CNN says ARNOLD!

shecky said:


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

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

Good Luck!
Click to expand...

Or several immigrant families move in...:mad:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
traveller said:
People please address him properly as Govenator.
Click to expand...

I prefer "Arnold the Californian". Damn that guy was built like a brick sh*thouse when he did those Conan movies.
 
Zep said:
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?
Click to expand...

Arnold's Plan
 
peptoabysmal said:


Arnold's Plan
Click to expand...

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?
 
reprise said:


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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grammatron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom