Why are conservatives supporting Ahnold?

[Cain]

Frank Rich in today's NYT writes:

[Shwarzenegger's] ideology, though, is way to the left of his party, despite all the lip service he pays to being a fiscal conservative. (Howard Dean is a fiscal conservative, too.) Mr. Schwarzenegger is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-green. He has said that the Clinton impeachment made him "ashamed" to call himself a Republican.

It is hilarious to watch conservatives — the same conservatives who often decry phony Hollywood liberals and their followers — betray their own inviolate principles to bask in Arnold's hulking movie-star aura so that they might possibly gain a nominal Republican victory in the bargain. Even the 1977 Oui magazine interview in which Mr. Schwarzenegger bragged about participating in orgies — not to mention his repeated admissions of drug use — can't frighten them away.

Arnold may have ducked questions about affirmative action, but that hasn't stopped Fox's star-struck Sean Hannity from gushing that he's "as forthright as any politician I've ever interviewed in my life." As for the Oui confessional, Bill O'Reilly said: "So what? He's a new guy." Rush Limbaugh at first questioned Mr. Schwarzenegger's conservative bona fides, but of late has been hedging, praising Arnold for "the charisma, the star power, the stage presence . . . the likability, the personality" and saying that he never meant to imply that he "is not worthy." No less a religious conservative than Pat Robertson came out for La-La-Land's pro-gay, pro-choice Republican as well: "I'm a body-builder. . . . So I think the weight lifters of the world need to unite."

Ann Coulter has a term for conservatives who wimp out like this — "girly boys." But she's gone all girly herself over Arnold, telling Larry King that "I'm impressed enough that he's in Hollywood, he's married to a Kennedy and he still calls himself a Republican — that's good enough for me." Perhaps. Her friend, Bill Maher, has taken a somewhat darker view of these unlikely political conversions. "If his father wasn't a Nazi," he has said of Arnold, "he wouldn't have any credibility with conservatives at all."

The article, titled "Top Gun versus Total Recall" compares the Hollywood images of Bush and Ahnold and is worth reading. Maher's quip aside, I'm curious as to how conservatives, ordinarily uncompromising in their rhetoric, can fully support this guy. The Daily Howler has excerpts and commentary from Arnold's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091203.shtml

I think it has to do with blind party loyalty and an obession with winning. Republicans stole the election in the 2000, they're gerrymandering six years early in Austin, and now they're trying to snatch California by any means neccesary (which translates into supporting the Terminator's candidacy).

Paul Krugman in an article in the NYT Magazine titled "Tax Cut Con" says the Republican party has been captivated by the single issue of lower taxes. Shwarzenegger resolutely opposes raising taxes of course.

[Sundog]

Well, that and the fact that the national party has an immense amount of political capital tied up in this coup-attempt-disguised-as-a-recall. They'd vote for a yellow dog if they thought it would get them the governorship. Savor the irony.

Is it time to coin the phrase "Yellow-dog Republicans"? They seem to be the ones who'll support any warm body on their side of the aisle these days.

[DaChew]

I don't know any conservatives who "fully support this guy." Every conservative that I've talked to has basically said that the choice is between a racist, Bustamante, and someone who calls himself a Republican but is only sort of one. Davis is going to be recalled (in spite of today's decision by the 9th.) and the actual Republican doesn't have a chance.

As for the 2000 election, it's over. There is no evidence to support the claim that Republicans stole anything. Also, this recall is fully within the law of the constitution of California. Don't like it? Change it. There are mechanisms to change the law available to those outraged by the huge number of signatures on the recall petition.

[Clancie]

I haven't seen Arnold's supporters offer any list of reasons why he would be a good governor for California or why he deserves to win.

My guess is most supporters are hoping he'll be a figurehead like Reagan and that others around him who are more conservative will be able to put through the Republican agenda for the state, piggybacking on Arnold's charisma.

[nightwind]

He is a Republican. The conservatives are not going to be real concerned about what his stances are on issues of abortion, guns, etc.

It's just like with Bush. It would not matter if he led us into World War III, or attacked Switzerland, or legalized heroin for youth. Some people will vote for him because he is a Republican!

He is the front runner for the Republicans and the only chance they have of getting a Republican governor. Do you really think these conservatives would back a democrat? Ha! They just really have no choice. If they were against him, they would demonize him for all his womanizing, his stance on abortion, guns, etc. But you can see what is happening.

Conservatives it seems to me though have always been the biggest bunch of hypocrites that exist. They will say whatever they need to at the time.

I think Arnold probably might not be a bad choice, although I believe he will have a tough time winning.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Clancie
I haven't seen Arnold's supporters offer any list of reasons why he would be a good governor for California or why he deserves to win.

My guess is most supporters are hoping he'll be a figurehead like Reagan and that others around him who are more conservative will be able to put through the Republican agenda for the state, piggybacking on Arnold's charisma.
His early affiliation with Warren Buffet would run counter to that; you will recall Buffet stating a few weeks ago that property taxes should be increased. This was Buffet's opinion, not Arnold's, but indicates that he may not surround himself with ultra-conservatives like Dubya did.

[Clancie]

Posted by Arctic Penguin

His early affiliation with Warren Buffet would run counter to that; you will recall Buffet stating a few weeks ago that property taxes should be increased. This was Buffet's opinion, not Arnold's, but indicates that he may not surround himself with ultra-conservatives like Dubya did.
Think so? :confused: To me, that seemed a total embarrassment to Arnold that really underscored his lack of familiarity with economics (important to California with a $38 billion deficit) and with Buffet--at least as any thing other than a famous investor, and possibly a personal friend.

He tried to get some cache from associating himself with Buffet. But as soon as Buffet spoke on policy the Schwartzenegger campaign couldn't distance themselves from him any faster.

So I think, like everything else I've seen from him, Buffet was just brought on as a prop in an ongoing "show"--but this time real life got in the way and the "show" backfired on him.

I still haven't seen him deliver any speech with a single clear statement addressing any of California's problems and how he plans to solve them.

[corplinx]

New York mayor put it best "there isnt a democrat or republican way to pick up garbage" when asked about not being an ideological conservative.

In other words, if Arnold keeps spending in line and the trains running on time, he is already two steps ahead of Davis.

[Clancie]

Arnold was on Oprah with Maria. Did anyone see it? I saw some clips on CNN.

So...he can't give a genuine press conference or make the Republican county rounds in the state, but at least he had time for "Oprah". (Polls show he has a problem with the gender gap).

Anyway, he was there, cute as a puppy. In fact, he mentioned it himself, saying about running for governor (paraphrased, but close): "It's a lot of fun. I have something new to look forward to every day. I feel just like a puppy and I'm having such a great time." (There's not an emoticon for my response to this....this will have to do :rolleyes: ).

When asked by the gushy and supportive Oprah about the "Oui" article, he said (paraphrased) "Those were things I said when we were trying to get people interested in Pumping Iron. I said all kinds of things back then. I even said that pumping was better than coming." Whereupon Maria cutely covered his mouth with her hand and said, laughing, "Oh, my mother's watching."

:rolleyes:

Like he's never talked like that before. The whole thing seemed so incredibly contrived.

And I'm still waiting for his ideas and his plan about how to help California.

[peptoabysmal]

Shwarzenegger is more likely to win the election that McClintock. I personally think McClintock would be a better man, but he's too conservative. California just isn't ready for a conservative Republican.

If the recall goes through, and I believe it will, that leaves you with two real choices Bustamante, a man who can't even manage his own financial affairs and has questionable dealings with Indian gaming, the latino underworld, and on and on. Shwarzenegger definately can't do any worse that Davis, I don't think anyone could be that bad, except maybe Bustamante (who is owned by the same interests as Davis). They call Bustamante Davis' "mini me" around these parts.

Arnold was a millionaire before he became a movie star. He is really the only hope for California Republicans right now. The Republican party in California keeps making this mistake of putting forth a candidate who is just to conservative to win in California. This is a liberal "yellow dog" Democrat state.

My own family is part of these "yellow dog" Democrats. The other day, at a family gathering I was almost exiled from the family for saying I was going to vote for Arnold. I have just had enough of the Democrat's bungling in California (and the nation) - enough is enough.

[Crossbow]

Are conservatives supporting Arnold S.?

I recall how he stumped for Ronald Reagan, George Bush (the elder), donated serious money to Republicans, etc. but I have not seen many come out in support of him.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Are conservatives supporting Arnold S.?

I recall how he stumped for Ronald Reagan, George Bush (the elder), donated serious money to Republicans, etc. but I have not seen many come out in support of him.

There is one radio talk show host, Mark Williams, who is saying to vote for Arnold, for similar reasons to what I mention. The rest of them are saying McClintock is the better choice.

It's simple math, if the Republican vote is split between Ahnold and McClintock, Bustamante will win (providing the recall goes through).

California just isn't ready for a conservative like McClintock. This is the mistake Republicans in California keep making, putting forth a very conservative candidate in a state dominated by liberal Democrats.

[Tricky]

Just saw this on the "Community" forum.
Originally posted by Clancie
Not sure where to post this, but "Community" seemed better than the other choices...Politics, Movies, or Humor.....:rr:
Schwartzenegger on "Larry King Live" tonight

[Luke T.]

It is a choice of the lesser of two evils. What Conservatives I have heard express an opinion have said things along the lines of "I'd rather see McClintock elected but he doesn't have a chance, so Arnold is the only way to go."

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is a choice of the lesser of two evils. What Conservatives I have heard express an opinion have said things along the lines of "I'd rather see McClintock elected but he doesn't have a chance, so Arnold is the only way to go."


Or they could vote NO on the recall because it was a stupid idea that created a circus of lame candidates, and wait until a real candidate shows up for the scheduled election!

Nah, that won't happen.


The problem with McClintock's electability is the fact that a lot of his support comes from the relious folk, who won't come out for Arnie if he's pro-choice.

So if McClintock drops out, those votes don't automatically go to Arnold. Some of those folks just won't go to the polls.



BTW, I wanted Riordan in the last election, and I wanted Uberroth as the best candidate for the recall. Well, that was until Uberroth gave the lamest possible answer during the debate as to how he'd fix the budget.

But I still think this recall is lame lame lame. What a joke.

[SRW]

The Conservatives don't make up a large part of the republican party, the majority are more middle of the road. Given the choice of anyone or Davis anyone looks pretty good.

I'd call Davis a weasel but why insult such a fine animal. If the voters in California had known that the budget deficit was 34 billion before the election then Davis would have been kicked out.

Davis said he did not know how big the deficit was prior to the election, which makes him the most incompetent governor we have ever had. Or as I believe he did know which makes him and incompetent and dishonest.

Davis should have done the honorable thing and resigned when it was evident that this recall was going to happen. He is responsible for much of the mess California is in and should step down.

[American]

I was completely against him in principle.... until I heard, "TALK TO THA HAND!" :roll: I love that!

[Pyrrho]

Why shouldn't they support Arnold? If he wins the election, they'll be able to boss him any way they want. The man has no political experience; he seems to think that all he has to do is to hire the right people to do the job. That ain't how politics works in this country. Doesn't matter how left of center he is. If he wants anything done, he's going to have to "pay the piper".

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon

The problem with McClintock's electability is the fact that a lot of his support comes from the relious folk, who won't come out for Arnie if he's pro-choice.

So if McClintock drops out, those votes don't automatically go to Arnold. Some of those folks just won't go to the polls.

Which makes Bustamecha (I coined that, feel free to use it) much more likely to win.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Which makes Bustamecha (I coined that, feel free to use it) much more likely to win.

Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first. :(

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Why shouldn't they support Arnold? If he wins the election, they'll be able to boss him any way they want. The man has no political experience; he seems to think that all he has to do is to hire the right people to do the job. That ain't how politics works in this country. Doesn't matter how left of center he is. If he wants anything done, he's going to have to "pay the piper".

I just don't buy the political experience argument anymore. There are some very experienced politicians making a very fine mess of things.

I think Arnold will have the celebrity clout to be able to bring together the divided state legislature in a way that any of the other candidates could not. It is going to take a bi-partisan effort to get California out of the hole that Davis dug it into.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first. :(

So I see. Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it.
Mecha as in the movie A.I.?

[Kodiak]

Because he is to the right of the rest of the left-coasters running.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog
Well, that and the fact that the national party has an immense amount of political capital tied up in this coup-attempt-disguised-as-a-recall.

Who ever said liberals love constitutional government??

"The will of the people be damned if it lawfully deposes an incompetent liberal Democrat", right guys?

No wonder the dems have an ass for a mascot... :D

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first. :(


Is that all the opposition can do to insult democratic candidates?

"Gore is a robot."
"Davis is a robot."
"Bustamante is a robot"


You know, someone should really wack the republican robot who writes this stuff, as his speech synthisizer is stuck.


http://members.aol.com/TheMetalKing/Terminator-Arnold.jpg

[Silicon]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it.
Mecha as in the movie A.I.?

The word Mecha existed long before that crummy movie.

(Think: Japan)

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon



Is that all the opposition can do to insult democratic candidates?

"Gore is a robot."
"Davis is a robot."
"Bustamante is a robot"


You know, someone should really wack the republican robot who writes this stuff, as his speech synthisizer is stuck.


http://members.aol.com/TheMetalKing/Terminator-Arnold.jpg

Well that is rich the republicans insulting the democrats. All I have heard for the democratic side is how bad the republicans are. I have not heard anyone defending Davis. Even Finstien cannot bring her self to say that Davis has done a good job. All she says is the republicans are tring to steal the election. Never mind that it's being done according to law and is entirely proper.

My favorite one is blaming Bush for the California energy chrisis. Davis was in charge and was supposed to be looking out for my interests. He blew it. It does not matter who Enroned him he was not doing his job.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Who ever said liberals love constitutional government??

"The will of the people be damned if it lawfully deposes an incompetent liberal Democrat", right guys?


Yes, the will of the 897,158 people required by the law to recall the Governor. To be safe, Issa & crew got 300,000 or so extras.

So yes, the will of about 15% of the voters has been served. We'll see what the majority has to say on election day.


And yes, we whine about this.

Just like the right is whining and wailing about the 9th Circuit's ruling.

Who said the Right loves constitutional government?




Oh yeah, nobody.

:p

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW

He blew it. It does not matter who Enroned him he was not doing his job.


Yeah, amazing how he made weekly appeals to the FERC to investigate allegations of price fixing, and impose caps and weekly they turned down the State of California's request. Finally, a year later, the FERC DID apply a cap, and the price-gouging subsided.


Here's an article from the Washington Post:


Davis Lacked Legal Ability to Solve Energy Crisis




When power shortages began in the summer of 2000 and wholesale power prices tripled, Davis
immediately accused generators of gouging electricity customers. State regulators cited indications of
price manipulation and deliberate withholding of power supplies by generators. In response, the
governor demanded that FERC impose price ceilings on generators' prices.

His pleas went unanswered for more than a year.



.....It took another year before Davis could say "I told you so" about the energy companies. The
disclosure of Enron Corp.'s "Death Star" memos in May 2001 exposed strategies that Enron and
others used to manipulate power prices and reap profits from the crisis. "The price gouging abounded,"
FERC Commissioner William L. Massey concluded.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37482-2003Aug23.html

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon



Yeah, amazing how he made weekly appeals to the FERC to investigate allegations of price fixing, and impose caps and weekly they turned down the State of California's request. Finally, a year later, the FERC DID apply a cap, and the price-gouging subsided.


Here's an article from the Washington Post:


Davis Lacked Legal Ability to Solve Energy Crisis




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37482-2003Aug23.html


From the article you posted

______________________________

But Davis was the state's leader with the ultimate political responsibility for handling the crisis.

______________________________



Davis did not lead he reacted and reacted poorly.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Silicon


Yes, the will of the 897,158 people required by the law to recall the Governor. To be safe, Issa & crew got 300,000 or so extras.

So yes, the will of about 15% of the voters has been served. We'll see what the majority has to say on election day.

And yes, we whine about this.

Just like the right is whining and wailing about the 9th Circuit's ruling.

No, the will of the State of California as represented by its legislature and voting citizenry when they added the recall stipulation to the California Constitution.

The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Courts ruling to block the recall. The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW



From the article you posted

______________________________

But Davis was the state's leader with the ultimate political responsibility for handling the crisis.

______________________________



Quoted out of context. And that's not a representative quote the way you're using it.

You completely skewed the meaning of the quote above. That quote when put in context doesn't say he was to blame for the crisis, but rather he IS BEING blamed for the crisis.


In fact, the REAL meaning of the quote when read in context is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you make it to be.

Do you really have to be that intellectually dishonest to make your point?


The article states that David did EVERYTHING he was legally empowered to do. It says there was no way for him to have averted the crisis. It further says that he was right all along about price gouging, and that the FERC finally did what he was pleading with them to do, and THAT'S what stopped the crisis.

But your point of view is what, exactly? That he's a demmycrat, and when a demmycrat is in power during the crisis, he's out?

Oh, and if so, why didn't the voters think so in the general election?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Courts ruling to block the recall.


BZZZTT... Let's at least be honest in the terms here. The 9th Circuit isn't blocking the recall, they're postponing the election. You're a better arguer than that.



The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

And how would you have decided this, in light of Common Cause v. Jones? Don't you see the coming train wreck when the margin of error on punch cards is likely to be larger than the margin of victory?

Isn't it very very very likely that whoever loses this election will seek to have it decertified exactly BECAUSE of Common Cause v. Jones?

How do you get around the equal protection arguments in this case? How is this not a violation of Equal Protection as decided in Bush v. Gore?

What, it's a violation of equal protection when a Republican stands to lose a recount, but not when a simple postponement would ensure that the standards adjudicated in Common Cause v. Jones are met?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon


Quoted out of context. And that's not a representative quote the way you're using it.

You completely skewed the meaning of the quote above. That quote when put in context doesn't say he was to blame for the crisis, but rather he IS BEING blamed for the crisis.


In fact, the REAL meaning of the quote when read in context is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you make it to be.

Do you really have to be that intellectually dishonest to make your point?


The article states that David did EVERYTHING he was legally empowered to do. It says there was no way for him to have averted the crisis. It further says that he was right all along about price gouging, and that the FERC finally did what he was pleading with them to do, and THAT'S what stopped the crisis.

But your point of view is what, exactly? That he's a demmycrat, and when a demmycrat is in power during the crisis, he's out?

Oh, and if so, why didn't the voters think so in the general election?


Yes it said he did what he could could legally do but the bottom line is he was politically responsible. He is a Governor of this state
or does the buck always stop some where else when a democrat is in power. If instead of his ineffectual pleading with the FERC, why didn't he go to the person who appointed them?

So like I said find someone else to blame or criticize the republicans but still no reasons why Davis should be Governor

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW
If instead of his ineffectual pleading with the FERC, why didn't he go to the person who appointed them?

You mean Clinton? He wasn't in office!


But when Bush appointed a new head, HE installed the cap.


(See, I can be forthright when Bush does something good.)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Silicon
BZZZTT... Let's at least be honest in the terms here. The 9th Circuit isn't blocking the recall, they're postponing the election. You're a better arguer than that.

And how would you have decided this, in light of Common Cause v. Jones? Don't you see the coming train wreck when the margin of error on punch cards is likely to be larger than the margin of victory?

Isn't it very very very likely that whoever loses this election will seek to have it decertified exactly BECAUSE of Common Cause v. Jones?

How do you get around the equal protection arguments in this case? How is this not a violation of Equal Protection as decided in Bush v. Gore?

What, it's a violation of equal protection when a Republican stands to lose a recount, but not when a simple postponement would ensure that the standards adjudicated in Common Cause v. Jones are met?

Sure, fine. "Postponing the election" - in violation of state law.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 13. Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.

SEC. 14. (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to file signed petitions.

(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by
electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the
office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
(c) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of
the signatures certified to that office.

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall election.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

SEC. 16. The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and
certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall
election.

SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is
initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the
Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively.

SEC. 18. A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by
the State for the officer's recall election expenses legally and
personally incurred. Another recall may not be initiated against the officer until six months after the election.

SEC. 19. The Legislature shall provide for recall of local
officers. This section does not affect counties and cities whose
charters provide for recall.

California has had since the 2000 election to change the voting methods of those districts still using punch cards, but obviously didn't consider it a problem.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon


You mean Clinton? He wasn't in office!


But when Bush appointed a new head, HE installed the cap.


(See, I can be forthright when Bush does something good.)

Clinton was in office in the summer of 2000, and no I do not blame Clinton for this mess.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sure, fine. "Postponing the election" - in violation of state law.



And the 9th Circuit ruled that holding it in October would be in violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection.

That trumps the ol California state law any day of the week!

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW


Clinton was in office in the summer of 2000, and no I do not blame Clinton for this mess.

So what would you have done in summer 2000, were you Governor? What steps would you have taken?

Blame Clinton? Yell and scream louder to the FERC?

Now we can see in hindsight that Davis was right, and the market WAS being manipulated, but how much evidence did he have of that in Summer 2000?

What would you have done differently? Don't say "be a better leader". Give us actual things you would have done, and remember, you have to find a way to do it within the scope of the powers of the Office of the Governor.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
California has had since the 2000 election to change the voting methods of those districts still using punch cards, but obviously didn't consider it a problem.

What do you mean? Yes, it was considered a problem. That problem was addressed in Common Cause v. Jones. They were required to retire their machines by next March.


http://www.commoncause.org/states/california/archives/punchcard.html



The ruling was made February 12, 2002 in Los Angeles by United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Common Cause vs. Jones. This is the first post-Bush v. Gore ruling to require that obsolete voting systems be retired in time for
the 2004 election.


Subsequent to that ruling, Californians passed the Voting Modernaization Bond Act of 2002, which allocated $200 million to upgrade voting systems, and established a Voting Modernization Board to carry out this task.


You say Californians obviously didn't consider this a problem. I can't see how you can say that. I think the facts show that we DID consider it a problem.




The counties involved couldn't throw out old voting machines and buy new ones in absense of an election. The budgets for these changes are allocated to line up with the presidential primaries in 2004. The FUNDING AND BONDS have to line up. They have to train thousands of volunteers in the new systems, this kind of thing can't be suddenly done within 80 days.

Can they even get the tens of thousands of machines on that short of notice? They have a hard enough time getting all the materials ready for this crazy huge ballot as it is, the biggest ballot in California history.

We're not even going to have the normal number of polling places for this special election, because they can't even get that together in time.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon


So what would you have done in summer 2000, were you Governor? What steps would you have taken?

Blame Clinton? Yell and scream louder to the FERC?

Now we can see in hindsight that Davis was right, and the market WAS being manipulated, but how much evidence did he have of that in Summer 2000?

What would you have done differently? Don't say "be a better leader". Give us actual things you would have done, and remember, you have to find a way to do it within the scope of the powers of the Office of the Governor.

Well as the Governor I would never have allowed this situation to develop. I would have made sure California had adequate reserves and capacity to produce energy.

However if I did suspect that some one was manipulating the market I would have launched an investigation, and used my political influence to get relief from the Feds.

Of course I would have much more influence in our little hypothetical world.

[Clancie]

Here's the transcript from Arnold with Larry King last night. I wanted to put quotes, but its such a rambling mixture of Republican doctrine, Reagan-style personal anecdotes about meeting "the little people" and topic-related platitudes that selecting quotes was nearly impossible.

Here's a bit of Schwarzenegger on "Workman's Compensation":

From Larry King Live, Sept 17, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/17/lkl.00.html)

KING: There's a need for workman's comp, to take care of workers who are in need. Are you telling the workers of California that you're going to cut their compensation?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Larry, the sad story is that we have the highest costs in workers' compensation but not the best benefits. I have just met the other day a man that was in a wheelchair. His name is Frank. He fell off -- through an elevator shaft, and he hurt himself badly, on the job. He's now in a wheelchair. He can never work again.

You know what he gets a month? He gets $800 a month. Now, that is not fair when we have the highest costs here. We are talking about three times as much as the average of other states in this country.

Do you know that it costs five times as much to hurt -- to injure -- to break your arm, let's say, on the job than at home? It is ridiculous. We have to have utilization schedule (ph). We have to have certain things -- how many times should you be allowed to go to the doctor?

People go three times as many times to the doctor. There's this whole scam going on between the lawyers and the doctors. And as soon as someone gets injured, the lawyer comes in, says, "I can represent you..."

KING: This is statewide?

SCHWARZENEGGER: This is statewide. He sends you to a doctor. The doctor examines you five, six times. Then he sends you to an X- ray. Then he does his thing.

Then he sends you to the chiropractor, then he does his five sessions. Then he sends you to the physical therapist. And this is what goes on because they want to ring up the cost. That's because the lawyer collects one third of what...

....KING: Are you saying a lot of people are doing this?

SCHWARZENEGGER: A lot. This is why we have this big problem here.

Difficult to watch. It will run again on Sunday.

[Sundog]

Unbelievable.

Now we know why he isn't talking much.

[Silicon]

Wow, the doctor examines you 5 or 6 times BEFORE he orders an x-ray?

COOL! Where can I get THAT doctor?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW


Well as the Governor I would never have allowed this situation to develop. I would have made sure California had adequate reserves and capacity to produce energy.

At which point the Republicans would have lambasted you for spending money on an energy boondoggle before there was a market need.

And they'd be right, because capacity turned out to not be the problem. The problem turned out to be Enron's death-star schemes to buy energy from itself at a markup, and create artificial shortages, which drove the price up further.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon


At which point the Republicans would have lambasted you for spending money on an energy boondoggle before there was a market need.

And they'd be right, because capacity turned out to not be the problem. The problem turned out to be Enron's death-star schemes to buy energy from itself at a markup, and create artificial shortages, which drove the price up further.

So you are saying that we do not need all the new energy plants that we have been building over the last two years? And Davis knows this?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW


So you are saying that we do not need all the new energy plants that we have been building over the last two years? And Davis knows this?


The NEW power plants are to make energy cheaper than the inflated prices arrived at by the market manipulation.

If you bought plants BEFORE the market manipulation, you would have risked millions on a risky venture.


And no, the new power plants are just a drop in the bucket. We would be doing fine without them.

We upped our capacity from 43,000 megawatts to 49,000 megawatts. 6,000 megawatts of new power is online since the crisis.


Let me get this straight, just for the record, SRW, who do you give the credit to for keeping the lights on in California this summer? Who solved this problem, and how did they solve it?

Because if you're saying it's new plant construction, or the FERC responding to California's internal investigations, credit has to go to Davis.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon



The NEW power plants are to make energy cheaper than the inflated prices arrived at by the market manipulation.

If you bought plants BEFORE the market manipulation, you would have risked millions on a risky venture.


And no, the new power plants are just a drop in the bucket. We would be doing fine without them.

We upped our capacity from 43,000 megawatts to 49,000 megawatts. 6,000 megawatts of new power is online since the crisis.


Let me get this straight, just for the record, SRW, who do you give the credit to for keeping the lights on in California this summer? Who solved this problem, and how did they solve it?

Because if you're saying it's new plant construction, or the FERC responding to California's internal investigations, credit has to go to Davis.

No the reason for the price manipulation was that Davis failed to anticipate the rapid growth in energy needs. High demand in the summer of 2000 coupled with a hodge podge of regulation and an incompetent Governor.

And why do you think we are doing just fine now? could it be because off all the business that have headed for the hills? And if you want to give Davis credit for the loss California business you are welcome to it.

It was the FERC that slapped controls on California. But Davis was the Governor, he could have enacted emergency powers during to crisis as well as waiting for them to take action.


We still have the highest energy rates in the country, can we give Davis credit for that also?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by SRW

But Davis was the Governor, he could have enacted emergency powers during to crisis as well as waiting for them to take action.

Oh REALLY?!!?


Wow, a republican saying the GOVERNMENT should control business, declare an emergency and fix prices?

You're sounding more like a demmycrat all the time!


And just where would the Govenor get the power to declare this emergency? I'm sure Enron would have gone right along with anything he said, and just started handing over power for free.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon


Oh REALLY?!!?


Wow, a republican saying the GOVERNMENT should control business, declare an emergency and fix prices?

You're sounding more like a demmycrat all the time!


And just where would the Governor get the power to declare this emergency? I'm sure Enron would have gone right along with anything he said, and just started handing over power for free.

FYI I am a democrat, and yes the government should decree an emergency and set prices when business is out of control. The Governor has the power to declare an emergency and evoke special powers. But that takes leadership something lacking in Davis. And if Davis had shown backbone Enron would have stepped down, they knew they were doing something wrong.

And please show me the wonderfully piece of legislation that Davis came up with to fix the energy crisis... Oh wait nothing has changed our law are the same as they were in 96.

To get back to where we started you still have not provided any convincing argument for keeping Davis around. I have to commend you on at least not blaming everyone else for the problems.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Silicon



And the 9th Circuit ruled that holding it in October would be in violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection.

That trumps the ol California state law any day of the week!

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Explain the violation, please...

[Silicon]

Ask your Bush v. Gore ruling supreme court. They were the ones that decided that different counting methods disenfranchised voters and therefore violated equal protection.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Silicon
Ask your Bush v. Gore ruling supreme court. They were the ones that decided that different counting methods disenfranchised voters and therefore violated equal protection.

Evidence please.

Could you provide the decision here with a link, or at least reference it so that I can find it myself?

[Kodiak]

Never mind...I found it.


US Supreme Court ruling (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)

From the writ:

"This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting."

Funny...

I could've swore that's what I suggested earlier. I guess three years isn't long enough for a state like California... :rolleyes:

They deserve what they get... :con2:

[Silicon]

Perhaps the politicians deserve what they get, but the voters DON'T deserve to be disenfranchised.

How can you say that voters deserve to have their votes not count?

What, is it "OOoopsie, you took too long to achieve fairness according to the Bush v. Gore standard, now suffer!"

The Constitution doesn't work like that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Silicon
Perhaps the politicians deserve what they get, but the voters DON'T deserve to be disenfranchised.

How can you say that voters deserve to have their votes not count?

What, is it "OOoopsie, you took too long to achieve fairness according to the Bush v. Gore standard, now suffer!"

The Constitution doesn't work like that.
Yeah. I can't understand why people are so upset at the ACLU for trying to make sure that the votes are counted fairly. I think that their history of defending groups on all sides of the issues should be enough to assure people that they aren't doing this to support one candidate or the other.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yeah. I can't understand why people are so upset at the ACLU for trying to make sure that the votes are counted fairly. I think that their history of defending groups on all sides of the issues should be enough to assure people that they aren't doing this to support one candidate or the other.

The 9th Circuit Court is a liberal activist group dressed in black robes. This court has quite a few decisions overturned by this Supreme Court.

This court has decided that the same system that re-elected Davis to office is now so broken that the election should be put off until the Democratic presidential primaries in California. How is that fair to the voters?

ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum hailed the decision as "a masterpiece." (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/recall/20030916-9999_1n16ruling.html)


"It effectively tells us because we can do elections better, we can't do elections at all," he said. "I think that's where the 9th Circuit turns off the rails."

Doug Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said the decision misinterprets Bush v. Gore, saying that the justices did not require that the same voting system or recount method be used in every county.

"That simply isn't the law and to declare it to be so at a time when the people of California have exercised their right to conduct an election is a serious federal interference into state governance," Kmiec said.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

This court has decided that the same system that re-elected Davis to office is now so broken that the election should be put off until the Democratic presidential primaries in California. How is that fair to the voters?


It might have something to do with the unpleasantness in Florida where punch card votes changed the course of the country. While it is probably true that the error bars are insignificant in most elections, the realization of how very important it can be possibly may be important to a lot of people.

As I recall, Davis did not squeak in by a few hundred votes, so it is fortunate that such changes would have not affected the last California gubatorial election. This election is likely to be much closer, what with the numerous candidates. Besides, last I heard, Bustamante is the odd-on favorite to win if the election were held today. Why are the Republicans whining about the delay?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tricky


As I recall, Davis did not squeak in by a few hundred votes, so it is fortunate that such changes would have not affected the last California gubatorial election. This election is likely to be much closer, what with the numerous candidates. Besides, last I heard, Bustamante is the odd-on favorite to win if the election were held today. Why are the Republicans whining about the delay?

Everyone is wining about the delay not just Republicans. And this decision is a pure crock, 500,000 votes have already been cast. So this court is delaying an election which is already in progress...inorder to raise the complexity of the situation, they will be adding all the primary ballots, republican and democratic, plus a myriads of new initiatives, local and state measures a real mess.

And on top of that the new voting machines cannot handle the recall ballot, so it will go on a separate paper ballot.

Sure lets not disenfranchise 40,000 when we should be able to get a clear million.

The important vote on this is the first one. Davis needs to go, I am not a big fan of Bustamante, but anything is better than Davis.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The 9th Circuit Court is a liberal activist group dressed in black robes. This court has quite a few decisions overturned by this Supreme Court.



Half of the bill of rights would be overturned by THIS Supreme Court!

How many unanimous overturnings have they had? That's the real measure of how out in left field they are. Their job isn't to predict what the Supremes will say, expecially what the conservatives on the bench would say. Their job is just to rule as they see it.




This court has decided that the same system that re-elected Davis to office is now so broken that the election should be put off until the Democratic presidential primaries in California. How is that fair to the voters?


Again, that speaks to the difference between the margin of error and the margin of victory in this case. This election the former is very likely to be larger than the latter.


Here's part of a particularly well-written opinion printed in the Washinton Post that adresses some of those questions:


As the court wrote, "punch-card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean complete way by the voter." The Constitution, the court insisted, requires "some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."

Isn't that just liberal judicial activism? Only if Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Bush Five are liberal judicial activists. The two quotations you just read come straight from Bush v. Gore. The 9th Circuit's supposedly activist three were just quoting their judicial betters.

Ah, but aren't those 9th Circuit liberals preventing a speedy resolution of the recall? Perhaps, but there are more important issues than speed: "The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees." Yes, that is also a quotation from Bush v. Gore.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32112-2003Sep18.html


Here's another quote from Bush v. Gore:


We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.


And another:


It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).


It sounds to me like the 9th Circuit was trying to follow the Supreme Court's lead as closely as they could!


Plus, we're not talking about stopping an election here. Or stopping a recount. Just talking about postponing it until there are adequate measures in place to measure the will of the voters.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

It might have something to do with the unpleasantness in Florida where punch card votes changed the course of the country. While it is probably true that the error bars are insignificant in most elections, the realization of how very important it can be possibly may be important to a lot of people.

As I recall, Davis did not squeak in by a few hundred votes, so it is fortunate that such changes would have not affected the last California gubatorial election. This election is likely to be much closer, what with the numerous candidates. Besides, last I heard, Bustamante is the odd-on favorite to win if the election were held today. Why are the Republicans whining about the delay?

Davis' re-election was *post* Bush vs. Gore. No one knew before the election by what margin he would win.

The Republicans (and me) are whining about the delay because it puts the vote at the time when the Democratic primaries are being held, and therefore there will be more Democrats at the polls. It is obviously a case of a court being pressured by Democrats to put the odds as much in their favor as possible.

I agree Bustamante will probably win, which is sad, because he is worse than Davis.

What I find funny right now, is that Davis is signing laws and bills left and right that people have been asking for for a long time.

The 9th Circuit invalidated our state constitution to "protect the rights of disenfranchised voters", by pushing the date past the 80 day limit.


An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor, shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures. (Cal.Const., Art II, Sec. 15)



Shelley noted that the California constitution demands that the vote be taken no longer than 80 days after enough signatures of registered voters had been collected to force the recall.

Recall supporters gathered enough signatures this summer to put the initiative before voters on Oct. 7. The first ballot question asks whether Davis should be recalled, and the second offers a list of replacement candidates if the governor fails to get a majority of the vote.


big ass government PDF (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/recall.pdf)

AP story (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/6787810.htm)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

The 9th Circuit invalidated our state constitution to "protect the rights of disenfranchised voters", by pushing the date past the 80 day limit.


Yeah, they can do that, because they ruled that it violated the Equal Protection guarantees of the US Constitution. That one trumps the measily little California Constitution.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

The Republicans (and me) are whining about the delay because it puts the vote at the time when the Democratic primaries are being held, and therefore there will be more Democrats at the polls.

That part IS unfair.

But it's part and parcel of our 2-party system. It happens on ALL elections.

The incumbent gets a butt-load of free press because he IS the President. He gets mega coat-tails for straight-ticket voters, and some really great fund-raising perks.

But the price the party in power pays for that is the fact that he's the de-facto candidate, the OTHER party gets a boost on the other measures on Primary day.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kodiak on Sept. 18th, 2003

The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Court's ruling to block the recall. The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.


Am I good or what! :cool:



Appeals panel overturns decision delaying Oct. 7 election
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?0cv=CA01)

[Kodiak]

Where are all the naysayers and liberals who cried "election stealing!"?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Where are all the naysayers and liberals who cried "election stealing!"?
I don't recall saying anything like that. I'd just as soon get this train wreck started. Of course now the Democrats are pi**ed off, and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

On a lighter note, Ahnold (Remember him? He's the subject of this thread.) does his only debate (if it can be called that) tonight. I'm sure he will have his lines well memorized. Too bad they can't sneak in a surprise question on him.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tricky

I don't recall saying anything like that. I'd just as soon get this train wreck started. Of course now the Democrats are pi**ed off, and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

On a lighter note, Ahnold (Remember him? He's the subject of this thread.) does his only debate (if it can be called that) tonight. I'm sure he will have his lines well memorized. Too bad they can't sneak in a surprise question on him.

You know Tricky, when John Stewart won his Emmy, he issued a warning in his acceptance speech that essentially said:

"Now if Arnold wins, it will not be possible to send someone from the future back into the past to kill him, because he will be ready for that sort of thing!"

:p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
I don't recall saying anything like that.

True enough. I wasn't directing that post at reasonable persons on the left like yourself.


Originally posted by Tricky
...and it is likely (and Davis has even suggested it) that if a Republican wins, the Democrats will start a recall ballot. If I am correct, California requires no reason whatsoever to force a recall, only the correct number of signatures. This is an ugly little monster they have created.

True, but it's their democratically chosen little monster... :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak


True enough. I wasn't directing that post at reasonable persons on the left like yourself.
Erm... thanks, I think. ;)

Originally posted by Kodiak

True, but it's their democratically chosen little monster... :D
Yes, but the form of our democracy should be a republic, i.e. we elect our leaders, they vote on the bills. California has become more of a true democracy where the people vote on every bloody issue. Damned inefficient way to run a state, I think. They should stick to republicly deciding things. (Can I use that word?)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
Yes, but the form of our democracy should be a republic, i.e. we elect our leaders, they vote on the bills. California has become more of a true democracy where the people vote on every bloody issue. Damned inefficient way to run a state, I think. They should stick to republicly deciding things. (Can I use that word?)

A republic, yes, but a constitutionally limited one. Californians amended their State Constitution to allow for a recall as permitted by their Constitution. Nothing is stopping them from repealing it.

That said, I too abhor referendums.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
A republic, yes, but a constitutionally limited one. Californians amended their State Constitution to allow for a recall as permitted by their Constitution. Nothing is stopping them from repealing it.
That is true, and I suspect that the next time one party gets a nice safe margin in both houses, it will be repealed. After watching this circus, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Californians would say "oops, we fecked up."

[Clancie]

Did anyone see his press conference after the debate last night?

A reporter asked why AS wasn't participating in any other debates than this one (the only one where they had the questions in advance).

He said, quite sincerely, that the one last night would be the one with the biggest audience, the biggest ratings and there was no need to participate in the others because they "would only get a 1% share in the ratings" anyway.

:rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Clancie
Did anyone see his press conference after the debate last night?

A reporter asked why AS wasn't participating in any other debates than this one (the only one where they had the questions in advance).

He said, quite sincerely, that the one last night would be the one with the biggest audience, the biggest ratings and there was no need to participate in the others because they "would only get a 1% share in the ratings" anyway.

Reminds me of a line I saw in Doonsbury years ago. I forget to whom it was directed (probably Reagan), but it had a reporter asking the question,

"If we turned off the cameras, would you cease to exist?"

[DavidJames]

Arnold also benefitted from the "politics of low expectations". I was amazed that Jeff Greenfield from CNN fell into that trap. He was impressed that Arnold was able to rattle off a few statistics.

The more I hear from Arnold the less impressed and more annoyed I get that he is a couple of votes away from being gov. I can understand (however lame) the argument that yes, while he may not be the best Republican candidate overall, he's the Republican candidate with the best chance of winning. One has to wonder about the thinking behind the Republican machine who allowed this to happen. Although in all honesty, I have to give them credit as I think they understand the minds of voters, which is a little sad, because they are right.

[Silicon]

Strangely enough, I found McClintock the candidate with the best grasp of the facts. Even though he's the very picture of the opposite of my views, he did seem the most "qualified" candidate.

Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance.

Oh, would it only be that the MODERATE Republican, or the democrat had such a grasp of the issues, rather than the anti-abortion, anti gay-rights... anti any personal freedoms besides the second amendment candidate.


The main thing that keeps me voting democrat is the dumbass moralizing of the Republicans. Oh, and that whole "we're the party of Jesus, patriotism, apple-pie, and you're the party of Satan, terrorism and Tofu" garbage.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Arnold also benefitted from the "politics of low expectations". I was amazed that Jeff Greenfield from CNN fell into that trap. He was impressed that Arnold was able to rattle off a few statistics.

The more I hear from Arnold the less impressed and more annoyed I get that he is a couple of votes away from being gov. I can understand (however lame) the argument that yes, while he may not be the best Republican candidate overall, he's the Republican candidate with the best chance of winning. One has to wonder about the thinking behind the Republican machine who allowed this to happen. Although in all honesty, I have to give them credit as I think they understand the minds of voters, which is a little sad, because they are right.

Just remember that it's the Republican machine in California. These guys just can't get a grasp on the fact that the majority of Californians won't vote in an ultra-conservative pro-lifer.