Schwarzenegger's Boorish Behavior

Tricky,

I have to disagree. Sexual harrassment is against the law. If anyone had made credible charges of harrassment against Clinton (the only credible relationship I know of were consensual--Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers), I'd have felt very differently about him.

Consensual sex is quite different, imo, from sexual harrassment.

And I hope people note that Schwarzenegger doesn't deny all these charges--he says he "doesn't remember" all the incidents of his past, admits some are true (but isn't specific about which ones) and "apologizes" to anyone who he behaved inappropriately toward.

Well, a governor's attitude toward women can affect policy decisions, too, including laws that are signed and vetoed. I think his admitted history of sexual harrassment (some incidents as recent as 2000) is unacceptable for the governor.

The comments he made to one woman were so vulgar that they could not even be repeated by anyone on CNN tonight....

.
 
And, Grammatron,

As for lawsuits, some women would rather just complain to their family and friends than face the public criticism and investigation into their (irrelevant) past that would come from suing a popular movie star/idol.

I wouldn't want all the negative publicity (and negative career impact)t either. (Not to mention all the slurs..."He could have anyone...why would he act like that?" "She's pretty promiscuous, you know." "It's all about money, because she knows she can sue Arnold so falsely and get a lot of money"...on and on.....Sound familiar? :confused: ) Most women would just want to forget about it as quickly as possible....except for maybe confiding to their friends what a jerk he is....
 
Tricky said:
I said it about Clinton and I'll say it about Schwarzennager: a candidate's sex life has nothing to do with their ability to hold office. Clinton was one of the most randy (no offense Randi) little libertines the world has ever seen, but he was unfailingly supportive of women's causes . (One "harassment" case was thrown out because the accuser could not document a single incident where her career had been harmed, but lots of cases where it had been helped.)

And likewise, I don't care at all about Arnold's exploits, past or recent. The question is: "Can he do the job?" The answer I'm seeing is, "No way in hell". He has no experience in any sort of government capacity (other than being married to a Kennedy) and he is woefully bad at explaining what he's going to do. And I have no respect for sissies who won't debate.
Click to expand...

And I will repeat, California has been thrown in the toilet by "experienced" politicians. Name a politician who isn't artful at dodging specific questions about what he/she is actually going to do.

Why couldn't Ahnold do the job? He does have a record of being a successful businessman as well as a successful movie star. That's more than Bustamante can say. His record is one of being a career bureaucrat, hardly a success at anything but schmoozing.
 
peptoabysmal said:
Why couldn't Ahnold do the job? He does have a record of being a successful businessman as well as a successful movie star. That's more than Bustamante can say. His record is one of being a career bureaucrat, hardly a success at anything but schmoozing.
Click to expand...
You are surprised that the people who run for office are politicians? Gosh, you must be horrified that most judges were once lawyers. :p

Maybe we should get some of those Enron "businessmen" to run for office. They have a great deal of experience in ruini.... uh I mean running California.

I haven't seen a lot of businessmen that have successfully made the transition to big time politics. Quite a few mayors have though. I don't know the backgrounds of all the governers, but I can only think of one President who was principally a businessman (albiet, not a successful one) before running for office. And we shouldn't misunderestimate him.
 
a_unique_person said:
I think you will find that Lewinsky was the only 'affair' that was made public. However, as I say, he was hardly the only politician to get up to this sort of behaviour, that is, not just the odd affair, but quite promiscuous behaviour. There are plenty more, from all sides of politics. Ditto sportsmen, rock stars, actors and powerful businessmen.
Click to expand...

The Lewinsky incident was not because of the sex act. It was actionable only because it was concrete proof of perjury on the part of President Clinton. The other charges of rape, etc apparently did not rise to the level of provable fact. However, it is a fact that Lewinsky gave Clinton head...and also fact that he denied it under oath. That is the only reason the Lewinsky issue was so big. The sex itself was not illegal....merely tacky really.

-z
 
rikzilla said:


The Lewinsky incident was not because of the sex act. It was actionable only because it was concrete proof of perjury on the part of President Clinton. The other charges of rape, etc apparently did not rise to the level of provable fact. However, it is a fact that Lewinsky gave Clinton head...and also fact that he denied it under oath. That is the only reason the Lewinsky issue was so big. The sex itself was not illegal....merely tacky really.

-z
Click to expand...

What I find intriguing is the difference in strategy in comapring this to Iran-Contra. Clearly the infractions in that scandal were far more serious than a BJ. Yet the investigator at that time did not try for a perjury charge. They did not try to manipulate the prez or vice-prez into claiming no knowledge under oath even though they could have. And later documents certainly showed that at least Bush Sr had knowledge and most likely Reagan as well.

But the Attack-Clinton Machine did better by forcing him to deny it under oath. Well done, ACM, well done!

Lurker
 
Arnold: True Lies...

Did you really have group sex and smoke marijuana like you said in this magazine interview?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Did you violate the terms of your visitor visa by working for a weekly salary?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Did you grope these women?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Did you say you admired Hitler?

Arnold: I don't remember.

Seems he has a serious memory problem. He never actually denies any of it, he just can't remember. Much like Reagan...

Will he remember any of his campaign promises?

He could learn from Bush. When confronted by a potentially embarassing question, Bush answers a different question, rambling on and on without ever addressing the original question...
 
Seems like there busting on a rock star living a rock star life. When did this happen anyway? Lastweek? 25 yrs ago?

Heres a famous guy whos probably messed wh countless star f'n Hollywood whores. Is this any suprise.

I think it silly to expect evryone to have spotless pasts.
 
I could accept that if he addressed his past honestly. The constant claim that he can't remember is either dishonest or he has a serious memory problem...
 
patnray said:
I could accept that if he addressed his past honestly. The constant claim that he can't remember is either dishonest or he has a serious memory problem...
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. If you’ve done a lot of partying, met a lot of people, done a lot of drugs and had sex with a lot of people, everything begins to turn in to one big blur instead of separate memories.
 
rikzilla said:


The Lewinsky incident was not because of the sex act. It was actionable only because it was concrete proof of perjury on the part of President Clinton.
Click to expand...

Why in gods name was Clinton being questioned under oath about his affair in the first place?

I keep hearing that the problem was not sex, but perjury. But the perjury happened because they were asking him about his sexual affair with Monica.

You can't say it was about perjury and not sex, because the perjury only happened when he was being questioned about the sex.
 
"I keep hearing that the problem was not sex, but perjury."

I think it's a last gasp attempt to justify their complaints about Clinton while turning a blind eye towards Arnolds (and others) behavior. It's a transparent attempt to try and avoid what is a clear case of hypocrisy.

Edit to add: For the record, if what Arnold did was consensual, I don't give a crap about it and it doesn't contribute to my opinion about his ability to govern CA.
 
As a woman: Have any of you that are saying, "If these women were really sexually harassed, why didn't they come forward." ever BEEN sexually harassed? I have been, and yes, it was by a politician.

I interned (yes, go for the jokes) at the Missouri Capitol my senior year of college. The Deputy Lt. Governor was constantly making comments that made me uncomfortable. First I talked with a secretary, and she was like, "He's just like that." Then I talked with my direct supervisor (who was supervised by the Deputy Lt. Governor). You think he stopped? I told he made me uncomfortable, I told him I was married, he still leered at me and made "suggestions" about meeting him later.

What did i do? Nothing. You think the Lt. Governor of Missouri was going to believe me, an intern for the last few months, over his trusted Deputy Lt. Governor? Would I come forward if I heard he was running for a national office.. no. If someone came to me and ASKED me, would i tell them the truth... yes. Just like these women.

Think for a moment people. Even before Arnold ran, he had lots of fans and supporters. Screw the money, what would these women's lives had been like if they tried to accuse a liked and respected celebrity WITH old money and political ties?

Before these latest mudslinging fests, i personally had no trouble with arnold, i don't care about group sex or other things that happened 30 years ago. But some of this alleged harassment was just three years ago.

BTW, this was years ago, and no, i'm not going to tell you what year :)
 
Tony said:



Not necessarily. If you’ve done a lot of partying, met a lot of people, done a lot of drugs and had sex with a lot of people, everything begins to turn in to one big blur instead of separate memories.
Click to expand...

i.e. Serious memory problem....
 
Posted by DavidJames

....if what Arnold did was consensual, I don't give a crap about it and it doesn't contribute to my opinion about his ability to govern CA.
Click to expand...
:confused: Why not read the article?

That's the whole point of it, David James. That it was not consensual.
 
Clancie - I worded my response carefully. The accusations are just that accusations and I will not assume they are correct without proof. Yes, believe it or not, even some liberals will give people like Arnold the benefit of presumption of innocence :)

I will say if the accusations are correct he should face the full wrath of the consequences. I will also, sadly, predict it won't affect his popularity and he would still become CA gov., which would probably be sufficient punishment for him but definitely cruel and unusual punishment for the citizens of CA ;)
 
Posted by David James

I will say if the accusations are correct he should face the full wrath of the consequences. I will also, sadly, predict it won't affect his popularity and he would still become CA gov., which would probably be sufficient punishment for him but definitely cruel and unusual punishment for the citizens of CA.
Click to expand...

Hi David James,

Well, I admit I -do- kind of agree with your last sentence (not sure to make the response :) or :( ).

Just a bit curious....what kind of proof would convince you that what they said was true?

And just yesterday, another woman--nationally syndicated radio psychologist Joy Browne--talked publicly about Schwarzenegger's sexual harrassment of her when she interviewed him.Joy Browne comments

I'm all for the presumption of innocence, too, David James, but when Schwarzenegger himself won't say he is innocent of wrong-doing (yet also won't specify which accusations are true....well, why wouldn't that give his accusers more credibility than ever?) But...I'm resigned...so, a bit curious what it will be like (as I just can't honestly picture he will like the job--or even like living in Sacramento. I wonder if he's really thought this through?)
 
Clancie said:


Hi David James,

Well, I admit I -do- kind of agree with your last sentence (not sure to make the response :) or :( ).

Just a bit curious....what kind of proof would convince you that what they said was true?

And just yesterday, another woman--nationally syndicated radio psychologist Joy Browne--talked publicly about Schwarzenegger's sexual harrassment of her when she interviewed him.Joy Browne comments

I'm all for the presumption of innocence, too, David James, but when Schwarzenegger himself won't say he is innocent of wrong-doing (yet also won't specify which accusations are true....well, why wouldn't that give his accusers more credibility than ever?) But...I'm resigned...so, a bit curious what it will be like (as I just can't honestly picture he will like the job--or even like living in Sacramento. I wonder if he's really thought this through?)
Click to expand...

The proof that would show him guilty would be two things: 1) Evidence such as video or photographs 2) A case that was ruled against Arnold. Wild accusations from unnamed sources a less than a week before the election is not a good way to prove something.
 
"Just a bit curious....what kind of proof would convince you that what they said was true?"

Very tough question and usually in public cases like this we never find out the whole story.

How will he do? I've always pointed back to prop 13 as the germ that grew into the beast you now have. The fact is people have an insatiable thirst for services and very little desire to pay for them. If he does nothing and the problems stay the same, I can guarantee you won't hear Republicans clamoring for another recall. You will see fingers pointing in every direction but inward. I expect that is what you will see a year from now. If nothing changes, it won't be Arnies fault, it's the teachers union, or the immigrants or the other unions or Clinton, the liberals, the media, Hollywood, the environmentalists, the Taliban, Saddam, pick one, pick em all :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom