CNN says ARNOLD!

renata said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
AmateurScientist said:


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


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

you said this:
Somebody pinch me. Democrats blew it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
" 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.
 
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?
 
DavidJames said:
" 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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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?
 
DavidJames said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
DavidJames said:

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.
Click to expand...

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

Here's a 1999 editorial from the Princeton paper online pushing essentially the same idea I am:
Post Monica--NOW What?

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

Who's a Hypocrite?

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

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?

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

AS
 
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"
 
AmateurScientist said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
reprise said:
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?
Click to expand...

That may be true, however some could have -- like I did -- vote against recall AND for Arnold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom