CNN says ARNOLD! [Archive]

reprise

7th October 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by kittynh
but so far it seems that quite a few people wanted ARNOLD!

Come on, why don't you guys elect the Croc Hunter, or Rachael Hunter to office?

The Kiwis can take Rachel Hunter back. :)

It's precisely because many voters don't want celebrities wielding constitutional power that a lot of people (myself included) don't want direct election of the state Governors or our Governor-General in Australia. We don't even particularly want direct election of our Premiers or Prime Minister because we want to be able to get rid of them during their term of office if they aren't delivering on their campaign promises.

I'm surprised at how quickly the results of this poll have come in. Do you have scrutineers in the US who physically check the the votes to make sure that they have been counted properly?

Zep

7th October 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by kittynh
Come on, why don't you guys elect the Croc Hunter, or Rachael Hunter to office? US guys, Kitty? Do you mean Australians? If so, I take it you HAVE seen Croc Hunter in action on TV??

Huh! Croc Hunter being a politician here is like Arnold Schwarzenegger being one in Califor... ummmmmm... Right. :)

Jude

7th October 2003, 08:28 PM

I don't feel bad for Davis at all.

Zep

7th October 2003, 08:29 PM

reprise, I understand the voting is electronic and therefore pretty much immediate. Is that right, someone?

Denise

7th October 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Jude
I don't feel bad for Davis at all.

Well, you live there and all I can do is view from afar. I wonder if Jesse has called him yet?:D

Denise

7th October 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Zep
reprise, I understand the voting is electronic and therefore pretty much immediate. Is that right, someone?

I think with the newer machines, but I think there still are some punchcard ballots.

LibraryFox

7th October 2003, 08:44 PM

At the moment, with 14% of precincts reproting, 56% yes on the recall and 52% for arnold as the replacement.
See http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/summary.html for current information if you want it.
-LF

Denise

7th October 2003, 08:48 PM

Thanks!

Gary Coleman Ind 1,917 0.2

Go Gary! That would be the Different Strokes Fan Vote.

Denise

7th October 2003, 09:11 PM

Gary's in 11th place!

Julia

7th October 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by reprise

So at least in theory, if a lot of candidates are running someone could be elected governor with a very small percentage of the primary vote?

Yes, I believe the figure is 15%.

Funny, I'm having a flashback of having to get used to there being a Gov. Regan. Not long ago A.S. was a not-very-good actor that I never really thought about.

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Zep
reprise, I understand the voting is electronic and therefore pretty much immediate. Is that right, someone?

Nope, it's a mixed bag. The one I had to use was one that you fill in the box(es) with a special pen, then you put the whole thing into a big special envelope and stick the end of the envelope into a machine and it sucks the ballet out of the envelope.

Last I saw on TV, the recall was going through at 54% for to 49% against. Pretty close. The race for the candidates is another matter, Ahnold is giving all the candidates (especially Bustamante) a sound thrashing and will likely win by a larger margin in a race with over a hundred candidates than the margin by which Davis won in essentially a two man race.

All I have to say to Davis is Hasta La Vista, Baby!.

Bustamante No, Recall Si.

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by kittynh
but so far it seems that quite a few people wanted ARNOLD!

Come on, why don't you guys elect the Croc Hunter, or Rachael Hunter to office?

Croikey! Look at the size of that defecit! It's a roial beauty, it is.

LOL Croc Hunter... :rolleyes:

uneasy

7th October 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Denise
Well, you live there and all I can do is view from afar. I wonder if Jesse has called him yet?:D
California will now get a taste of what Minnesota got. I don't know if that's good or bad, but today California took over as having the strangest governor.

(I think California was just jealous of all the attention Minnesota got :))

MoeFaux

7th October 2003, 09:26 PM

I think I would have voted Mary Carey.

DavidJames

7th October 2003, 09:26 PM

"All I have to say to Davis is Hasta La Vista, Baby!."

I was watching Arnold on the news last night and he was giving his Davis terminated this and Davis terminated that and he's going to terminate Davis.... speech and I kept thinking, this is really happening, this isn't an SNL sketch, it's real, it's not a bad parody, it's a real speech in front of real people who will really elect him.

At some point I think we're going to wake up and find we're all on the Truman show.

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I think I would have voted Mary Carey.

Cool, then she would have had two votes!

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
"All I have to say to Davis is Hasta La Vista, Baby!."

I was watching Arnold on the news last night and he was giving his Davis terminated this and Davis terminated that and he's going to terminate Davis.... speech and I kept thinking, this is really happening, this isn't an SNL sketch, it's real, it's not a bad parody, it's a real speech in front of real people who will really elect him.

At some point I think we're going to wake up and find we're all on the Truman show.

Hey, we've been living in "The Lathe of Heaven" for some time. Whatever Davis dreams up, we have to live with the next day.

Mr Manifesto

7th October 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
"All I have to say to Davis is Hasta La Vista, Baby!."

I was watching Arnold on the news last night and he was giving his Davis terminated this and Davis terminated that and he's going to terminate Davis.... speech and I kept thinking, this is really happening, this isn't an SNL sketch, it's real, it's not a bad parody, it's a real speech in front of real people who will really elect him.

At some point I think we're going to wake up and find we're all on the Truman show.

Excellent! It is going to plan. Now if we can only eliminate the one called "Neo", everything will be perfect!

UnrepentantSinner

7th October 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Cool, then she would have had two votes!

Try again...

Mary "Carey" Cook - 2,042

Denise

7th October 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by uneasy

California will now get a taste of what Minnesota got. I don't know if that's good or bad, but today California took over as having the strangest governor.

(I think California was just jealous of all the attention Minnesota got :))

Actually, I think Jesse did a good job. I would have voted for him again.

EvilYeti

7th October 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I think I would have voted Mary Carey.

She had the best platform of all in my opinon.

My Gubernatorial Platform
The most important issue facing California right now is our $38 billion deficit and 6.7% unemployment rate. California needs a governor who will get our finances in order! As a “political outsider,” I have fresh, original ideas for helping the state generate revenue and reduce its deficit. Here are just some of them:

1. Legalize gay marriage in California. This will generate a tremendous amount of revenue for the state as a honeymoon destination.

2. Tax breast implants. From Beverly Hills alone, we should bring in millions in tax revenue. (Note: I am all-natural and I personally discourage the use of implants!)

3. Make lap dances a tax deductible business expense. This will help grease the wheels of business in California and stimulate our economy.

4. If I’m elected Governor, I will wire the Governor’s Mansion with live web cams in every room. We will create a pay site, and all money collected will go toward reducing the deficit. Californians will get to see their government in action - literally! (Also, we will have people from around the globe helping to pay off our debt, so it doesn’t all fall on the shoulders of Californians.)

5. I will create a “Porn for Pistols” program to take handguns off the streets. Dealing with the violence and injuries associated with handguns is a huge drain on our state's resources.

6. As Governor, I will recruit fellow performers from the adult video industry as ambassadors of good will. These ambassadors will be a great help to California when it comes to such things as negotiating rates for buying electricity from neighboring states.

7. I will coordinate the state’s unemployment and jury systems, so that anyone who applies for unemployment will instantly be called for jury duty. This will save California state and local governments millions of dollars, because we won’t have to pay for jury duty. It will also relieve those with jobs from the stress of serving on lengthy juries.

8. I will fight the federal government's attempts to harass the adult video industry. Adult video is an $11 billion industry that creates more than $23 million in taxes each year for the state of California. We can't afford to lose this tax base!

9. If elected, I will support legislation to allow bars throughout the state of California to remain open until 4am. It will generate extra revenue, give additional hours of employment to the working class, and have a positive chain reaction throughout our economy.

10. I will address the HIV/AIDS epidemic that is costing our state millions of dollars and an incalculable toll in human lives.

EdipisReks

7th October 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I think I would have voted Mary Carey.

i would have given her one stiff vote with my....*ahem*.....go arnold.

Denise

7th October 2003, 09:36 PM

Geez, are there enough people on the stage at Arnie's headquarters? It looks like they are going to pass a mike around and sing "We are the World." I hope those bleachers don't collapse.:eek:

Just wanted to use the eek smiley one time.

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Denise
Geez, are there enough people on the stage at Arnie's headquarters? It looks like they are going to pass a mike around and sing "We are the World." I hope those bleachers don't collapse.:eek:

Just wanted to use the eek smiley one time.

Damn, I hope no one gets seriously groped at that party :D

uneasy

7th October 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Denise
Actually, I think Jesse did a good job. I would have voted for him again.
Let me break my rule about not talking politics and admit on this strange night that I would have too. :)

EvilYeti

7th October 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Denise

Go Gary! That would be the Different Strokes Fan Vote.

Or the pedophile bicycle shop owner vote.

P.S. This post is dedicated to the memory of Gordon "Curly" Jump. 1932-2003

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by EdipisReks

i would have given her one stiff vote with my....*ahem*.....go arnold.

What's that you said about a hanging chad?

Denise

7th October 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by uneasy

Let me break my rule about not talking politics and admit on this strange night that I would have too. :) :rub: :D

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Try again...

Even Arianna Huff 'n' Puff is getting some votes and she withdrew. (Insert joke about early withdrawl here).

MoeFaux

7th October 2003, 09:46 PM

Jesse would make a good presidential runner.

I would have voted Larry Flynt, but then I saw Mary's platform and it was actually pretty good. And she's so cute and bubbly! And DAMN smart.
Ugh, I sure hope Ahnold doesn't turn Vegas into California East.

The Central Scrutinizer

7th October 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Denise

Actually, I think Jesse did a good job. I would have voted for him again.

I would have voted for him had I lived in Minnesota! And I normally don't vote.

schplurg

7th October 2003, 09:55 PM

reprise, I understand the voting is electronic and therefore pretty much immediate. Is that right, someone?
I voted with a punchcard and I'll tell you what, I had a hanging chad, or non-hanging!!! I only punched 2 holes: one to vote Yes for the recall, one to vote for McClintock (woulda voted for Arnie just to get Davis out but I didn't need to, so I voted for who I felt was the "better" candidate). I skipped the other 2 initiatives as I was suspicious of any other items that got tacked onto the ballot. They were both defeated.

Voting problems:
Anyways, I looked at the ballot and one chad looked as if it hadn't been punched. I used my fingers, saw that it was "hanging", tore the little bugger off. Nice. My sister thinks we should use those hole-punchers that you use in offices and schools. Those never seem to fail...'ker-chink". I can't believe in the year 2003 that we can't get a ballot that works better. Well, ya I can actually.

Next:
Nobody asked for any identification. I asked the 3 people sitting in the empty schoolroom/polling area about it and they said "you just need to tell us your name and street address, that's all we require."

I asked "Don't you think that's a little scary?"

They looked at me like I was a moron (small town). I said, "I know 10 people who live on my street...their names and addresses. I could vote for all of them! So could anyone else."

They didn't have an answer, though I heard them discussing this as I was voting. With all the terrorism, voter fraud, and considering the fiasco of the last presidential election, I would think these rules would be changed. I think some sort of ID should be mandatory. Scary.

Like it or not, history is being made tonight. Trip out.

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 10:04 PM

Awww Davis is making his sad little goodbye (concession) speech now.

Ewps, I had my fax wrong.

Recall Yes 54% No 46%

Schwarzenneger 50%
Bustamante 31 %

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 10:06 PM

EvilYeti

7th October 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by MoeFaux

Ugh, I sure hope Ahnold doesn't turn Vegas into California East.

Too late, San Diego is already east of Reno!

Denise

7th October 2003, 10:12 PM

I'm surprised that people standing on the bleachers haven't started passing out yet...

uneasy

7th October 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by MoeFaux I would have voted Larry Flynt, but then I saw Mary's platform and it was actually pretty good. And she's so cute and bubbly! And DAMN smart.

Maybe you are being sarcastic, but I remember seeing her long before this craziness started. I'm not a big fan of the fake porn star types, but when listening to her, I thought she was interesting, and she made me smile. It wasn't even the big boobs, I swear. :)

peptoabysmal

7th October 2003, 10:16 PM

Hmmm... Maybe I should have voted for Gallagher.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/recall_gallagher_help.jpg

shecky

7th October 2003, 11:10 PM

The real question is how this will affect the Republican party in the long run. Arnold is arguably at least as liberal as Davis, apparently on the record favoring gay rights, abortion rights, gun regulations, and even in favor of some taxes, if his campaign commercials are to be believed.

In short, it's difficult to say at this point if the Republican party really won much. The party that put up Bill Simon (as opposed to the moderate Dick Riordan) against Davis just a little while ago. And lost. I just have trouble believing the conservatives sitting easy with this victory. The biggest weapon the Democrats may have is calling Arnold on all his moderate/liberal stances. Assuming he doesn't back pedal on them, perhaps it'll enrage the conservative rank and file enough to initiate a recall...

Abdul Alhazred

7th October 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by shecky
The real question is how this will affect the Republican party in the long run. Arnold is arguably at least as liberal as Davis, apparently on the record favoring gay rights, abortion rights, gun regulations, and even in favor of some taxes, if his campaign commercials are to be believed.

The one way this could help is that being nominally Republican, Arnold maybe can sweet talk some Federal money out of the US Congress.

Not quite "the Republican way", but I daresay he wouldn't be the first Republican governor to do this.

kerfer

8th October 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by shecky
The real question is how this will affect the Republican party in the long run.

That's a good point. I think that part of what we, the people, (not some right wing conspiracy, as some nut-job wacko pantloads would have you believe) are tired of the GOP putting forth extremist candidates that can't win, and that don't represent the rank and file Republican voter. That's part of the problem that has allowed the democrats to run the greatest state in the union into the ground. The results aren't fully in yet, but from how it looks now, Arnold's margin of victory in this election is overwhelming, and should ber a shot across the bow for politics as usual...or so I hope.

Most people, I reckon, be they Democrats or Republicans, are far more moderate than the parties that claim to represent them claim.

FWIW: I couldn't be happier than I am that that bought and paid for piece of crap in a pinstripe suit is toast. But I give him points for being humble during his speech tonite (on the flip side of that, when a fella is normally as arrogant as Joe Davis comes across as humble, it makes a skeptic and cynic wonder WTF he's up to).

It should be an interesting couple of years.

Hopefully, the governator can reach out, and get bipartisan support to do what needs to be done in this state, in order to jump start the economy of this state, which should help the economy of the country. Which would be good for us all.

But there are so many levels of obstruction ahead....sigh. How quickly the optimist is overcome by the realist....

Grammatron

8th October 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by schplurg

I voted with a punchcard and I'll tell you what, I had a hanging chad, or non-hanging!!! I only punched 2 holes: one to vote Yes for the recall, one to vote for McClintock (woulda voted for Arnie just to get Davis out but I didn't need to, so I voted for who I felt was the "better" candidate). I skipped the other 2 initiatives as I was suspicious of any other items that got tacked onto the ballot. They were both defeated.

Voting problems:
Anyways, I looked at the ballot and one chad looked as if it hadn't been punched. I used my fingers, saw that it was "hanging", tore the little bugger off. Nice. My sister thinks we should use those hole-punchers that you use in offices and schools. Those never seem to fail...'ker-chink". I can't believe in the year 2003 that we can't get a ballot that works better. Well, ya I can actually.

Next:
Nobody asked for any identification. I asked the 3 people sitting in the empty schoolroom/polling area about it and they said "you just need to tell us your name and street address, that's all we require."

I asked "Don't you think that's a little scary?"

They looked at me like I was a moron (small town). I said, "I know 10 people who live on my street...their names and addresses. I could vote for all of them! So could anyone else."

They didn't have an answer, though I heard them discussing this as I was voting. With all the terrorism, voter fraud, and considering the fiasco of the last presidential election, I would think these rules would be changed. I think some sort of ID should be mandatory. Scary.

Like it or not, history is being made tonight. Trip out.

They checked my ID and I actually saw one guy being turned away because he had no form of identification of any kind. I am sure he was a registered voter; he just flaked on that part.

Denise

8th October 2003, 01:30 AM

I've never been asked for my ID to vote in Minnesota. I do think it would be a good idea.

reprise

8th October 2003, 01:38 AM

It's a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be,
but it wouldn't be make-believe if you believed in me...

Perhaps people truly do get the government they deserve. Arnold will be the Governor who represents the children and the people (apologies to Diana and Michael Jackson groupies)? And people actually voted for him on that platform not on how in the name of the IPU he is going to fix the economic problems of the world's sixth largest economy?

And people wonder why some parts of the world have yet to be convinced of the value of "democracy in action"...

Today, America, we ARE laughing at you.

Denise

8th October 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by reprise
[i]

Today, America, we ARE laughing at you.

And this is something new?:D

Watching Gray Davis speech I think I realize why he lost. He is Mr. Roger's twin brother!

reprise

8th October 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Denise

And this is something new?:D

Watching Gray Davis speech I think I realize why he lost. He is Mr. Roger's twin brother!

Don't you guys ever actually evaluate the POLICIES your politicians are advocating before you vote for them? Didn't people actually consider Arnold's economic plan to get the state out of big-time fiscal crap and consider whether or not it was workable or not? Didn't his opponents take great pleasure in publicly pointing out why his financial rescue plans wouldn't work?

Denise

8th October 2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by reprise

Don't you guys ever actually evaluate the POLICIES your politicians are advocating before you vote for them? Didn't people actually consider Arnold's economic plan to get the state out of big-time fiscal crap and consider whether or not it was workable or not? Didn't his opponents take great pleasure in publicly pointing out why his financial rescue plans wouldn't work?

Well, I'm not in California. Don't think voter apathy is unique to the USA.

reprise

8th October 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Denise

Well, I'm not in California. Don't think voter apathy is unique to the USA.

I would agree with you there Denise, but when your state or your nation is in the economic hole which California is in right now then you have a vested interest in giving a rat's ass about who the hell is going to be running it in the short-term future and you'd sure has heck better understand the implications of the vote you cast or your choice not to cast one at all.

If Iraq proposed "free" elections which operated on the same basis as this one most of the Western world would - justifiably - accuse the candidates of being ill-equipped or under-qualified to assume the responsibilities of the office they sought to assume.[/b] [/quote]

Denise

8th October 2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by reprise

I would agree with you there Denise, but when your state or your nation is in the economic hole which California is in right now then you have a vested interest in giving a rat's ass about who the hell is going to be running it in the short-term future and you'd sure has heck better understand the implications of the vote you cast or your choice not to cast one at all.

If Iraq proposed "free" elections which operated on the same basis as this one most of the Western world would - justifiably - accuse the candidates of being ill-equipped or under-qualified to assume the responsibilities of the office they sought to assume.

I accidentally edited your post. I hope I restored it fully. I apologize. I wanted to say that my state elected an outsider and I think he did an outstanding job.

Zep

8th October 2003, 02:48 AM

Personally, I would be VERY interested in the voter turnout figures. Anyone???

BTW, in Australia, we have what is known as the Australian Electoral Commission (http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/about/functions.htm), which administers electoral rolls, enrolment, and federal and state elections. They ensure that the same voting procedures, whatever they are, used right across the voting population. Makes for consistency anyway.

reprise

8th October 2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Denise

I accidentally edited your post. I hope I restored it fully. I apologize. I wanted to say that my state elected an outsider and I think he did an outstanding job.

Didn't notice the edit, so "no harm, no foul". It was probably improved by whatever edit you made anyway (you should see the invective I'm throwing around on Infidels ATM).

It is no mean feat to try to hold together a commonwealth (and that's what the USA is) of 50 separate states all of whom operate first and foremost under the auspices of their own constitutions. We laughed at the USSR for presuming that it was possible and we laugh at the EU for pretty much the same reasons.

There's not an Australian on this board who couldn't relate absolute horror stories about some of the tragic state governments which have gained power during our lifetimes. The difference - I guess - is their capacity to make a significant impact on national - much less INTERNATIONAL - affairs. The reality is that if the world's sixth largest economy goes down the toilet it affects all other Western nations - just as your accounting or insurance firms going broke affects the world's economy.

It's not so much that we're trying to be nasty, it's that we're asking why in the heck American politics is decided by those who can be bothered turning out at the polls on a Tuesday (first mistake - we vote on Saturdays and go to the pub before and after) when the consequences of whether or how you vote are so enormous in your own lives, never mind how they impact on the rest of the world.

We - too - are heading towards an election. For the second time in 12 months the opinion polls are showing that the voters emphatically do not want token tax cuts in the lead up to the next election, they want our budget surplus directed towards upgrading the health and education systems in that order. We're FURIOUS that our mandated government hasn't already directed the extra $4 billion they acquired this year towards one-off "catch-up", "fix-up" expenditure. We fully understand that this was a "bonus" year and that the money cannot be committed to recurring expenditure, but we sure as hell want them to spend this bonus on the national "wishlist" and spend it now rather than return it to each of us taxpayers as electoral inducement money at a rate which won't even buy every Australian a soft drink each week. The projected 3.5 billion dollar budget should - of course - be managed very carefully. The 4 billion dollar bonus, however, is "play money" from the viewpoint of the elctorate. The party with the best proposals on how to spend this windfall for the benefit of all Australians will win the next election. Any party whose best proposal for spending that money is meaningless tax cuts is not going to win any extra votes - they'll probably lose many votes they previously regarded as "safe".

Cultural divide - you bet. And it's election results like the one in California which make me determined to defend our own imperfect model of democracy rather than simply adopt the model which the spin doctors tell us works so well in the "land of the free and the home of the brave".

If it's all the same to you, we'll pass on your particular political system while still admiring the ideals for which it stands.

Some Friggin Guy

8th October 2003, 03:39 AM

Actualy, I thought of running myself.

Of course, I don't live in California, have never lived in California and wouldn't even if I was elected (Just don't like earthquakes.)

Somehow I doubt they would let me Govern over the internet.

Zep

8th October 2003, 03:45 AM

Thank you reprise - I'm in full agreement, and VERY eloquently put!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

BTW, that $4bill? That's OUR money from OUR taxes, not a windfall from lotto or something. So the bastards had BETTER listen this time...

reprise

8th October 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Thank you reprise - I'm in full agreement, and VERY eloquently put!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

BTW, that $4bill? That's OUR money from OUR taxes, not a windfall from lotto or something. So the bastards had BETTER listen this time...

I know that it's "our" money, but it wasn't part of the budget calculations. Everything that was part of the budget we can afford -and then some - without dipping into that part of consolidated revenue. The projected 3.5 billion dollar surplus was pretty much already committed in the budget. This nation - with approximately two thirds of the population of California and a 7.5 billion dollar surplus this financial year (let's not even go down the government and private debt comparisons, that'll only depress the Americans even more) had better damned NOT spend that "bonus" four billion on pork-barrelling. We - the electorate - consistently keep saying to our government, spend it on something worthwhile for all of us rather than giving us all a meaningless taxation "benefit".

Are we the only electorate in the world which actually REJECTS tax cuts? Spooky. Must be something to do with being upside-down.

Some Friggin Guy

8th October 2003, 04:07 AM

Reprise, I know exactly what you mean.

Speaking as an American, I find it depressing that much of this country is run on the wishes of the wealthy.

There are those who will argue, but it's true. Just look at the tax cuts, no-bid contracts in Iraq and Enron.

Now, having lived for a few years north of the border, let me tell you a few things:

1. Their system is not perfect but at least it is a pure democracy, not a democratic republic (meaning, their votes actually count, and things are not decided by an "electoral college")

2. Their helathcare system has some bugs, admittedly, but you will never get into a situation where a company suddenly decides it can't afford your insurance anymore.

3. Okay, the metric system for non-scientists is a bad idea.

4. They have better beer.

5. ...

Okay, maybe I need more coffee before I continue.

reprise

8th October 2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Reprise, I know exactly what you mean.

Speaking as an American, I find it depressing that much of this country is run on the wishes of the wealthy.

There are those who will argue, but it's true. Just look at the tax cuts, no-bid contracts in Iraq and Enron.

Now, having lived for a few years north of the border, let me tell you a few things:

1. Their system is not perfect but at least it is a pure democracy, not a democratic republic (meaning, their votes actually count, and things are not decided by an "electoral college")

2. Their helathcare system has some bugs, admittedly, but you will never get into a situation where a company suddenly decides it can't afford your insurance anymore.

3. Okay, the metric system for non-scientists is a bad idea.

4. They have better beer.

5. ...

Okay, maybe I need more coffee before I continue.

I don't so much mean to get into a pissing match with Americans about "which form of democracy is better" so much as I want to break through the cognitive dissonance about the promises made by their political masters. Australia has made some bad - and very costly - mistakes in joining the global economy and adopting economic rationalism, but at least we are not irrevocably commited to that course. It might take a decade of some pretty unpalatable political options to re-establish our economic sovereignty, and doing so might mean paying much higher prices for imported luxury goods, but it's still doable here.

Quite frankly, I can't see anything other than economic imperialism which is going to rescue the US from the fiscal hole into which it has already dug itself and keeps digging itself even deeper. What perplexes me is that the voters of America seem to either not perceive or be apathetic towards the inevitable "crunch" which is coming. I sometimes think that this is what it must have been like watching the fall of the Roman and the British Empires approaching and knowing that there's not a damned thing you could have done to stop them from believing in their own invulnerability.

Some Friggin Guy

8th October 2003, 04:46 AM

Reprise,

You are very much correct, however...

Americans, by and large, tend to believe their own press. The problem is, that press comes from the ones in power who stand to gain from the misfortune of others. This has nothing to with partisanship, as both major parties have been guilty of this.

In the mean time, we get fed one of the following two lines with a consistancy that would make almost anyone believe it:

1. (from one party): We are the most powerful nation in this world. Our economy will rebound once people remember this.

2. (from the other party): We need to be loved by the rest of the world. Our economy will rebound when that happens because trade will increase.

Both of the above quoted are INCREDIBLY simplified versions of what we hear, but the message is fairly accurate. Granted, we need to add in the agrument over tax cuts vs tax increases, but it really all boils down to that.

No one ever brings up the idea of economic sovereignty. The basic idea Washington tries to push is economic superiority. Frankly, Americans are PROUD of the fact that our money is (or was till the Euro) the global standard. They are even proud of the fact that the international black market runs on the US dollar.

rikzilla

8th October 2003, 05:45 AM

Well,

This is an unmitigated DISASTER for California, the United States and the world!!

A Nazi loving, mysogenistic, drug abusing sex-maniac has stolen the California election using punch card ballots (which have been proved to be biased against democratic candidates)!! Ahhhh the inhumanity!!! Why the great Jesse Jackson himself has already said that:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson said the election should be challenged in court because voters were disenfranchised when polling places were removed from many neighborhoods, especially in minority areas.
Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/08/state0318EDT0012.DTL)

-z

PS: Just thought I'd get the whiners started....c'mon Clancy, cry for us.

:roll:

Brown

8th October 2003, 07:38 AM

Let's say it all together now:

"Governor-elect Schwarzenegger."

Okay, let's try it again, but this time, let's all say it without laughing.

"Governor-elect Schwarzenegger."

Clancie

8th October 2003, 08:03 AM

No whining from me. After all, it will be very entertaining to see all the rationalizations people come up with for this guy (who, for starters, is not even going to live in Sacramento, just commute from his estate in Brentwood). AS did well yesterday with all groups of Ca. voters, but I think that a year from now it will be hard to find anyone who admits voting for him.
Posted by rikzilla

PS: Just thought I'd get the whiners started....c'mon Clancy, cry for us.
Oh, okay, rikzilla. One little whine, just for you....

I thought it was very rude of AS to start his acceptance intro (Leno) and speech just when Cruz Bustamante was beginning his concession announcement. Surely Schwarzenegger could have waited five more minutes until he finished...instead, of course, the cameras just left Bustamante in mid-thank you....:(

rikzilla

8th October 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Oh, okay, rikzilla. One little whine, just for you....

I thought it was very rude of AS to start his acceptance intro (Leno) and speech just when Cruz Bustamante was beginning his concession announcement. Surely Schwarzenegger could have waited five more minutes until he finished...instead, of course, the cameras just left Bustamante in mid-thank you....:(

:bricks: :v: :cry:

Sandy M

8th October 2003, 08:21 AM

I suppose the wording of the recall statute either does not address the issue, or even says otherwise, but I had always though that the "recall" option was for MALFEASANCE. Don't like the guy that was elected?..then don't vote for him next time, but recall.... inappropriate and hideously expensive at a time when the state is in horrible economic shape.

Of course, if the economic shape of the state is grounds for recall, why aren't we recalling the Shrub? The whole country is in equally bad shape - must be the Shrub's fault, right?

Well, I'm appalled, disgusted and sadly amused. Still, Ah-nuld sounds a bit too liberal for the Republican powers-that-be. What I want to know is this: If Ah-nuld doesn't fulfill his promise of hydrogen stations every 20 miles (for non-existent hydrogen-powered cars?) and "a good job for everyone" is there going to be a "Recall Ah-nuld" petition circulating 8 months from now?

I have to keep thinking that my idiot fellow-citizens thought they were voting for Ah-nuld to PLAY a governor in a movie. A very BAD movie.

Chanileslie

8th October 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Jesse would make a good presidential runner.

I would have voted Larry Flynt, but then I saw Mary's platform and it was actually pretty good. And she's so cute and bubbly! And DAMN smart.
Ugh, I sure hope Ahnold doesn't turn Vegas into California East.

Um, Vegas is in Nevada, but I know a few Nevadans who would happily hand it over to California. :-) BTW, Vegas is nothing like the rest of Nevada, and it already feels like an extension of LA with Gambling, IMO. And we here in Nevada haven't elected Arnold as our governor. We are notoriously independent here.

nightwind

8th October 2003, 09:16 AM

If Arnold doesn't straighten things out soon, could they recall him?

davefoc

8th October 2003, 09:38 AM

Grammaton said:
They checked my ID and I actually saw one guy being turned away because he had no form of identification of any kind. I am sure he was a registered voter; he just flaked on that part.

There were signs all over the polling place that I went to that it is illegal by state law to request an ID before voting. It is amazing to me that anybody in CA would have had their ID checked before voting.

A number of laws lately have been passed that make voter fraud somewhat easier to get away with. I am not quite sure why, but it seems like something that is part of the Democratic agenda. I think, it is their view, that more Democratic voters don't vote because they just don't want to make the effort, so the Democrats are generally the ones pushing laws that make it easier to vote. A more cynical view is that they think that illegal aliens are more likely to vote for them so that if they make it easier to commit election fraud they are likely to pick up votes from illegal aliens.

A few people that seemed to really look bad during this election:
Jesse Jackson - I'm not sure this guy is playing with a full deck anymore. Rambling on about voting irregularities when there is no evidence of any. My reaction to him was that he was more pathetic than partisan.

Huffington - Wow, a full out assault on the contest for the Nobel prize of hypocrites. She gets in the race, presumably because she thinks it would be a good idea to remove Davis, does poorly and all of a sudden is a Davis supporter. I suspect her support cost Davis more votes than it got him. She was already a leading contender for the hypocrite prize for paying no taxes on her millions in income. She did have a funny web site though.

Best Joke of the Election:
The reason that Schwarzenegger won was that he groped so many women that people thought he was a Democrat. A little tacky, but I thought it was funny.

Best part of the election
Schwarzenegger's victory speech. I was really amzed at the skill in the delivery and the well chosen words providing just the right tone of conciliation to the Democrats in power, the people who had run against him and to Davis.

MoeFaux

8th October 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Um, Vegas is in Nevada, but I know a few Nevadans who would happily hand it over to California. :-) BTW, Vegas is nothing like the rest of Nevada, and it already feels like an extension of LA with Gambling, IMO. And we here in Nevada haven't elected Arnold as our governor. We are notoriously independent here.

Yup, I know. My apartment is smack dab in Las Vegas right accross the street from the Hard Rock.

davefoc

8th October 2003, 09:55 AM

nightwind asked:
If Arnold doesn't straighten things out soon, could they recall him?

I think technically yes. One view of the recall process is that it is a disastrous idea that can lead to terrible instability in the government. Anybody with a few million dollars to toss out can get the requisite signatures and then we've got another recall underway.

The other thought is that about thirty times over the years people have tried to recall the governor, but that in all those cases the idea never got off the ground because there was insufficient support and most people are rational enough with their voting to know that it is a remedy that must be used sparingly.

Interestingly, it may have lead to the election of a person that is almost unelectible with the current state of politcs in California, a fiscal conservative, social liberal. People that fall into this camp can certainly win a majority of votes in a general election as this result indicated but they just might not be able to win a primary.

CFLarsen

8th October 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
I thought it was very rude of AS to start his acceptance intro (Leno) and speech just when Cruz Bustamante was beginning his concession announcement. Surely Schwarzenegger could have waited five more minutes until he finished...instead, of course, the cameras just left Bustamante in mid-thank you....:(

So, you think that these huge events are timed to fit, so one ends and another can start. Nothing random happens on TV, does it?

Just like JE in Crossing Over.

renata

8th October 2003, 10:48 AM

Somebody pinch me. Democrats blew it. New Yorker referred to Bustamante as "an affable mediocrity who has drifted upward on a combination of term limits, opportunism, ethnic ticket-balancing and luck." Arnold was the only moderate on the ticket- Davis is a money making machine, sold out to special interests and the unions, who is a disaster, Bustamante is a liberal, less talented shadow of Davis, and so there was very little choice. People held their nose and voted. Really, since Davis was in such denial over this recall, and because of his me or nobody strategy, they refused to put a strong Democrat on the ticket- they gambled and lost. When I voted yesterday the choices were worse than the next. The women of course are a red herring- if Democrats tolerate Kennedy, someone who caused a drowning death of a young woman, an actor who groped some women should be no biggie. We argued that character should not be an issue with Clinton. I am more concerned that Arnold is a puppet, that he has no experience, that he has no platform, that he is in pocket of big business. He uses Texas and Bush as his examples of good leadership, and that is the scary part. Of course given the Democrats control the legislature, this will be a very rancorous few years.

AmateurScientist

8th October 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by renata
Somebody pinch me. Democrats blew it. New Yorker referred to Bustamante as "an affable mediocrity who has drifted upward on a combination of term limits, opportunism, ethnic ticket-balancing and luck." Arnold was the only moderate on the ticket- Davis is a money making machine, sold out to special interests and the unions, who is a disaster, Bustamante is a liberal, less talented shadow of Davis, and so there was very little choice. People held their nose and voted. Really, since Davis was in such denial over this recall, and because of his me or nobody strategy, they refused to put a strong Democrat on the ticket- they gambled and lost. When I voted yesterday the choices were worse than the next. The women of course are a red herring- if Democrats tolerate Kennedy, someone who caused a drowning death of a young woman, an actor who groped some women should be no biggie. We argued that character should not be an issue with Clinton. I am more concerned that Arnold is a puppet, that he has no experience, that he has no platform, that he is in pocket of big business. He uses Texas and Bush as his examples of good leadership, and that is the scary part. Of course given the Democrats control the legislature, this will be a very rancorous few years.

Arnold a puppet? You don't know Arnold very well.

Speaking of puppets, you brought up a good example of them. Women's groups. I can think of no better example of puppeteering than when so many politically active women defended Clinton during the many sex scandals ("bimbo eruptions") that were unearthed during his two terms as President. Those women defending him in the face of such accusations were nothing but puppets of the Democratic left.

How utterly foolish any of them look now trying to attack Arnold with accusations of groping. You're right about Teddy Kennedy. His cowardice and selfishness after his drunk driving killed Mary Jo Kopechne say far more about his character than Arnold's sexual playfulness ever will about his.

The "no experience" argument doesn't wash. Many states have a rich history of electing non-politicians to high political office. That and Americans' general dislike for career politicians means not previously holding an elected office is not much of a handicap.

Arnold has a unique life experience of a boy of modest background becoming the dominant world champion in a backwater sport that he alone popularized, then changing gears and making a lot of money in real estate, then retiring from sport and becoming the biggest Hollywood action hero in history.

That is no accident. His accomplishments are due to Arnold's enormous will and determination. Give the man some credit.

AS

renata

8th October 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
[B]

Arnold a puppet? You don't know Arnold very well.

I know that I am tired of his canned speeches, that his platform had no specifics, and that his appearances consisted mostly of baby kissing.

Speaking of puppets, you brought up a good example of them. Women's groups. I can think of no better example of puppeteering than when so many politically active women defended Clinton during the many sex scandals ("bimbo eruptions") that were unearthed during his two terms as President. Those women defending him in the face of such accusations were nothing but puppets of the Democratic left.

How utterly foolish any of them look now trying to attack Arnold with accusations of groping. You're right about Teddy Kennedy. His cowardice and selfishness after his drunk driving killed Mary Jo Kopechne say far more about his character than Arnold's sexual playfulness ever will about his.

Agreed. Just as it was embarassing for right wing conservatives to attack Clinton over character issues while glossing over those issues with Arnolnd. Both sides are hypocrites and puppets of politicals interests and realities they serve at the moment.

The "no experience" argument doesn't wash. Many states have a rich history of electing non-politicians to high political office. That and Americans' general dislike for career politicians means not previously holding an elected office is not much of a handicap.

Not much, but is somewhat. I do not buy that outsider mentality is best. I think it is cute as a campaign slogan, but I want someone who is interested in politics, at least- Arnold not only did not care enough to serve, he did not care enough to vote in most elections. This seems like whirly opportunism and name reckognition.

Arnold has a unique life experience of a boy of modest background becoming the dominant world champion in a backwater sport that he alone popularized, then changing gears and making a lot of money in real estate, then retiring from sport and becoming the biggest Hollywood action hero in history.

That is no accident. His accomplishments are due to Arnold's enormous will and determination. Give the man some credit.

AS

I will, as soon as Republicans will tell Barbra Streisand and other Democrat leaning celebrities who also rose from nothing, and made their own achievements to shut up because they do not know what they are talking about. I do not see why a Republican self made celebrity should deserve more credit than a Democrat self made celebrity. But I do agree with you on one thing- I always respected people who rose into politics by themselves, as opposed to being born into it. For that reason, Clinton was always more sympathetic to me than Gore, Bush or any Kennedy, no matter his flaws.

I will see how it plays out. He is a moderate, who surrounded himself with a very smart team. Davis screwed up, badly, many times. I am curious to see how Arnold will respond to the allegations of the groping, as he promised to do after the election. He also promised a 100 day plan- let's see it. I am willing to give him a chance, Democrats blew their chance, serves them right.

davefoc

8th October 2003, 12:36 PM

Renata, thanks for your interesting and as usual balanced view of the world.

you said this:
Somebody pinch me. Democrats blew it.

I actually didn't think there was a great strategy for the Democrats available.

Bustamante's campaign demonstrated the between a rock and hard place nature of the election for any Democrat. If he staked out his own territory and explained what he would do differently than Davis, he would be seen as disloyal and an opportunist. If he praised Davis while putting himself on the Ballot, he'd be seen as a bit of an idiot. Bustamante tried to walk the non-existant middle ground and succeeded only in getting votes from the committed Democrats and the Latinos looking to promote more illegal aliens and a more Latino oriented agenda.

Even if the Democrats had put up a more main stream candicate there would have been difficulties, not the least of which would have been talking Bustamante in to getting off the ballot which would have pissed off some of his followers to the point that they might have voted for the other guy anyway. That hypothetical candidate to win would have had to have criticized to some degree Davis and/or the legislature. Both of which were likely to alienate a lot of Democrats and put the candidate in the position of losing and undercutting his support with Democrats for future campaigns.

DavidJames

8th October 2003, 03:39 PM

" I can think of no better example of puppeteering than when so many politically active women defended Clinton during the many sex scandals ("bimbo eruptions") that were unearthed during his two terms as President. Those women defending him in the face of such accusations were nothing but puppets of the Democratic left."

Perhaps in a new tread, but I would love to see some examples of this. No doubt that many (including myself) felt very strongly that his "crimes" did not warrant impeachment, but I really don't recall anyone of note defending what he did. Now of course we can always find anyone saying anything about any subject, but you seem to suggest it was more than a couple of isolated instances.

Mr Manifesto

8th October 2003, 03:44 PM

What I can't get over is how many news stations in Australia said that the election 'had the hallmarks of one of Arnold Schwarzzenaeger's movies'.

What... he was running for election when a bunch of bad guys in black suits jump out of helicopters shooting at him, and he spends an hour and a half killing people in a manner of interesting ways before chucking Gray Davis off a building?

Did he chop Davis in half with a sword?

AmateurScientist

8th October 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
" I can think of no better example of puppeteering than when so many politically active women defended Clinton during the many sex scandals ("bimbo eruptions") that were unearthed during his two terms as President. Those women defending him in the face of such accusations were nothing but puppets of the Democratic left."

Perhaps in a new tread, but I would love to see some examples of this. No doubt that many (including myself) felt very strongly that his "crimes" did not warrant impeachment, but I really don't recall anyone of note defending what he did. Now of course we can always find anyone saying anything about any subject, but you seem to suggest it was more than a couple of isolated instances.

The Lewinsky affair is but one of the many bimbo eruptions which plagued Clinton before and during his Presidential terms. A partial list:

1) Gennifer Flowers
2) Kathleen Willey
3) Paula Jones
4) Dolly Kyle Browning
5) Elizabeth Gracen
6) Sally Perdue
7) Suzanne Coleman
8) Beth Coulsen
9) Sheila Lawrence
10) Juanita Broaddrick
11) Marilyn Jo Jenkins
12) Cyd Dunlop
13) Monica Lewinsky.

These are the ones we know about. They are hardly isolated instances. They stretch out over a period of about 20 years. Clinton's handlers were often dispatched to clean up his bimbo messes. Ask George Stephanopolous, Dick Morris, or the chief bimbo handler Betsey Wright.

Are you kidding? Women didn't defend Clinton saying that his policies and actions in office were what counted? They didn't care about what he may have or may have not done in his personal life? That's not how I remember it.

Saving Kathleen Willey's Cat (http://69.57.157.207/archives/000303.php)

If you still want examples of women defending Clinton (I didn't say they defended his affair with Monica), I'm sure I can find some.

AS

8th October 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by MoeFaux

Yup, I know. My apartment is smack dab in Las Vegas right accross the street from the Hard Rock.

I see you

Here you are (http://terraserver-usa.com/addressimage.aspx?t=1&s=10&alon=-115.15221070&alat=36.10828234&w=2&ref=A%7c4475+Paradise+Rd%2c+Las+Vegas%2c+NV+89109&Lon=-115.1524110695&Lat=36.1075932786)

DavidJames

8th October 2003, 04:23 PM

I'm sure you remember things that way, I'm trying to get at what really happened :)

"Are you kidding? Women didn't defend Clinton saying that his policies and actions in office were what counted?

Huh? did you read what I wrote?- Yes, that's exactly what I believe happened? What makes you think differently. My quote was:

"No doubt that many (including myself) felt very strongly that his "crimes" did not warrant impeachment, but I really don't recall anyone of note defending what he did."

"They didn't care about what he may have or may have not done in his personal life?"

Again, where are you coming up with this stuff? Find me some quotes from notable women who agree with what he did in his personal life?

MoeFaux

8th October 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Ed

I see you

Here you are (http://terraserver-usa.com/addressimage.aspx?t=1&s=10&alon=-115.15221070&alat=36.10828234&w=2&ref=A%7c4475+Paradise+Rd%2c+Las+Vegas%2c+NV+89109&Lon=-115.1524110695&Lat=36.1075932786)

Well, I'm actually a little down the street. But there's a couple apartment buildings there, so good luck hunting me down.

AmateurScientist

8th October 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
I'm sure you remember things that way, I'm trying to get at what really happened :)

"Are you kidding? Women didn't defend Clinton saying that his policies and actions in office were what counted?

Huh? did you read what I wrote?- Yes, that's exactly what I believe happened? What makes you think differently. My quote was:

"No doubt that many (including myself) felt very strongly that his "crimes" did not warrant impeachment, but I really don't recall anyone of note defending what he did."

"They didn't care about what he may have or may have not done in his personal life?"

Again, where are you coming up with this stuff? Find me some quotes from notable women who agree with what he did in his personal life?

Well, apparently we aren't understanding each other.

My original point about women defenders of Clinton being puppets of the left is about the uncomfortable position groups like NOW found themselves in. Here was one of their favorite politicians, Bill Clinton, standing accused by many different women of behaving boorishly--to be diplomatic--towards them. His behavior was of the sort no self-respecting feminist would endorse.

That's what made their tortured defenses of him all the more difficult to take seriously. These are the same people who only a few years earlier had blasted Justice Clarence Thomas so hard in his 1991 confirmation hearings trying to block his confirmation, and the same ones who ran Senator Bob Packwood out of office. Uncomfortably, they now found themselves having to champion Bill Clinton and make the incongruous assertion that his behavior was purely private and didn't have an impact on his ability to govern.

If so, then why were similar allegations against Thomas and Packwood, Republicans both, so germane to their offices?

Now do you see the blatant hypocrisy? The NOW women and others were forced into exposing their rhetoric for what it was. They were exposed as puppets of the partisan left.

AS

DavidJames

8th October 2003, 05:31 PM

I'll trot out that old phrase, "politics make strange bedfellows". Much like many people support Bush, despite misgivings about his views on pushing Religion or stem cell research, etc. They do so (I'm guessing) because they feel that on the whole they are better served with him as President. I expect NOW, and some of the others, may have felt the same way. On the whole, they preferred Clinton and his warts, over the alternative. I don't disagree that their "enthusiasm" in opinions will be differ depending on the general political philosophy of the target. I would think this wouldn't be a surprise to you and we could probably point out examples from all across the political spectrum.

As far as hypocrisy goes, I hate it as least as much as you and will judge harshly those who go down that path. However, before I pass judgment I want to see the evidence. If the president or other leader of NOW, or one of their a position paper makes statement with glaring inconsistencies about their responses to issues about Clinton or Packwood or whomever, I will respond. But I won't simply based on recollection or perception of an organizations political leanings. That's why I keep asking for some examples.

AmateurScientist

8th October 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames

As far as hypocrisy goes, I hate it as least as much as you and will judge harshly those who go down that path. However, before I pass judgment I want to see the evidence. If the president or other leader of NOW, or one of their a position paper makes statement with glaring inconsistencies about their responses to issues about Clinton or Packwood or whomever, I will respond. But I won't simply based on recollection or perception of an organizations political leanings. That's why I keep asking for some examples.

If you insist. You don't have to rely on my memory. I'll refresh yours.

(from NOW's own site):
NOW's Crusade Against Bob Packwood (http://www.now.org/issues/harass/packwood.html)

Here's a 1999 editorial from the Princeton paper online pushing essentially the same idea I am:
Post Monica--NOW What? (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/Content/1999/03/11/edits/column1.html)

Here's a Wall Street Journal op-ed writer making the same point in 1998:

Who's a Hypocrite? (http://members.bellatlantic.net/~taranto/archive/hypo.htm)

This is a link to NOW Watch, a group which is critical of NOW. It explains how at least one NOW chapter seceded from the national charter after NOW failed to support Paula Jones and her accusations against the President.

NOW Watch (http://http://www.rightgrrl.com/now.html)

Here is National Review Online quoting Betty Friedan of NOW about Paula Jones:

"Betty Friedan, of the National Organization of Women, fulminated that Clarence Thomas was unfit to serve on the Supreme Court because he had allegedly talked dirty to Anita Hill ten years before. When Paula Jones reported that Bill Clinton had indecently exposed himself and ordered a state employee to perform fellatio on him, Betty Friedan responded blithely, "What's the big deal? She wasn't killed, She wasn't harassed. She wasn't fired."

There were some feminists who refused to defend Clinton, but they were hardly a majority of the most-prominent leaders of the movement. For this majority, it is fair to ask whether the welfare of the victims of rape and other sex crimes is less important than the perpetuation of political power by any means necessary."

What's the Big Deal? (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel041901.shtml)

That's all for now. Let me know if you want to see more.

AS

kittynh

8th October 2003, 06:24 PM

Voting differs based on where you live.

Here's how I vote. I drive up to town hall. I say, "Hi Bill!" to the town policeman (sometimes it's Cal, but Bill likes to do voter days). I then walk in and Mary or Holly (sometimes Ruth) say, "Hi Barb!" I get the ballot for my party. Pool Boy is an independant which means he gets to be a temporary Dem or Republican or whatever for the day. He actually has to register just for the day.

The ballot is paper, the booth is handmade (the boy scouts made them one year and keep them up, they wobble) with curtains that Ruth sewed up about 20 year ago. You can tell who is voting next to you because you know their dog or kid (the curtains aren't very long). You use a pencil, and after you leave the booth you drop your ballot in a wooden box the boy scouts made. You see everyone you see at the dump, and the Friends of the Library always sells cookies, brownies and coffee or hot chocolate.

And people wonder why were "first primary in the nation"

kerfer

8th October 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Personally, I would be VERY interested in the voter turnout figures. Anyone???

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/

Knock yourself out.

reprise

8th October 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by kerfer

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/

Knock yourself out.

That link isn't working for me. :(

Denise

8th October 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by reprise

That link isn't working for me. :(

You can try this one

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2003/recall/

I couldn't find anything on percentage of eligable voters though. Maybe they have to wait until all the absentee ballots are counted?

The Central Scrutinizer

8th October 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Arnold has a unique life experience of a boy of modest background becoming the dominant world champion in a backwater sport that he alone popularized, then changing gears and making a lot of money in real estate, then retiring from sport and becoming the biggest Hollywood action hero in history.

That is no accident. His accomplishments are due to Arnold's enormous will and determination. Give the man some credit.

AS

Yep. Well put. I have asked repeatedly why people think he is not "qualified" to be governor, and no one has given me an answer yet. Like a guy at the office this morning (a woo-woo, BTW), saw the head line on my newspaper laying on my desk and shook his head and said "I can't believe it", and "This is awful". I asked why, and he couldn't come up with an answer.

reprise

8th October 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Yep. Well put. I have asked repeatedly why people think he is not "qualified" to be governor, and no one has given me an answer yet. Like a guy at the office this morning (a woo-woo, BTW), saw the head line on my newspaper laying on my desk and shook his head and said "I can't believe it", and "This is awful". I asked why, and he couldn't come up with an answer.

My understanding of the state governor role in the US is that the person who holds the office wields direct political power over the operation of the state.

I'm not saying that we haven't had populist politicians elected here - we certainly have - but not to positions in which they actually control (or at least command significant influence over) the functions of government.

I haven't yet come across Arnold's policy statement. I haven't yet seen any step by step plan of precisely how he's going to fix California's problems. I haven't seen any independent assessment of the viability of his proposals.

It seems pretty obvious to outsiders that California will have to increase revenue while cutting expenditure, but I haven't yet seen Arnold outline which specific programme expenditures will be cut and which means will be used to raise additional revenue.

It may well be that Arnold's plan for the economic management of California is a sound one and that the necessary "belt-tightening" will be more popular to the population if the message of its necessity is delivered by someone who is personally popular, but I would have expected him to be selling the soundness of his plan for fiscal recovery at every opportunity and such media reports of his campaigning as we received here we extremely light on detail about how he's going to fix California.

reprise

8th October 2003, 10:05 PM

I just read elsewhere that about 600,000 more voters voted AGAINST recalling Davis than voted FOR Arnold. Does anyone know whether this is correct?

Grammatron

8th October 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by reprise
I just read elsewhere that about 600,000 more voters voted AGAINST recalling Davis than voted FOR Arnold. Does anyone know whether this is correct?

That may be true, however some could have -- like I did -- vote against recall AND for Arnold.

Supercharts

8th October 2003, 10:56 PM

peptoabysmal

8th October 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by reprise
I just read elsewhere that about 600,000 more voters voted AGAINST recalling Davis than voted FOR Arnold. Does anyone know whether this is correct?

I heard quite a few folks say that they voted against the recall and did not vote for any replacement.

It sounds correct. Arnie beat out Bustamante by a larger percentage than the yes beat out the no on the recall. You have a choice of yes and no for the recall, so every who voted picked one of those two choices, but with the candidates, let's see, how many of them were there?

reprise

8th October 2003, 11:16 PM

Bustamante retains the position of Lt Governor, doesn't he?

Mauler

8th October 2003, 11:24 PM

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/summary.html

Arnold Schwarzenegger = 3,744,132
No Votes = 3,562,487

kerfer

8th October 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by reprise
I just read elsewhere that about 600,000 more voters voted AGAINST recalling Davis than voted FOR Arnold. Does anyone know whether this is correct?

Yes,it it likely correct that you read that. What? Oh. ;)

No, that's not correct. Since the Secretary of State for the State of CA link isn't working for you (that's weird), here's data from the race, from the SecState web site, 100% of precincts reported (I think that means that all the votes have been counted):

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Votes Percent

Yes 4,416,280 55.4
No 3,562,487 44.6

Leading Candidates to succeed GRAY DAVIS as Governor if he is recalled:
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Candidate Party Votes Percent

Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,744,132 48.7
Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,434,484 31.7
Tom McClintock Rep 1,026,704 13.4

The numbers fall off very quickly after that.

So no, about 200,000 more people voted for Arnold than voted against the recall (which, I suppose, could be argued 'voted for Joe Davis').

'Zat hepp?

edited to add:
The only thing I can see here that's about 600,000 votes delta concerning both Arnold and the recall of Davis is that a little over 600,000 more people voted for the recall than did for Arnold.

shecky

8th October 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Yep. Well put. I have asked repeatedly why people think he is not "qualified" to be governor, and no one has given me an answer yet. Like a guy at the office this morning (a woo-woo, BTW), saw the head line on my newspaper laying on my desk and shook his head and said "I can't believe it", and "This is awful". I asked why, and he couldn't come up with an answer.

I think this points to the very notion of electability. Let's face it. Elections often have all the sophistication of a 7th grade popularity contest. We often like to think politicians should have some education or experience or civic accomplishment or any combination of those things. But when it comes down to it, we vote for someone we like for no rational reasons.

On the face of it, I can understand the feeling that Arnold has no qualification to be goveror. Why? Because he's never exhibited any kind of stunning insights or wisdom. He's a mediocre actor rich boorish West LA elite.

Then again, he often comes across as a likeable guy, and that counts for quite a bit. I tend to think that if Davis had a hint of personality, the recall would never have gotten steam.

The only thing that really irked me about the election is the free ride Arnold got from the "liberal" media. He launched his campaign on the Tonight Show and did nationally broadcast talk shows. And Arnold just got a victory slap-on-the-back on the Tonight Show. No other candidate could ever hope to buy that kind of publicity. Not only is the media circle jerk over Arnold annoying, but I also find it annoying how incestuous Hollywood can be. Living in L.A. can skew one's perspective, but this whole story has got to be a yawn in many parts of the country. If I didn't live in the state, I doubt I'd give two ***** about the whole thing.

peptoabysmal

8th October 2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Bustamante retains the position of Lt Governor, doesn't he?

Unfortunately, he wasn't "Terminated". :D

kerfer

8th October 2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by shecky

If I didn't live in the state, I doubt I'd give two ***** about the whole thing.

#ifdef snaggletooth
"Three *****, even."
#endif

Excellent point...anybody wanna answer why it is that non-CA residents seem to care so much about who our governor is?* I don't think I give a rip about who Montana's governor, anymore than I give a rip about whether the Baptists or Episcopalians or Bahai, or which ever cult it is that's about ready to split...why do you care?

* Especially if the person in question cannot be President, in which case, I can perhaps see why you'd care.

reprise

8th October 2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by kerfer

Yes,it it likely correct that you read that. What? Oh. ;)

No, that's not correct. Since the Secretary of State for the State of CA link isn't working for you (that's weird), here's data from the race, from the SecState web site, 100% of precincts reported (I think that means that all the votes have been counted):

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Votes Percent

Yes 4,416,280 55.4
No 3,562,487 44.6

Leading Candidates to succeed GRAY DAVIS as Governor if he is recalled:
100.0 % ( 15235 of 15235 ) precincts reporting as of Oct 8, 2003 at 7:27 pm
Candidate Party Votes Percent

Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 3,744,132 48.7
Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 2,434,484 31.7
Tom McClintock Rep 1,026,704 13.4

The numbers fall off very quickly after that.

So no, about 200,000 more people voted for Arnold than voted against the recall (which, I suppose, could be argued 'voted for Joe Davis').

'Zat hepp?

edited to add:
The only thing I can see here that's about 600,000 votes delta concerning both Arnold and the recall of Davis is that a little over 600,000 more people voted for the recall than did for Arnold.

Yep, that helps.

The second link to the SecState website doesn't work for me either - I get I "could not locate remote server" error message on both. Maybe it doesn't like foreigners. :) Is their anything on the website about what percentage of people eligible to vote did so?

peptoabysmal

8th October 2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by shecky

Then again, he often comes across as a likeable guy, and that counts for quite a bit. I tend to think that if Davis had a hint of personality, the recall would never have gotten steam.

... And if he hadn't grossly mismanaged the state and hadn't gone back on all his campaign promises and hadn't made more sleazy back room deals than Mary Carey and if he had done anything to improve the sad state of the California education system and if he had done anything about improving the roads and infrastructure and if he hadn't run the dirtiest campaigns the state has ever seen and ...

reprise

8th October 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by kerfer

#ifdef snaggletooth
"Three *****, even."
#endif

Excellent point...anybody wanna answer why it is that non-CA residents seem to care so much about who our governor is?* I don't think I give a rip about who Montana's governor, anymore than I give a rip about whether the Baptists or Episcopalians or Bahai, or which ever cult it is that's about ready to split...why do you care?

* Especially if the person in question cannot be President, in which case, I can perhaps see why you'd care.

The sheer size of the Californian economy is why people elsewhere care about who your Governor is and what the heck he's going to do about California's economic woes. California's economy doesn't exist in isolation from the rest of the US or the rest of the world.

peptoabysmal

8th October 2003, 11:45 PM

peptoabysmal

8th October 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by reprise

The sheer size of the Californian economy is why people elsewhere care about who your Governor is and what the heck he's going to do about California's economic woes. California's economy doesn't exist in isolation from the rest of the US or the rest of the world.

It couldn't be just because Arnold is a movie star?

peptoabysmal

8th October 2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by kerfer

#ifdef snaggletooth
"Three *****, even."
#endif

Excellent point...anybody wanna answer why it is that non-CA residents seem to care so much about who our governor is?* I don't think I give a rip about who Montana's governor, anymore than I give a rip about whether the Baptists or Episcopalians or Bahai, or which ever cult it is that's about ready to split...why do you care?

* Especially if the person in question cannot be President, in which case, I can perhaps see why you'd care.

Hmmm.... Try recompiling that with the sensitivity option turned on in the pre compiler.

#pragma sensitivity ON

reprise

8th October 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
It couldn't be just because Arnold is a movie star?

There's nothing about being a movie star which makes one inherently unsuitable for political office. I think voting for someone BECAUSE they're a movie star is stupid if they haven't demonstrated an understanding of the issues involved and committed to practical policies to address those issues, but then voting for ANYONE who hasn't outlined precisely how they are going to address important political issues is stupid.

As I stated earlier, I haven't seen any mention of the specific policies Arnold plans to implement in order to solve California's financial problems. Nor have I seen the specific plans other candidates had for addressing that issue. Then again, we had limited media coverage of the campaign for the office of Governor of California and it may be that our networks simply didn't choose to show discussion of the policies but rather concentrated on the personalities.

AmateurScientist

9th October 2003, 06:01 AM

Like Scrut, I find it amazing how many people seem to have a gut-level negative reaction to Arnold's being elected governor. So many people sneer that he is not qualified.

What's amazing about that is that our countries founders envisoned citizen statesmen running our country. They didn't figure on a professional political class. They intended the average Joe (at least among the white male merchants and landed gentry) to be able to vote and to run for office and govern. Our national culture champions the underdog, the little guy.

Why is it that when the little guy achieves enormous success we feel so compelled to tear him down again?

AS

shecky

9th October 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Like Scrut, I find it amazing how many people seem to have a gut-level negative reaction to Arnold's being elected governor. So many people sneer that he is not qualified.

Similarly, I think it's amazing how many think Arnold is qualified to be governor.

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
What's amazing about that is that our countries founders envisoned citizen statesmen running our country. They didn't figure on a professional political class. They intended the average Joe (at least among the white male merchants and landed gentry) to be able to vote and to run for office and govern. Our national culture champions the underdog, the little guy.

I'd argue Arnold hardly represented the underdog, and it's been a long time since he's been a "little guy". Sure, he's not a career politician, but he is a rich internationally known icon. And he's been groomed by the Republican party for several years as a attractive candidate.

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Why is it that when the little guy achieves enormous success we feel so compelled to tear him down again?

Again, I'd hardly think of Arnold as the underdog. And he certainly lost what little underdog status he had when he was elected.

Brown

9th October 2003, 07:38 AM

I saw Ahnuld making some remarks on the budget:

"Ve've gott to target da vaste. Da vaste is too big, dere's chust too much fat. Ve've got to pump up da local economy...."

All right, I made some of this up... but I did not make up his comments about targeting "the waste," and when I first heard this remark, I honestly thought that he was giving a fitness pep-talk about reducing "the waist."

shecky

9th October 2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

... And if he hadn't grossly mismanaged the state and hadn't gone back on all his campaign promises and hadn't made more sleazy back room deals than Mary Carey and if he had done anything to improve the sad state of the California education system...

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Calif economy has little to do with any direct performance by Davis and much more to do with the overall poor economy. If the natl economy were booming like it was in 1998, CA would not be running a deficit. And If Davis could evoke a little human sympathy, I think most folks would cut him some slack. But he's such a distant, wooden, performer, nobody has ever had any warm feelings about him.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
...and if he had done anything about improving the roads and infrastructure and if he hadn't run the dirtiest campaigns the state has ever seen and ...

C'mon, CA has seen some incredibly nasty campaigns well before Davis. This last one was actually pretty mild in comparison. in fact, I was kinda surprised how little Davis actually participated in the campaign to retain his own job. I tend to think he must have pretty much baced himself to give up the office a few months ago.

AmateurScientist

9th October 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by shecky

Similarly, I think it's amazing how many think Arnold is qualified to be governor.

OK, just what exactly does make one qualified to be governor?

Using the experience argument, it would be easy to craft an argument that only incumbent or former governors are qualified.

Do you understand the citizen-statesman idea? Don't you agree that the notions of citizen-statesman, citizen-soldier, and citizen-voter are fundamental concepts of a democratic republic? That they set our young nation apart from former European monarchies and aristocracies?

AS

AmateurScientist

9th October 2003, 07:58 AM

eli54

9th October 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by kittynh
well, all you in California, there is a house for sale down the street...buy it now before the Libertarians buy it.

Good Luck!

Or several immigrant families move in...:mad:

kittynh

9th October 2003, 04:35 PM

AS for California's financial woes, hey, NH is part of the Union, and we're doing ok. Of course, people will say we don't have Canadians sneaking over at night to take all our low paying jobs. But, common sense and hard work count for a lot too. Last stats I checked had NH with the lowest unemployment. then again, maybe poor uneducated people don't like snow.

Zep

9th October 2003, 05:03 PM

I would reiterate reprise's point that from this distance we have seen nothing at all of Arnold's policy platform or proposed programs (or, indeed, any other alliteration). Not even the assertion, as revealed to us here on JREF, that Arnold is a savvy businessman. The image is all.

And I note that approximately 8 million people voted. OK, anyone have any idea what the elligible voting population of California is? Would a rough guess be half the total population?

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

9th October 2003, 06:16 PM

People please address him properly as Govenator.

JAR

9th October 2003, 07:00 PM

I am proud to say that I voted for Arnold.

I'm such a huge fan of the fictional character Conan that there was no way I wasn't voting for Arnold. A chance like that doesn't come in a thousand years.

California is saved from Malachi151ism.

peptoabysmal

9th October 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by traveller
People please address him properly as Govenator.

I prefer "Arnold the Californian". Damn that guy was built like a brick sh*thouse when he did those Conan movies.

peptoabysmal

9th October 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I would reiterate reprise's point that from this distance we have seen nothing at all of Arnold's policy platform or proposed programs (or, indeed, any other alliteration). Not even the assertion, as revealed to us here on JREF, that Arnold is a savvy businessman. The image is all.

And I note that approximately 8 million people voted. OK, anyone have any idea what the elligible voting population of California is? Would a rough guess be half the total population?

Arnold's Plan (http://www.joinarnold.com/en/agenda/)

reprise

9th October 2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Arnold's Plan (http://www.joinarnold.com/en/agenda/)

Australia - and NSW in particular - has similar problems with out of control litigation; the impact on insurance premiums in all areas from public liabilitity to medical insurance has been staggering over the last few years.

How many of these policies is a Governor able to implement without approval from the state legislature, and is Arnold likely to get that approval?

Grammatron

9th October 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by reprise

Australia - and NSW in particular - has similar problems with out of control litigation; the impact on insurance premiums in all areas from public liabilitity to medical insurance has been staggering over the last few years.

How many of these policies is a Governor able to implement without approval from the state legislature, and is Arnold likely to get that approval?

All. The question you should be asking is: How many of these policies is a Governor able to implement without the state legislature applying a veto to them.

reprise

9th October 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron
All. The question you should be asking is: How many of these policies is a Governor able to implement without the state legislature applying a veto to them.

OK. How many of these policies can the Governor of California implement without the state legislature applying a veto to them? And if the legislature blocks their implementation in some way, can the policies be amended in some way (very common here) or are they rejected outright?

Given the information supplied in the other thread about the state's financial records not being open to public scrutiny, I'm beginning to understand a bit better how California got into this mess and why Arnold's policies don't contain specific financial details.

Here, we get told how much a certain government department or minister spent on wine for an individual function - whether we want to know that information or not.

davefoc

9th October 2003, 11:33 PM

I think Schwarznegger will have more actual power than constitutional power right now. He will have actual power because he is popular and he can threaten the legislature with various things, like working for their defeat, vetoing pretty much everything they do until they agree to cooperate, creating initiatives for direct vote by the people, but if he doesn't offer them stuff in return we will have grid lock.

I don't quite understand this but in California we essentially elect all the positions that would be cabinet posts in the federal system and we directly elect the lieutenant governor. This has always struck me as silly, but I would think as a practical matter this would also reduce the power of a California governor to make changes. I think we had an initiative a few years ago to change this but it was voted down. Aparently the majority think dividing up the responsibility of running the state between the governor and separately elected cabinet posts is a good idea.