Question for Republicans about Schwartzenegger

[Clancie]

I'm curious what Republicans who felt Clinton's personal "morality" was reprehensible, would say if several rumored vices of Schwartzenegger's turn out to be true?

1. pot smoking

2. steroid use (a vice Clinton didn't have)

3. womanizing (even including well reported instances of sexual harrassment)

Would any of you feel these make Schwartzenegger morally contemptible, too?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm curious what Republicans who felt Clinton's personal "morality" was reprehensible, would say if several rumored vices of Schwartzenegger's turn out to be true?

"Rumored vices", Clancie? Why don't you ever check your own claims?

Originally posted by Clancie
1. pot smoking

Arnold S. has smoken pot, yes. He doesn't deny this. So, it's no "rumor".

Originally posted by Clancie
2. steroid use (a vice Clinton didn't have)

He has used anabolic steroids, yes. He doesn't deny this. So, it's no "rumor".

How do you know for certain Clinton hasn't used steroids?

Originally posted by Clancie
3. womanizing (even including well reported instances of sexual harrassment)

Is "womanizing" a vice? What are those "well reported instances"? What lawsuits has he lost?

Originally posted by Clancie
Would any of you feel these make Schwartzenegger morally contemptible, too?

Would it be too much to ask to provide some real evidence of your accusations? "Rumored vices".... You couldn't be bothered to look up any of these "rumored vices". Now, let's see some evidence of the sexual harrassment cases he has lost.

I'm not defending him, I am pointing out that you apparently waste no chance of smearing those you don't like.

[Ziggurat]

What I find MUCH more interesting than the supposed scandal is what the far right wingers will try to do about the fact that he's pro-choice. I don't see why anyone should vote for him at this point since he's got zero experience in politics, and so far he hasn't come up with a plan to get California out of the mess it's in. But republicans are in a bit of a jam - he's obviously much more popular than the other candidates they're putting forward, in no small part because he's not a radical like Simon or Issa (who was smart enough to back out after Arnold jumped in but not smart enough to know he never had a chance anyways). But since they WANT a radical agenda, he's not really a good fit for them, so I don't think they know what to do with him. They're worried he might lead republicans back towards the center, but they don't want a democrat of any flavor. What's a right-wing nutjob to do? Stay tuned...

Edit: Oh yeah, don't forget Arnold opposed Clinton's impeachment. Much more of a dilema for the nutjobs than his own foibles - repugnicans can easily overlook those without troubling their concience.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Arnold isn't my idea of a real republican.

I really dont care about anything political coming out of hollywood.

[Zep]

As far as we can tell, he is gonna blast his way in with steel jaw set using a light ant-aircraft gun, thoroughly mangle the bad guys, rescue the girl, and sweep out again on a helicopter/motorbike/car JUST ahead of the explosion where the bad guys die. I wonder if it will be on the news at 11...

Ain't reality in California wonderful?

[American]

We should be allowed to do that stuff a little bit, cause otherwise we're way better behaved than liberals, usually.


I'll kick his ass if he doesn't fall in line with the party and obey our moral code, for the most part.


If that ever happens, but things don't go as I plan, then I wouldn't vote for him, even if I did live in the only state worse than the one in which I now live.



edit-- I'm not really going to kick Arnold Schwartzenegger's ass. I don't want to hurt him so bad he never makes another movie without super special-effects to make him walk out of his hospital bed!

[subgenius]

The answer to everything will be: its OK now because Clinton did it too.
Hypocritical.
The Rush right doesn't like the guy, even when he gets in it will cause a split in the R party (evidenced by NTW's post) that may not be all bad. Anyone old enough to remember the travesty of what they did to loyal Republican Nelson Rockefeller at the R convention (vs. Goldwater...who later redeemed himself) in San Francisco?
What Nelson did in response was true heroism and a last stand for rational, reasonable Republicanism.
There's something to be said for "institutional memory."

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by subgenius
The answer to everything will be: its OK now because Clinton did it too.
Hypocritical.
The Rush right doesn't like the guy, even when he gets in it will cause a split in the R party (evidenced by NTW's post) that may not be all bad. Anyone old enough to remember the travesty of what they did to loyal Republican Nelson Rockefeller at the R convention (vs. Goldwater...who later redeemed himself) in San Francisco?
What Nelson did in response was true heroism and a last stand for rational, reasonable Republicanism.
There's something to be said for "institutional memory."

If I were a voter in Cal, I'd vote for him.

Arnold has not lied about any of these things he's done in the past, which makes him completely different from Clinton.

The point is that he is from Hollywood and I dont trust him untill he can prove something to me.

[RandFan]

Arnold's credentials are fair game. Anyone who thought investigating Clinton's sexual impropriety would be consistent to think that Arnold's alleged misconduct should also think it ok to investigate Arnold. Arnold was vocally opposed to the investigation and said he was ashamed for what the Republicans had done.

Aside from his pro gun control stance and some of his ideas about social programs my politics are very close to Arnold’s. I like him. I doubt that is sufficient reason to be governor. I'm rather confident that he will do a far better job than Davis will.

I think it very unlikely that a conservative will win governor of California or mayor of New York or Los Angeles.

Guiliani was pro-choice, pro-gun control and liberal on other social issues. He did not divide the party. I don't think that there is anything different with Arnold. We will see.

[subgenius]

3 reasonable, but differing, posts in a row, I think we're setting a record.
Let's keep it up.

[JamesM]

According to this Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2086742/) article, he seems quite keen on Kurt Waldheim. Is this going to be a problem, or does no-one remember or care who Kurt Waldheim was anyway?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by JamesM
According to this Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2086742/) article, he seems quite keen on Kurt Waldheim. Is this going to be a problem, or does no-one remember or care who Kurt Waldheim was anyway?
Yes they named that disease after him, you know, "Waldheimer's Disease" where you forget you were a Nazi.

[Troll]

For all the rumors of womanizing there are others in Hollywood, like Jaimie Lee Curtis who say it's false.

Even if it were true, I've yet to see or hear anything confirming or denying it from Arnold. My personal issue with Clinton wasn't that he may have strayed. It was the lying.

Hey, drugs or no drugs it's still in the past. Bush had some drug issues as well. I still don't think Clinton was entirely forthcoming with the "didn't inhale" bit though. Sue me for being a skeptic.

Steroid use is drug use just not to get high so you can actually condense your 3 subjects into two.

I'm not defending Arnold nor bashing Clinton pertaining to past incidents in life. I am, however, going to side with Arnold over Clinton on the issue of integrity and honesty, which has always been my complaint as far as personal traits pertaining to a public official, though I really don't see what clinton lied about as an issue for becoming a political official, at least prior to taking office, I do like honesty.

so if asked what the difference is, I'll simply be honest and tell you it's that one is honest and the other was not.

[Tmy]

Wasnt it just a few months ago when we were all telling celebrities to shut he f' up and keep their political views to themsleves.

Whats changed? Oh I know.........ARNOLDS A REPUBLICAN!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm curious what Republicans who felt Clinton's personal "morality" was reprehensible, would say if several rumored vices of Schwartzenegger's turn out to be true?

1. pot smoking

2. steroid use (a vice Clinton didn't have)

3. womanizing (even including well reported instances of sexual harrassment)

Would any of you feel these make Schwartzenegger morally contemptible, too?

Did he lie about any of this while under oath?

No? Then I don't care...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Wasnt it just a few months ago when we were all telling celebrities to shut he f' up and keep their political views to themsleves.

Whats changed? Oh I know.........ARNOLDS A REPUBLICAN!

No, we weren't telling them to shut up, we we're telling them to stop crying, pissing, and moaning when they received a public backlash.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tmy
Wasnt it just a few months ago when we were all telling celebrities to shut he f' up and keep their political views to themsleves.

Whats changed? Oh I know.........ARNOLDS A REPUBLICAN!

DOH !

[Tmy]

What we have to do is encourage more clebs to enter politicis. Is there anything betterthan watching rich n famous people being humiliated? I dont think so!

How does Gov. Mike Tyson sound?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
Wasnt it just a few months ago when we were all telling celebrities to shut he f' up and keep their political views to themsleves.

Whats changed? Oh I know.........ARNOLDS A REPUBLICAN!

No. What has changed is that he isn't just talking the talk. He's actually running to do something about it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Troll
No. What has changed is that he isn't just talking the talk. He's actually running to do something about it.

Well, he did once star in the movie "The Running Man"...and has just finished "The Rundown".

Which makes me wonder if he is fit for the job as Governor:

How will he be as Governor?
"Dr. Doolittle"

How should we describe his term?
"End of Days"

What will he do about the deficit?
"Eraser"

How will he approach any inquiry into his past?
"True Lies"

How do we know he will do something for the elderly with constipation?
"Last Action Hero"

How do we know he will do something about violence in schools?
"Kindergarten Cop"

What if California is hit by a terrorist attack?
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day"

What's he going to do about the wildlife?
"Predator"

What's his economic plan going to be called?
"Raw Deal"

If he has a mistress, what will she be called?
"Red Sonja"

How will he find money to solve California's debt?
"Scavenger Hunt"

How will he solve the problem of obese Californians?
"Stay Hungry"

How will historians describe his term?
"The Long Goodbye"

Folks, you heard it here first: Arnold is qualified! :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Well, he did once star in the movie "The Running Man"...and has just finished "The Rundown".

Which makes me wonder if he is fit for the job as Governor:

How will he be as Governor?
"Dr. Doolittle"

How should we describe his term?
"End of Days"

What will he do about the deficit?
"Eraser"

How will he approach any inquiry into his past?
"True Lies"

How do we know he will do something for the elderly with constipation?
"Last Action Hero"

How do we know he will do something about violence in schools?
"Kindergarten Cop"

What if California is hit by a terrorist attack?
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day"

What's he going to do about the wildlife?
"Predator"

What's his economic plan going to be called?
"Raw Deal"

If he has a mistress, what will she be called?
"Red Sonja"

How will he find money to solve California's debt?
"Scavenger Hunt"

How will he solve the problem of obese Californians?
"Stay Hungry"

How will historians describe his term?
"The Long Goodbye"

Folks, you heard it here first: Arnold is qualified! :D

:dl:


Did you get that from somewhere else, or did you come up with that on your own?

Kudos, Claus, either way... ;)

[CFLarsen]

Kodiak,

I confess! I confess! The comfy chair!

It was me...and dead easy, too :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Kodiak,

I confess! I confess! The comfy chair!

It was me...and dead easy, too :)

Show-off... :rolleyes: ;)

[Larspeart]

Arnold isn't 'really' a republican. He is a conservative independant from what I can tell. He is running onthe republican platform because it'll get him mroe votes. Lots of non-party types run as a party candidate to grant them more votes, or campaign funds (which arnold says he won't take, God bless him!).

As far as pot smoking- so what? it should be legal anyway.

Steroid use- I believe it was legal at the time he did it in the sport he was in, AND he was living in Austria (not the USA) at the time. Again, so what?

Womanizing- Have you seen Maria Shriver? That toothpick is gross! No, seriously, I don't think Californians care about that. They want their lives and their economy back on track. Arnold has proven himself to be a superb businessman, heavy donater to charity, and a self-starter/self-motivator.

I almost wish I lived in California so I could go vote for him. I wish him the best of luck. SCREW lifer politicians! They don't know a damn thing about what the people want. They simple listen to the party bosses wishes and needs, accept a boatload of Special Interest cash, and vote accordingly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Show-off... :rolleyes: ;)

Challenge me, you furball. Choose an actor, let's pretend he/she will run for office (your pick) and I'll come up with something better. :)

[davefoc]

Clancie,
I think the premise of your thread is flawed. As to items 1 and 2, numerous people have expressed my views about these issues.

As to item 3 let me rephrase the question in what I view as a more fair way.

Would I think Schwarznegger was morally contemptible if he has oral sex with a twenty year old intern in the Governor's office. Yes

Would I think Scharznegger was morally contemptible and favor his forced removal from office if he lied about that under oath. Maybe

Would I think it was morally contemptible if he had an extramarital affair. Hmm, I would be disapointed because I would see such an action as the breaking of a trust and probably wouldn't vote for him, but I might.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by davefoc
As to item 3 let me rephrase the question in what I view as a more fair way.

Would I think Schwarznegger was morally contemptible if he has oral sex with a twenty year old intern in the Governor's office. YesThat's your "more fair" way? Sounds to me like you were predisposed to hand down a judgment of guilt and therefore crafted a question that got you there. What say you leave out the words "morally contemptible," "twenty year old," and "intern." And for that matter, what does a location have to do with anything? Now, try this on for size:

How would I feel upon learning that the Governor engaged in mutually agreed to sexual activity with a fellow government employee with the knowledge that there was no quid pro quo and the activity was unrelated to the administration of either of their duties?Would I think Scharznegger was morally contemptible and favor his forced removal from office if he lied about that under oath. MaybeMore of the same.

And as to the "lied under oath" part, it's beyond tiring how this gets repeatedly trotted out as a way of shutting down debate. Briefly, lying under oath is commonplace and taken for granted by prosecutors. It is up to them to prove how actions, not words, contributed to a wrong.

Would I think it was morally contemptible if he had an extramarital affair. Hmm, I would be disapointed because I would see such an action as the breaking of a trust and probably wouldn't vote for him, but I might.How do you know a "trust" was broken? Open marriages are quite prevalent. And there are other possibilities as well. With that in mind, there's not enough to go on in this imaginary scenario and so the question should be tossed aside.

But even if a private "trust" was indeed broken, what does that have to do with how the chap conducts himself in regard to his official duties?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Arnold isn't 'really' a republican. Really? What constitutes a republican? I'm beginning to think that there are few if any republicans or democrats?

He is a conservative independant What is a conservative independant?

I would say Arnold is libertarian. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative with a significant number of exceptions to both. If he says he is a republican then he is a republican.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
How would I feel upon learning that the Governor engaged in mutually agreed to sexual activity with a fellow government employee with the knowledge that there was no quid pro quo and the activity was unrelated to the administration of either of their duties? A fair point but in truth isn't fratrinization between a superior and subordinate problematic?

I din't care for the investigation and I was against the impeachment but I think Clinton showed a lack of charachter and wisdom. Such behavior would have gotten him fired if he had been in just about any other situation.

IIRC Clintion himself was concerned about blackmail in regards to the issue. I think it would have been better if he had an affair with someone who was not his subordinate and in a place other than the oval office. JMO.

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Challenge me, you furball. Choose an actor, let's pretend he/she will run for office (your pick) and I'll come up with something better. :)

Ok,
Donald A. Novello (Father Guido Sarducci, "The Lazlo Letters", etc)

The office is "Governor of California".

And, yes, HE IS RUNNING....

[davefoc]

Regnad Kcin,
Obviously you and I are going to disagree about this and I suspect that nothing that I say will bridge the gap.

However, I felt my questions were exactly fair given the point of this thread. I think the point of this thread was whether a person that generally votes Republican would feel the same way about Schwartzenegger if he did the same kinds of things that Clinton did with regard to his womanizing.

For me, the answer is an easy yes, if we are talking about what Clinton did and not womainizing in general. So to answer that question the specifics were important.

And the specifics that made me feel that Clinton's behavior was significantly worse than a normal extramarital affair were:
1. Sex with a subordinate suggesting a conflict with sexual harassment restrictions
2. Sex with a person in the president's office suggesting a lack of respect for the office.
3. Lying about it under oath as part of a legal proceeding. Then lying about the lying.

While I would have been disapointed by a president for activities similar to items 1 and 2 only item 3 would have concerned me to the point that I would have begun to see a justification for impeachment in it. You are right that perjury is routinely committed and not punished in our legal system. However, I view it as a very serious act. I think that it is even more serious when it is committed by a person responsible for appointing of judges where integrity is a critical factor.

Perhaps, the only place where you and I are in agreement was in your comment about how did I know if a trust was broken. I don't think any of us know about this when we look at the outside of a marriage and clearly in some marriages monogamy is not part of the bargain.

[Clancie]

Posted by RandFan

In truth isn't fratrinization between a superior and subordinate problematic?

I din't care for the investigation and I was against the impeachment but I think Clinton showed a lack of charachter and wisdom. Such behavior would have gotten him fired if he had been in just about any other situation.
Well, at least you're consistent. Many Republicans I talk with aren't consistent about so called "lack of character" issues at all.

But I do disagree with your quote above. If Clinton was a manager at a small company and was having an affair with a female subordinate do you really think he would have been fired? Or if he was the President of the company having an affair with one of the VP's?

Having seen similar working relationships many times, I totally disagree. The subordinate usually quits or changes jobs, if the working relationship is too awkward. I've never seen the superior fired for it, or even that it impeded future career progress.

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

Would I think Schwarznegger was morally contemptible if he has oral sex with a twenty year old intern in the Governor's office. Yes

First, I think noting her correct age is important. Monica was already over 21 (and had already had one affair with another married man--both relationships were clearly consensual, in fact, she initiated both of them).
Posted by davefoc

Would I think it was morally contemptible if he had an extramarital affair. Hmm, I would be disapointed because I would see such an action as the breaking of a trust and probably wouldn't vote for him, but I might.
Well, we differ there. I might be disappointed to learn it, but I would still feel it wasn't my business--just like Clinton's wasn't, imo.

I think the issue of sexual harrassment is much more important. Schwartzenegger hasn't responded to those charges anywhere that I can see. (And am I the only one who remembers that video clip of him and the model/actress who complained about his inappropriate behavior while they were working together? I can't find any mention of it online, but I assume it will be addressed somewhere. Premiere magazine brought up the womanizing so hopefully it will be cleared up.
Posted by davefoc

However, I felt my questions were exactly fair given the point of this thread. I think the point of this thread was whether a person that generally votes Republican would feel the same way about Schwartzenegger if he did the same kinds of things that Clinton did with regard to his womanizing.

Well, I was really thinking in more general terms: "Would you be angry at AS for an extra marital affair as you were at Clinton for his relationship with Monica"?

And, to me, a more important issue is sexual harrassment. If AS is guilty of that, I would think he was morally unsuited for public office.

Posted by Larspeart

As far as pot smoking- so what? it should be legal anyway.
Well, Larspeart, that’s an interesting question for him to answer, isn't it? I can't see him agreeing with you, though, that pot should be legalized.

And that's my basic peeve these days....not so much the "right and wrong" of politicians or voters (most of it doesn't matter to me anyway)....but the individual hypocrisy.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Don't you have some analyzing to do???

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

Don't you have some analyzing to do???

Hey, Claus, didn't you see my response to your challenge above? Where you asked for the name of a celibrity (Don Novello, i.e. Father Guido Sarducci, Lazlo J Toth, etc) and a position (Gov. of California, yes, he's really running)? :) :) :) :)

I want to see him win. He can swear himself in as Father Guido.:roll:

[davefoc]

Clancie said:
"Well, we differ there. I might be disappointed to learn it (referring to extramarital affairs), but I would still feel it wasn't my business--just like Clinton's wasn't, imo."

OK, suppose the guy cheated his business partner instead of his wife. Would that be different? Is it ok to cheat on your wife but not your business partner or is neither relevant? At what point does a person's violations of private trusts become relevant?

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

OK, suppose the guy cheated his business partner instead of his wife. Would that be different? Is it ok to cheat on your wife but not your business partner or is neither relevant? At what point does a person's violations of private trusts become relevant?
davefoc,

I never said its "okay for someone to cheat on his wife." I very much sympathized with Hillary--and Chelsea--at the time. I thought they both handled an extremely difficult (and unfortunately publicly discussed ad nauseum) situation with a great deal of grace.

I didn't think it was "okay". I thought it was "none of my business".

As for the business partner...well, that's interesting, but I'd wonder how he "cheated"? I mean, did he break the law? That is relevant to running for public office. Did he show poor management skills? Did he cover his mistakes?

People point to Schwartzenegger's "businesses" as some reasons he would be a good governor. If he (or anyone) had unethical business dealings, I guess I'd look at the specifics--see if it was true and the circumstances--and weigh it accordingly. I think past work experience counts because he's basically applying for a job. His marital relations are none of my business.

And, business being what it is, I might still vote for the person depending on the specifics of the "wrongdoing", who knows? (After all, our President probably was guilty of insider trading--much worse than Martha Stewarts', too--and...there he is! In the Oval Office! And no one cares!)
Posted by jj

Hey, Claus, didn't you see my response to your challenge above? Where you asked for the name of a celibrity (Don Novello, i.e. Father Guido Sarducci, Lazlo J Toth, etc) and a position (Gov. of California, yes, he's really running)?

I want to see him win. He can swear himself in as Father Guido
lol, jj.

But maybe Claus would rather try his luck with Gallagher, that "comedian" who used to do the "celebrity roasts" in the 80's? Or Gary Coleman ("Arnold" from "Different Strokes", who tells us that he's still a virgin at 33)? They're both running, too.

One thing California's got with our 135 candidates...it's choice.:rolleyes:

And for those of you who like Independents...any thoughts about Arianna Huffington? (Her ex, Michael Huffington, who ran for Gov a few years back, has endorsed....Schwartzenegger).

[davefoc]

Clancie said:
"I thought they both handled an extremely difficult (and unfortunately publicly discussed ad nauseum) situation with a great deal of grace."

Agreed.

But I had mixed feelings about Hilary's handling of the situation. On one hand she was the aggrieved wife and I don't think that she could have handled that any better than she did. It was a difficult situation for everybody involved and I don't know how she could have done anything better.

Hilary, also seems to be one of the very best political minds in the country, meaning she knows how to campaign, how to handle missteps by the candidate and how to affect public opinion in the way that she wants to. I think, with that hat on, she performed brilliantly but disingenuously. So one can admire her for her skill there while at the same time recognizing that part of that skill is to be willing to lie when it is in the best interest of the candidate you are working for. I don't see this as a Republican/Democrat issue. Republican campaign managers probably try to cover up embarressing information and/or lie about it just as much as Democratic ones.

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

But I had mixed feelings about Hilary's handling of the situation. On one hand she was the aggrieved wife and I don't think that she could have handled that any better than she did.
So we agree on that. But....:confused:.....

Hilary, also seems to be one of the very best political minds in the country, meaning she knows how to campaign, how to handle missteps by the candidate and how to affect public opinion in the way that she wants to.
I agree. She's very effective. But I think she can only affect public opinion for those who are receptive to her. There are many who still hate the Clintons, and Hillary often takes the brunt of that criticism now, being the most visible Clinton.


So one can admire her for her skill there while at the same time recognizing that part of that skill is to be willing to lie when it is in the best interest of the candidate you are working for. I don't see this as a Republican/Democrat issue. Republican campaign managers probably try to cover up embarressing information and/or lie about it just as much as Democratic ones.
You mean "lie about the timetable" that she knew of Clinton's affair? Personally, I think her timetable is plausible--she may not have been looking at the NY Times (for obvious reasons) and friends may not have told her about the ongoing coverage (for obvious reasons).

Personally, I think Clinton kept the truth from her as long as he thought he could (and probably told himself he didn't want to hurt her and Chelsea, was hoping it would go away, etc).

Anyway, if she "lied" about the timetable or not, I think she was entitled to keep it private if she wanted to. I hope I would have had the self control to do the same thing, in her situation. (Imagine how ugly if the President and First Lady were undergoing a nasty and very public divorce proceeding, while still occupying the White House, with the press just eating it all up. Like the Giuliani's, only much, much worse).

Actually, I think she and BC both handled it well (after all, the humiliation and ridicule dragged on for years and Bill Clinton didn't have an emotional breakdown like Nixon did...just went to work every day and did his job for the country. Not easy, imo. Not easy at all. Personally, that showed more "character" to me than most people gave him credit for, then or now).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancie
But I do disagree with your quote above. If Clinton was a manager at a small company and was having an affair with a female subordinate do you really think he would have been fired? Or if he was the President of the company having an affair with one of the VP's? Many places that I have worked for including Universities and coperations expresly forbid it.

Having seen similar working relationships many times, I totally disagree. The subordinate usually quits or changes jobs, if the working relationship is too awkward. I've never seen the superior fired for it, or even that it impeded future career progress. Our personal experiences are anecdotal. I don't have the evidence to prove my claim. I'm quite certain of it based on my experiences though. I will modify my statement to say many if not most places would have fired him

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by davefoc
Regnad Kcin,
Obviously you and I are going to disagree about this and I suspect that nothing that I say will bridge the gap.Well, that's convenient. Why not respond to my points rather than dodge them under cover of some nebulous suspicion?However, I felt my questions were exactly fair given the point of this thread.And I demonstrated how "fair" was "exactly" what your questions weren't.I think the point of this thread was whether a person that generally votes Republican would feel the same way about Schwarzenegger if he did the same kinds of things that Clinton did with regard to his womanizing.

For me, the answer is an easy yes, if we are talking about what Clinton did and not womainizing in general. So to answer that question the specifics were important.That the answer, for you, is an "easy yes" is troubling.And the specifics that made me feel that Clinton's behavior was significantly worse than a normal extramarital affair were:
1. Sex with a subordinate suggesting a conflict with sexual harassment restrictionsNever mind that Ms. Lewinsky initiated the consensual affair with Mr. Clinton, are you aware of what constitutes sexual harassment?2. Sex with a person in the president's office suggesting a lack of respect for the office.While it's charming that people tend to invest romantic characteristics on various inanimate objects, dispassionately speaking, it's just a nice little room.3. Lying about it under oath as part of a legal proceeding. Then lying about the lying.I'm loathe to rehash this; the situation presented complexities that resist snap judgments. But just one illustration, if I may.

1) Are you a law-abiding citizen?
2) Have you ever driven a vehicle over the speed limit?While I would have been disapointed by a president for activities similar to items 1 and 2 only item 3 would have concerned me to the point that I would have begun to see a justification for impeachment in it.Then you are in error. Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."


You are right that perjury is routinely committed and not punished in our legal system. However, I view it as a very serious act. I think that it is even more serious when it is committed by a person responsible for appointing of judges where integrity is a critical factor.Would you consider a lie about what you had for lunch equal in importance to one about whether or not you stole the lunch? Naturally the answer is no, some lies relate to matters of more import than others. So, too, were President Clinton's, who was understandably hoping to avoid embarrassment for both him and his family. And on a matter of private behavior.

Incidentally, I'm heartened by Mr. Schwarzeneggar's denunciation of the specious attacks on and impeachment of Mr. Clinton.Perhaps, the only place where you and I are in agreement was in your comment about how did I know if a trust was broken. I don't think any of us know about this when we look at the outside of a marriage and clearly in some marriages monogamy is not part of the bargain.I raised the issue to demonstrate my tendancy to avoide assumptions prior to making assertions. By all accounts, we can gather that the Clinton's marriage is not open, otherwise their behavior might have been significantly different, both at the time of the revelations and in the years since. In any event, I am unconcerned about what a person does in private so long as it does not conflict with their official duties.

Would I prefer that Mr. Clinton hadn't made such a boneheaded error? Of course. But his (or anyone's) human failings do not necessarily provide a rationale for dismissing the person's good works. By the same token, Mr. Bush's apparent marital fidelity does not automatically elevate his job performance above scrutiny.

Should it be found that Arnold Schwarzeneggar has one or more pretty young skeletons in his closet, I fear that a lot of people will be very happy to attempt to strike up the band with a rousing rendition of "Republican Hypocrisy." And it's a safe prediction that they in turn will all sing variations on the "It's Different 'Cause Clinton Lied Under Oath" oldie. But it's to the detriment of our system that time should ever be wasted by any one of those who just can't carry a tune in the first place.

[Clancie]

Posted by RandFan

Our personal experiences are anecdotal. I don't have the evidence to prove my claim. I'm quite certain of it based on my experiences though. I will modify my statement to say many if not most places would have fired him.
Yes, anecdotal. And, yes, I don't have any studies to prove my claim either. So..."Many"...seems plausible.

Posted by RandFan

Many places that I have worked for including Universities and coperations expresly forbid it.
I've worked in universities and corporations that didn't (again, anecdotal). Could I ask, re: universities...are you saying they forbid intimate relationships among professors, or only among teachers and their students?

The latter, I've seen. The former is a policy I'm not familiar with (and one which I think would be difficult to enforce, too. And...would, let's say, a tenured professor be fired for such a relationship before the "subordinate" would? Just to continue the Clinton analogy. Because I'd find that very surprising.).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zep
As far as we can tell, he is gonna blast his way in with steel jaw set using a light ant-aircraft gun, thoroughly mangle the bad guys, rescue the girl, and sweep out again on a helicopter/motorbike/car JUST ahead of the explosion where the bad guys die. I wonder if it will be on the news at 11...

Ain't reality in California wonderful?


Shouldn't that be a heavy anti-aircraft gun?

[davefoc]

Regnad Kcin,
I meant no offense when I said that you and I were going not going to agree on this issue. I felt that you believed in your view strongly from your prior post and all I was saying was that this was an issue where reasonable people can disagree and that I didn't expect to change your mind but that I was going to expand a little more about how I felt about the situation.

A few responses to your points
I am aware that the affair with Lewinsky was consensual. I suspect that a large number of women are willing to have sex with a president. For various reasons I don't think it is appropriate for the president to have sex with most of them. Some of these reasons are unique to the presidency such as security, role model, possible VD, blackmail, potential disruption of his administration because of entanglements. And some of the reasons are standard arguments against promiscuity for anybody including transmission of VD to your spouse, pregnancies, difficult emotional entanglements that interfere with marriage, etc.

As to the law abiding citizen question: Yes, I routinely do things that are illegal and I am always aware of that when I am sharing an opinion about the actions of somebody else. Of course each of us ranks transgressions in varying ways and on various scales. For me, I have no problem deciding that lying under oath in a formal legal proceeding by a person charged with appointing judges is a more serious transgression than going 70 in a 65 mile an hour zone. I don't think you do either although you don't see the lying transgression as serious a violation as I do. This is reasonable and I even see your point of view on this.

I think the area that you and I disagree the most in is your notion that there is an almost absolute that private sexual activity by a politician is nobody's business but that of the parties directly involved.

I don't think this because:
A. There are significant risks associated with promiscuity that can effect a leader's ability to govern thus when somebody runs for office I think information about a candidates promiscuoous lifestyle is reasonable material to be reported on.

B. In some instances, affairs can be examples of a candidates failure to uphold a private trust and it is reasonable to infer from that that he is less likely to uphold the public trust if he violates private trusts. I think you and I would agree that the information that a candidate cheated his business partner is a relevant fact to the public debate concerning the candidate. Why if the candidate cheats on his wife is that a protected area for him?

[subgenius]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but I just wanted to note a tone of civility in this discussion.
Carry on.

[CFLarsen]

Donald A. Novello:

What campaign slogans will he use?
"Just the Ticket"
"Head Office"

Will there be any areas of politics he won't touch?
"Nothing Sacred"

How does he describe California?
"Atlantis - The Lost Empire"

What's his reaction to budget deficits?
"Histeria"

What is his stand of affirmative action for women?
"Touch"

What's his housing policy?
"Rent Control"

What's his excuse, when caught with another woman?
"Just One Night"

Favorite action hero movie?
"Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle"

Favorite horror splatter movie?
"Casper"

What will he call the annual report on how things are going?
"Tales of the City"

I should charge for this.... :)

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

In the continuing absence of your promised material, would you instead care to show evidence of the sexual harrassment cases Schwarzenegger has lost?

Or is this just another example of issues you avoid?

[Clancie]

Here's the Premiere magazine article I mentioned about Schwartzenegger's reported actions with various women.

Inappropriate? Womanizing? Sexual harrassment? Gubernatorial? Here's the link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010331182915/www.premiere.com/Premiere/Features/301/arnold.html

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Here's the Premiere magazine article I mentioned about Schwartzenegger's reported actions with various women.

Inappropriate? Womanizing? Sexual harrassment? Gubernatorial? Here's the link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010331182915/www.premiere.com/Premiere/Features/301/arnold.html

It is interesting to see that you couldn't find it on a live web site, but had to go to Webarchive to find it. If you had actually read the article, you might have observed that nothing has been proved. Fooling around, sure. To a prudish observer, it might look ominous. Sure. If you want to find filth, you will find filth.

Still: No sexual harrassment suits lost. Heck, not even a single sexual harrassment suit filed.

Is that really all you can come up with? Vicious gossip?

Oh....glad to see you have - once again - taken me off ignore... :)

[Zep]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Shouldn't that be a heavy anti-aircraft gun? I'm no expert on anti-aircraft guns, but I don't think even Arnie could carry round the girl AND a 40/60 Bofors AA weapon.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by RandFan
Really? What constitutes a republican? I'm beginning to think that there are few if any republicans or democrats?

What is a conservative independant?

I would say Arnold is libertarian. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative with a significant number of exceptions to both. If he says he is a republican then he is a republican.

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a libertarian (I'm one too) but yes, there are some leanings there. A conservative independant was my way of calling him 'on the conservative side of libertarianism'. I don't see him coming out in support of the pro-choicers, legalizing pot, or substantially reducing government size, so to call him a libertarian is stretching.

I still hope he wins.

[Clancie]

Well, from what I've read about Schwartzenegger so far (Internet pros and cons) plus the Premiere article above and this week's Newsweek, I'm much less impressed than I expected. Not only with his apparent life-long lack of interest in intellectual issues, but also with his personal qualities.

And, I don't want to fuel innuendo if its unfair, but there are two very "un-Governorlike" photos of him on the Internet--one, with a naked woman sitting on his shoulders and the other of him posing early in his career (frontal nudity). Both photos appear genuine and as far as I can tell no one has said otherwise.

I don't care personally (and, yes, he looks great, if you like the body-builder look), but I do feel uncomfortable with those pictures as an image of our Governor, especially for kids. I don't think he should be held to a different standard than our other political leaders--since he is trying to be a political leader.

[subgenius]

Clancie:
All fair observations.
I'm actually a little more impressed than originally.
The Warren Buffet move ain't gonna hurt, politically, or financially either, although I guess Arnold could buy his way in out of his pocket change.

Regarding the Buffet move: reminds me (hate to repeat myself) of what Gordie Howe replied when asked why he never wore a helmet but obviously always wore a cup.
"I can always get someone to do my thinking for me."
Just love that line.

[Tmy]

I cant believe people are planning to vote for Arnie. Hes just famous, thats it!!! Thats his credentials. I love how people bring up how he put together some after school program. Big deal. Soccer moms do that on their spare time.

No one even knows what his stances are!! Hes just gonna lay low cause thats hwo hell win.

[Clancie]

Posted by Tmy

I cant believe people are planning to vote for Arnie. Hes just famous, thats it!!! Thats his credentials. I love how people bring up how he put together some after school program. Big deal. Soccer moms do that on their spare time.

No one even knows what his stances are!! Hes just gonna lay low cause thats hwo hell win.
Tmy,

I agree completely.
Posted by subgenius

I'm actually a little more impressed than originally.
subgenius,

Really? I'm totally surprised! Is it just bringing on Buffet that's impressed you? I heard a CNN commentator last night say that Buffet gave Schwartzenegger more "gravitas". But, honestly, why is that? Buffet's not going to manage California's problems if AS is elected.

Is Schwartzenegger going to be able to understand what Buffet recommends? How much intellect does AS bring to the table? I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, not just assume being a movie star and bodybuilder (with profitable investments) is all he is about. But I see nothing in his whole life that makes me think he's got any great amount of brains or insight. Or even anything that shows, like GWB, that he can work well with others to get consensus on difficult political goals. One quote in Newsweek was, "People don't like Arnold. They either respect him or hate him." Not much recommendation for a politician.

btw, did you read the Premiere article? I'd like to know what others think of it. Much of it was repeated in Newsweek so it seems to be uncontested.

Actually, the more I read, the more alarmed I feel about the prospect (likelihood?) that he will be our next governor.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

If you have legitimate concerns about AS, please post them. If, as the case is, you rely entirely on your own prejudice and unsubstantiated gossip, then so be it.

[davefoc]

Clancie, for what it's worth the article that you linked to is troubling and if it were true I think it would say something pretty bad about Scharzenegger.

I wonder though why you have focused so much on potential problems with Scharzenegger. It seems like Davis has led the state into a hugely precarious condition involving a variety of crises that have been described elsewhere. If the problem isn't Davis is it the legislature? It seems like we've got your dream team running the state and we are teetering on the brink of a major financial crisis. Who's to blame for this?

Apparently, polls have been done in the other 49 states and in no state is there a majority that wants to recall their governor. What have you seen that so many other Californians haven't that tells you we'd be better off staying with this guy? I wonder if you are thinking about the welfare of Californians or you are working to justify your ideologies regardless of the effects on the rest of us.

[peptoabysmal]

Here's an article from Weintraub, who has been intimate with politics in the state capitol for as long as I can remember.

It's worth a read, it points out his political stance and why people will vote for him.

Story (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/7036102p-7984463c.html)

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

It seems like we've got your dream team running the state and we are teetering on the brink of a major financial crisis. Who's to blame for this?
Hi davefoc,

You seem under the impression that I'm a big Davis supporter. Actually, I'm not. However, I do feel he is being unfairly scapegoated for problems that he is largely not responsible for.

This article from the LA Daily News pretty much sums up my feelings about Davis being unfairly blamed for our state's many serious problems. People like to find a simiple answer, but, imo, the problems are far more complex than can be explained by saying, "Gray Davis was governor". Here's the article that best sums up my own feelings:

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E25126%257E1535883,00.html
I wonder if you are thinking about the welfare of Californians or you are working to justify your ideologies regardless of the effects on the rest of us.
Hmmm...harsh words, but in fact, yes, I'm very concerned about California. And, in that vein, my other point in posting is about Schwartzenegger. With no position statements, no plans, and no particular qualifications, he has been annointed with the status of front runner. Frankly, the more I read about him the more disturbing I find that.

If AS hadn't run, Richard Riordan (our former LA mayor, a moderate Republican) would have run instead. That Schwartzenegger kind of sandbagged Riordan (a friend) with his surprise announcement on Leno bothers me. That Schwartzenegger apparently feels he is a better candidate than Riordan, puzzles me. In fact, (if I may paraphrase your quote), I wonder if Schwartzenegger "is sincerely thinking about the welfare of California and not working to justify his...ego."

135 candidates...and Schwartzenegger is suddenly being viewed as the best choice for our next governor? Why, davefoc?

Because he is a famous and wealthy movie star? What makes people feel that in any way has made him intellectually--and temperamentally--suited to this important job?

And, yes, I find that Premiere magazine article very troubling. Nor has it all been refuted, not even by Schwartzenegger himself.

(And, sorry, peptoabysmal, but Schwartzenegger's "story" and his ability to accomplish his personal "dream" just aren't enough to qualify him as governor, imo).

[davefoc]

Clancie, thanks for your response. I don't have time to read the link but I will, I'm off to play raquetball.

You did say something that I think has been refuted by both AS and Riordan:
"If AS hadn't run, Richard Riordan (our former LA mayor, a moderate Republican) would have run instead. That Schwartzenegger kind of sandbagged Riordan (a friend) with his surprise announcement on Leno bothers me. "

I have heard Riordan, interviewed and he says it never happened. He says that he told AS that he should run, that he was the guy with the "fire in his belly". I know there were news reports saying something similar to what you said, but at this point it appears that they just weren't true.

[Clancie]

davefoc,
(Good game? :) )
Posted by davefoc

I have heard Riordan, interviewed and he says it never happened. He says that he told AS that he should run, that he was the guy with the "fire in his belly".
I guess we'll never know for certain, and Riordan is apparently a very nice guy. However, just fyi, I -did- want to just give you Newsweeks version:
Newsweek, August 18, 2003

Not only did (Schwartzenegger) keep the public and reporters guessing up until the moment the words were out of his mouth, but he also seems to have misled his friend and political mentor, former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan.

An authoritative source told Newsweek that Riordan and Schwartzenegger agreed in late July that Riordan, not Schwartzenegger, would run. Schwartzenegger would endorse Riordan--as he had in last year's Republican primary, which Riordan lost to Bill Simon.

Arnold's advisors deny there was such a deal, but Riordan believed he had a clear field as late as the weekend before last, when Schwartzenegger visitied the Riordans in their Malibu estate. So Riordan, along with his aides, was shocked when he learned from CNN that Schwartzenegger was in the race. After Schwartzenegger left his backstage press conference, he put in a call to Riordan.

"I just want to make sure you know I was running."

"I heard," Riordan replied tersely. But any resentment he may have felt had dissipated by the next day, when he pledged his support for Schwartzenegger's campaign."

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Donald A. Novello:

What campaign slogans will he use?
"Just the Ticket"
"Head Office"

Will there be any areas of politics he won't touch?
"Nothing Sacred"

How does he describe California?
"Atlantis - The Lost Empire"

What's his reaction to budget deficits?
"Histeria"

What is his stand of affirmative action for women?
"Touch"

What's his housing policy?
"Rent Control"

What's his excuse, when caught with another woman?
"Just One Night"

Favorite action hero movie?
"Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle"

Favorite horror splatter movie?
"Casper"

What will he call the annual report on how things are going?
"Tales of the City"

I should charge for this.... :)

Yay.

You rock!

[jj]

Originally posted by Clancie
davefoc,
(Good game? :) )

I guess we'll never know for certain, and Riordan is apparently a very nice guy. However, just fyi, I -did- want to just give you Newsweeks version:
[/B] [/B]

Hey, Clancie, Don Novello (Father Guido Sarducci) is also running.

Got anything to say about him?:p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jj


Yay.

You rock!

Nah. Easy peasy. Next one will cost $100... :)

[davefoc]

Hi Clancie, as to the raquetball it went pretty well. I'm the old fart in the group I play with and if I can win a few games and avoid serious injury I'm happy. Well I was on the winning side in four doubles games in a row so raquetball was good.

I did read the article that you linked to. I agree that the article was balanced and attempted to be fair, but I would at least quibble with some of it.

I didn't think too much of this line:
"But while analysts say Davis may have been indecisive and slow to act, many believe he is the victim of voter wrath over circumstances at least partly beyond his control."

What analysts? How many did she talk to? Who are these analysts that are studying the governor to determine how well he's doing. My sense is that she made the line up or at most was thinking of a few people that she talked to and called them "analysts".

As to the energy crisis she said this:
"California's energy crisis, meanwhile, was made possible by a flawed energy deregulation scheme approved by Pete Wilson, Davis' Republican predecessor. "

And to support this notion she said this
"It's hard to blame Davis for a deregulation plan that both parties basically adopted and that was taken advantage of by energy companies," said Raphael Sonenshein, a political scientist at California State University, Fullerton."

Why quote this guy? Has he studied the power crisis? How about instead of quoting this guy she quoted the professor at Stanford (James Sweeney) that has written a book about California's power crisis. He places substantial blame on Davis for the problems.

Overall I can certainly understand how one might agree with the well-it-might-not-be-his-fault-but-he-might-have-done-better tone of the article. And in truth I can't say that it is wrong with certainty.

But in life there is virtually never certainty about anything, and for me we are way past the point where there is enough information out there to decide that getting rid of Davis is essential.