisfy you that Mr. Schwarzenegger might be a good candidate. (And who knows, he might not be a good candidate. Give him a chance to open his mouth some more.)

So let me leave you with this thought:

Think back two hundred years. Who were America's politicians who represented her abroad?

Two country bumpkins, notably. An elderly scientist and a young red-headed lawyer widower. We revere them now, but at the time, they were hayseeds, wowed by big Europe life at the top. Their biggest achievements prior to becoming statesmen were at writing a document that reads like a bad conspiracy theory against a head of state.

No, I'm not referring to Lerkfish in that last one ;-) -- I'm referring to Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Is Schwarzenegger of the same character as those two gentlemen? Perhaps not. But even an actor can do great things. Reagan was effective at bringing down the Berlin wall and causing the downfall of the Soviet Union. Not bad work for an actor and former governor of California, regardless of what you might think of his other actions.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Is Schwarzenegger of the same character as those two gentlemen? Perhaps not. But even an actor can do great things. Reagan was effective at bringing down the Berlin wall and causing the downfall of the Soviet Union. Not bad work for an actor and former governor of California, regardless of what you might think of his other actions.

a fine post except I always have a problem with crediting Reagan for the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was a destruction from within, due to a variety of factors. I mean, I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but if you credit Reagan because he said in a speech once: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall -- you have to understand that the former soviet union was ready to do such a thing independent of Reagan, due to a complexity of factors, including Chechnya and ironically enough, Afghanistan (back when the US was backing the Taliban against the USSR).

Besides, if ANYONE deserves credit for that, it should be Gorbachev.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
a fine post except I always have a problem with crediting Reagan for the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was a destruction from within, due to a variety of factors. I mean, I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but if you credit Reagan because he said in a speech once: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall -- you have to understand that the former soviet union was ready to do such a thing independent of Reagan, due to a complexity of factors, including Chechnya and ironically enough, Afghanistan (back when the US was backing the Taliban against the USSR).

Besides, if ANYONE deserves credit for that, it should be Gorbachev.

Large events like this rarely happen as a direct result of one person's actions, but instead are the result of a number of factors.

I would give Reagan credit, but acknowledge he certainly wasn't -solely- deserving of credit. Gorbachev worked so well that he found himself on the wrong end of a coup. It takes a lot of guts to do so well that you end up out of office because other interested parties want to preserve the status quo.

[zigzag]

I'm glad vmpaul and vmarks are disagreeing here because both are smart and articulate and in the onslaught of posts around here I too often get their names confused because they both start with "vm."

All of your points are well-taken, vmpaul, but on the other hand, do any of the candidates meet your standards? This isn't a rhetorical question - I honestly don't know. It sounds like you oppose the recall (whether or not you like Davis), but if the recall succeeds, what choices do you have if you don't think Ahnold is suitable? Do any of them have a chance of winning?

I agree that it's looking like a popularity contest, but these things often are. I would say that, while it's desirable to have candidates with a working knowledge of the political/legislative/administrative apparatus, sometimes other, more intangible leadership qualities, such as having a popular mandate, have value. That's not so much an endorsement of Ahnold as a general proposition - I don't claim to know whether he'd actually make an effective governor or not. It may well happen that when the vote actually comes around, people will think twice about recalling Davis and installing someone like Ahnold.

Speaking strictly as an outsider, I think Ahnold is interesting because of what he represents vis-a-vis the direction of the Republican Party generally. He's pro-choice and gay-tolerant. He called the Clinton impeachment proceedings an embarrassment to the party, which they were. He's on film smoking a giant spliff. If nothing else, it's encouraging for many of the rest of us to think that such a person, with his national presence, might be able to steer the party towards the live-and-let-live principles that some of us think it should better represent.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I think that any middle-of-the-road or conservative-minded actor gets driven to the point of needing to serve office after working for years with those wacked-out Hollywood leftists. They see first-hand the constant assault on their own traditional and moral values, and subsequently feel obliged to represent those people who's similar values are being trampled upon.

The guy is on film smoking a giant spliff. He's pro-choice and gay-tolerant. He's married to a Kennedy and socializes with the likes of Warren Beatty. He specializes in extremely violent films. And you think he's going to save us from "wacked-out Hollywood leftist assaults on our own traditional and moral values"? Funny.

[edit: Forgot one thing - he announces his candidacy on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Another blow against the Hollywood lefties who are trampling on our traditional and moral values.]

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by zigzag:

... If nothing else, it's encouraging for many of the rest of us to think that such a person, with his national presence, might be able to steer the party towards the live-and-let-live principles that some of us think it should better represent.

The pro-choice position doesn't have anything to do with letting someone live. That said, I'm a cautious backer of Schwarzenegger. He now has to run the campaign gauntlet and show he has at least a reasonable amount of substance to go with all that style. I think he can rise to the challenge. He's good enough, smart enough and doggone it, people LIKE him... oops, sorry, wrong celebrity.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
The pro-choice position doesn't have anything to do with letting someone live. That said, I'm a cautious backer of Schwarzenegger. He now has to run the campaign gauntlet and show he has at least a reasonable amount of substance to go with all that style. I think he can rise to the challenge. He's good enough, smart enough and doggone it, people LIKE him... oops, sorry, wrong celebrity.

I see the paradox, but I think the pro-choice position nevertheless tends to be associated with libertarian, live-and-let-live, keep-government-out-of-personal-affairs politics.

I don't know enough about Ahnold or California politics to say if he's a good candidate or not, but I'm curious to see if his candidacy will have any moderating effect on the party more generally. He could just as easily be a flash in the pan.

[vmpaul]

It's not that I'm a totally risk averse person. I make my pilgrimages to Tahoe and Las Vegas. I like to gamble. Blackjack, Poker, sometimes Craps, and hey, I even gamble on the biggest crap shoot going - the US Stock Market. But I'm a 90/10 guy. I don't know if that's the actual percentage but that's what I say because it works to talk about the concept. I believe that if you study the game, learn the odds, use money management, stay focused and generally work hard enough that 90% of the time you're going to do well. That you'll reduce the odds against you in any particular game (or situation) and come out better than average. In fact, 90% of the time you'll probably be successful. That's my experience. But there's always a part (this is the 10%) that is out of your control and is left up to chance. No matter how smart you play, no matter how correct your strategy is, there is always a chance that Lady Luck will bite your a**. The Dealer will squeak out a 21 from her 5th card when you're holding 2 10's, the guy holding a pair of 2's who foolishly raised you on your 2 J's will draw that 3rd 2-card on The River, that the company, with 8 consecutive profitable Qtr's and rising sales, will have it's CEO arrested for solicitation right after you moved your 401K into it. In Poker it's called a 'Bad Beat'. Happens all the time.

Now there are some who play it risky. Looking for that big score. Put a lot of faith into that 10% chance. They play the field in craps, refuse to stand on a 12 when the dealer shows a 6 in BJ. Sometimes they win and when they do it's pretty spectacular, I'll admit. But they don't win often and are usually walking the streets looking to score tix to Seigfrield & Roy. They continually refuse to make the 'smart play'.

We have all these candidates for Governor. All with varying degrees of experience and knowledge. Let's forget political affiliation for the moment. Do you pick someone, like Arnold, who has VIRTUALLY NO EXPERIENCE, HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED in political policy discussions, who has NO PLAN, and DOESN'T ADDRESS the issues when asked?

Or do you lean towards someone who has SOME experience, is INVOLVED in political discussion, HAS BEEN in an administrative position and HAS SPOKEN on issues at hand? People like - Cruz Bustamante, Bill Simon, Bill McClintock, and to a lesser extent Peter Uberroth. Hell, even Arianna Huffington has been engaged in the political arena more than Arnold.

Now you can pick someone, like Arnold, and maybe you'll get lucky and he'll do a great job. But is it a 'smart play'? I don't think so.

Really, I haven't heard anybody tell me why Arnold is a 'smart' choice. All I hear is that that Gary Davis is lousy. Or that Jesse Ventura had no experience either and look at him. None of which is the complete story - he was, at least, a mayor before he ran for Gov and his approval ratings are the lowest they've ever been after his term.

Now to your points:

Originally posted by vmarks:
Sometimes, my friend, you want the devil you don't know instead of the devil you do- to turn an old truism around. The governor is responsible for governing, but he is not responsible for the welfare of 35 million citizens, unless California is a nanny state and 35 million people are solely dependant on the state and not themselves.

Yeah, he isn't ENTIRELY responsible for 35 million people. I added that to lend some gravitas to the job description. But undoubtedly, there is some security and organizational responsibilities now that we're in the age of terrorism.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Sometimes, candidates reflect on running and begin campaigning and raising money as much as a few years in advance.

Sometimes, a candidate is asked by the party or his friends and supporters to file for candidacy at the last minute. Where the first and most prioritized event is filing for candidacy, and decisions about policy positions come later. Most candidates don't run on their own personal feelings on issues, they reconcile those feelings with what will be (a) easier to implement and (b) popular with the people who would elect the candidate.

So, he isn't prepared. Isn't even close in my eyes. That's a plus? Would you accept that in another political contest? 'Cause he was good in Terminator 2, that's OK?

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have you never hired someone who didn't possess the knowledge you needed, but knew they would learn it to rise to the challenge? If not, I surmise you're missing out on some of the best people in the workforce, who push themselves to meet the challenges required of them.

Sure. You might decide that intelligence and drive will overcome their limited, direct experience. But they have to have SOME comparable experience that can be used as a guide. In this case, Arnold has none relative to the size of the job he's asking for.

I've used this analogy before but if your child has a relapse after seeing your family physician do you decide then to take her to a plumber? Or a tailor? Or an actor? Anything but a doctor?

I'd like to hear you describe the logic of your decision to your wife. It just seems nonsensical.

So, no, I haven't hired my butcher for a Senior Marketing position and I surmise that's kept me from missing out on being fired.

Originally posted by vmarks:
It is never unreasonable to be skeptical of a candidate. The candidate is asking you to let him represent you. OF COURSE you want to look closely and decide the worth of that proposition.

But, none of this means that Mr. Schwarzenegger isn't entitled to do the asking, and wouldn't be better than the folks who've made their careers in government.

Don't misread me. I think he's perfectly entitled to try. All 155 of them. I get a chuckle out of it too. I just don't think he's qualified in any way.

And I like Arnold. I admire him just like everyone else. He's become a success despite the odds against him. Who doesn't love that story?

Originally posted by vmarks:
So let me leave you with this thought:

Think back two hundred years. Who were America's politicians who represented her abroad?

Two country bumpkins, notably. An elderly scientist and a young red-headed lawyer widower. We revere them now, but at the time, they were hayseeds, wowed by big Europe life at the top. Their biggest achievements prior to becoming statesmen were at writing a document that reads like a bad conspiracy theory against a head of state.

No, I'm not referring to Lerkfish in that last one ;-) -- I'm referring to Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Ok, maybe I stretched it a bit with the '35 million' comment but Arnold in the company of Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson? C'mon now.

I'm just mystified that intelligent, thoughtful people (both friends and people here) think that Arnold is a VIABLE, and GOOD candidate for this position DESPITE acknowledging his limitations. I can't get over it. He seems to be measured against a different standard than anyone else.

[scooby snack]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I see the paradox, but I think the pro-choice position nevertheless tends to be associated with libertarian, live-and-let-live, keep-government-out-of-personal-affairs politics.

I might go off topic, but you bring up an interesting point about government and people's personal affairs.

I would remind you that it would be the Democratic party that would be better served to keep their large social programs to a minimum and to stay out of people's personal lives. I don't mind, to much atleast, things like the Patriot Act, a largely Republican bill. It doesn't bother me that much because I'm a honest citizen, and they might catch a few bad guys. If it prevents another 9/11 style attack, good. If not, then oh well, as long as the information gathered isn't used to deprive someone of their constitutional freedoms. It's when we start talking about large social programs like nationized health care that I really start getting nervous because that's gonna cost the taxpayers a lot of money. According to our Constitution, there are only a handful of things our federal government is supposed to provide. One of them is protection in the form of good national defence, it doesn't say anything about providing citizens with health insurance. Things like that make me cringe, and make no sense when somebody can get up, go get a job and pay for their own health care, so I don't have to. We don't need another social program that large. A few more of those, and there goes the American Dream.

In some ways this isn't so far off topic because a lot of businesses have left CA and at the same time some new businesses won't move CA because they don't want to pay the high taxes there created to pay for CA's large social programs. If anything, maybe Ahnold, can "pump up" Californians on the idea of limited government. That is, if he can resist the powers at work in Sacromento.

Anyhoo, my point is that there's a difference in how well the gov't should and shouldn't be envolved in personal affairs.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by scooby snack:
I might go off topic, but you bring up an interesting point about government and people's personal affairs.

I would remind you that it would be the Democratic party that would be better served to keep their large social programs to a minimum and to stay out of people's personal lives . . .

All points well-taken, but I was referring to specific personal liberties (what we read, say, do with our own bodies, etc.) and you're talking more about social/entitlement programs. There's a potential overlap (the government has to get our money in order to spend it, and such programs can have an indirect effect on personal liberties), but they're somewhat different things in my mind.

As you suggest, liberal Democrats can, in their own way, impinge upon personal liberties. But the ones conservative Republicans impinge upon tend to be of greater concern to me. We all have different priorities.

Not trying to discourage your discussion, just clarifying.

[BRussell]

Quick question for the smart folks:

If you vote "no" on the recall, can you still vote for a replacement? It seems to me that makes a big difference. If there are a lot more Republicans voting to recall, and they are the only ones that can vote, they obviously have quite an advantage in determining the next governor.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
All of your points are well-taken, vmpaul, but on the other hand, do any of the candidates meet your standards? This isn't a rhetorical question - I honestly don't know. It sounds like you oppose the recall (whether or not you like Davis), but if the recall succeeds, what choices do you have if you don't think Ahnold is suitable? Do any of them have a chance of winning?

No, it isn't just that. I think it irks me that he's taken so seriously right off the bat. With no experience and no plan he's considered the favorite. It seems to be the ultimate in style over substance. All I've heard him do is spout lines from his moves. Maybe that'll change in the coming weeks but I like to see someone who has a REAL grasp of the situation and has plans for change. So far, I think he belongs in the same class as Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, and Angyline (the stripper from LA) as a a candidate. Nothing more.

I do oppose the recall. Not because I'm such a fan of Gray Davis but it's just lousy politics. It's possible we could see another vindictive recall campaign after this election. There's nothing to prevent it. It only cost $1.5 million to gather the signatures. CA is replacing FLA as the black sheep of the family again.

I'd like to hear thunderous_funker's take on this stuff. He's in LA. Circus should be in full gear down there. He's been AWOL lately. I think he had a thing for Arianna. Maybe's he working on her campaign.

BRussell, I don't know that myself. It isn't very clear. There's been a few lawsuits and I don't know what the decisions have been. I think, not sure, but I think you can vote no and still pick someone. Candidates aren't going to be listed alphabetically, I know. That might be interesting. There's going to be one initiative on the ballot that I've heard might mobilize the left to come out. Don't know much about it yet.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Quick question for the smart folks:

If you vote "no" on the recall, can you still vote for a replacement? It seems to me that makes a big difference. If there are a lot more Republicans voting to recall, and they are the only ones that can vote, they obviously have quite an advantage in determining the next governor.

If a recall election is held, everyone eligible to vote in the first election is eligible to vote in the recall election. So, no: the deck is not stacked in favor of Republicans in this instance.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No, it isn't just that. I think it irks me that he's taken so seriously right off the bat...

Politically, you HAVE to take him seriously. There simply is no question he's already made about as big an entrance into California politics as you've ever seen. And this is before he's undergone any kind of serious grilling about his positions on the issues bedeviling the state. You apparently have concluded that because of his background he can't possibly be qualified. A lot of people, myself included, are taking a wait and see approach.

Arnold is enjoying a honeymoon with the public right now. That's not uncommon. Happens to a lot of professional politicians too. It's also not uncommon for the pros to be rather specific about how they'll govern but once elected their campaign promises are quickly forgotten. A candidate who generates position papers that often are meaningless does not strike me as an inherently superior leader.

The real problem, as I see it, could be Arnold's political skill. This seems counter-intuitive. Let me explain. By all appearances so far, Arnold might just be a natural on the campaign trail. This could serve to obscure an honest evaluation of how he will govern. The qualities that make a successful politician are frequently not the same qualities one needs to govern successfully.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Politically, you HAVE to take him seriously. There simply is no question he's already made about as big an entrance into California politics as you've ever seen. And this is before he's undergone any kind of serious grilling about his positions on the issues bedeviling the state. You apparently have concluded that because of his background he can't possibly be qualified. A lot of people, myself included, are taking a wait and see approach.

There's political strategy and political worthiness. Two different areas for two different audiences.

Yeah, at this point in time. I don't think he's qualified. Not for the size of the job he wants. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt IF: he had SOME prior experience. He doesn't. Or IF he had a plan. He hasn't offered one. Or IF he showed a grasp of the issues. He's spouting movie lines ("Hasta la vista, Davis!").

As a voter, I find it hard to take him seriously. As a political observer, I admit he's got the most momentum. We'll see. If that changes in the coming weeks. I'm open to it.