California recall debate

[musicguy]

I was surprised to not see a thread started concerning the election debate that took place on Wednesday in California. Granted, this is probably of limited interest to the many dopers outside of California but I was interested to see what others who saw it had to say.

News Account (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030925/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall)

Personally, I thought it may have helped Gray Davis. There was a lot of name calling and insulting. The participants had a very hard time staying on topic and remaining within their time constraints. Here are my humble observations that I made concerning each candidate after wathing.

Cruz Bustamonte - Seems to have too many links to special interest groups, notably the indian casinos and illegal immigrants. While seemingly well-informed, there is just something I don't trust about him. I definitely can't agree with him on the subjec of illegal immigrants being issued drivers licenses.

Arnold Shwarzenegger - Too many jokes and one liners and not enough substance. He has some interesting ideas but doesn't seem to have a comprehensive plan, just ideas. Also, his links to special interest groups leave me a little uneasy.

Paul McClintock - Way too conservative for me.

Arianna Huffingtom - Raised some good points and definitely made the debates more interesting. Still, she doesn't stand a chance. I did enjoy the cartoons at her website, especially "special interest brothel". You can check them out here (http://www.votearianna.com)


Peter Camejo - I actually liked his ideas the best. No personal attacks, he just stated his position. Obviously, a green party candidate isn't going to be elected though.


A couple of interesting things that I noted: One is that Davis wasn't mentioned all that much. Arnold and Paul didn't really question each other at all, although both being from the same party, I kind of expected that. I do wonder if they are going to split the republican vote, giving Bustamonte the edge. Many are urging McClintock to bow out for precicely this reason but as of yet, he has refused.

I really wonder how much this hurt Gray Davis. I heard many people on talk radio this morning say that they are less-decided on who to vote for, based on the debate. I'm not convinced at all that the recall is going to be successful.

As far as my vote, to be honest, I have no friggin idea. :)

mods, I realize that this could probably be put under IMHO. Due to the political nature, I figured it would possibly end up a debate though. Feel free to move if appropriate.

[smiling bandit]

Arnold Shwarzenegger - Too many jokes and one liners and not enough substance. He has some interesting ideas but doesn't seem to have a comprehensive plan, just ideas. Also, his links to special interest groups leave me a little uneasy.

I don't agree. I think he's being jovial on purpose because it reassures voters they aren't getting a blank-faced suit. He's trying to make voters comfortable with him, rather than make them believe in his ideas.

[musicguy]

I can see your point, smiling bandit. I thought his sparring and quips back and forth, mainly with Huffington, were distracting though. The others seemed to debate just fine without the personal insults. They focused on attacking the ideas, not the person.

Personally, I think Arnold is a cool guy and I think many people feel the same way. I think his heart is in the right place and he definitely cares about California. People are aware that he isn't a born and raised politician and that is appealing to many. But I also think his ideas, the specifics on what he is going to do if he gets elected are important too. I didn't feel that I heard enough of a plan to determine if he was the best candidate. Just my opinion, of course.

[Stuffy]

I too was surprised and I was going to start a thread my self. Keeping your format.

Cruz Bustamonte - I thought he performed poorly at times, though I liked his presence in some instances. Oddly I think his answer on Illegal immigrants was the better part of his performance. It was obvious he was sincere. On the Driver licences, I've more or less leaned towards allowing it for the very reasons he pointed out, at least they can then get car insurance and lower my rates.

Arnold Shwarzenegger - Though he was jovial and relaxed, I never got the sense he gave a straight answer to anything. It seemed to me he came in with a set canned responses and a steering guide to get back to his talking points. The only time I think he was expansive was when tried to take credit for Healthy Families which he had fuck all to do with. He did do a good job sparring with Huffington and the other candidates.

Paul McClintock (I thought it was Bill) - Number two vote getter form most sincere. Too much Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes, cut taxes, oh yeah and I'm also pro-guns and anti-abortion, did I mention we should cut taxes?

Arianna Huffington - I think she's getting out and helped Cruz by going on the attack against Arnold, and the Bush Administration. Impressive in her ability to point out Arnolds avoidance of questions. Further she pointed out how California is mirroring the nation at large.

Peter Camejo - Most Sincere. I actually liked a lot of what he had to say, and if I thought he stood a chance in hell of winning he'd get my vote. He was the most polite, he stayed away from personal attacks, and generally presented a good case. His closing statement was ramblining and ill thought out. It was like he didn't know he be asked to make one.

Overall, I thought this was the best debate I'd sseen for any office.

I too think it mostly helped Grey Davis. Incidentally I'm a Black moderate democrat who intends to vote no on the Recall.

[John Mace]

I watched the whole thing and was pretty disappointed, too. I liked McClintock and although there is a strong bias against him on this thread so far, I hope there is at least the recogntion that he actually offered concrete plans of ways to reduce the defecit. I guess one hears what one wants, but I didn't hear him mention much about tax cuts (except that car tax, which most people are against and is a huge issue here in CA). Camejo also had lots of concrete ideas, but mostly bad. Raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes.

I'd be willing to bet that Camejo said "raise taxes" at least 3 times for every time McClintock said "cut taxes". Funny how people tend not to notice that...

But Mack can't win in CA-- he's too conservative for the state. Arnold was OK, but didn't have much to say in terms of actual plans. I think he'd do fine as governor, since he's smart, practical, and pretty principled. But I don't like this whole recall thing and will probably vote No on recall and yes on Arnold.

[musicguy]

Ok, I feel like a moron. It is neither Paul (as I stated) or Bill (as Stuffy suggested) McClintock. It is Tom. How embarrassing. Maybe that is good indicator of his name recognition among voters though. :)

[musicguy]

Originally posted by John Mace
But I don't like this whole recall thing and will probably vote No on recall and yes on Arnold.

I would have to say that we are in agreement here. As a democrat, I would like to vote for Bustamonte out of principle but I just can't. I don't think he is the guy for the job. I also feel that I should vote for someone who stands a chance of winning and the percentage of people that vote for Peter Camejo or Arianna Huffington isn't even going to make it into double digits. I think the GOP is going to persuade McClintock to drop out. That leaves Arnold.

And I have never liked the idea of a recall to begin with. Davis won the election, no matter how much Daryl Issa and the republicans wishes it weren't so. So I will vote no on the recall.

[John Mace]

BTW, here's my thumbnail analysis of the Candidates:

Arnold: I'm on the people's side. And I'm funny.

McClintock: Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending.

Camejo: Raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the rich

Huffington: Bush is bad.

Bustamante: I'm above it all. I just love to see Republicans fight amongst themselves.


Best one-liner. From Arnold (directed at Cuz, I think):

I've signed checks on the front side-- you only know how to sign them on the back side.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by musicguy
I would have to say that we are in agreement here. As a democrat, I would like to vote for Bustamonte out of principle but I just can't. I don't think he is the guy for the job. I also feel that I should vote for someone who stands a chance of winning and the percentage of people that vote for Peter Camejo or Arianna Huffington isn't even going to make it into double digits. I think the GOP is going to persuade McClintock to drop out. That leaves Arnold.

You lost me a bit. Are you voting for Arnold? I actually think Cruz will win if Mack doesn't exit.

And I have never liked the idea of a recall to begin with. Davis won the election, no matter how much Daryl Issa and the republicans wishes it weren't so. So I will vote no on the recall.

I don't think he will. He has a reputation for making decisions strictly on principle and political expediency be damned.

[Stuffy]

John Mace You're probably right maybe the mantra was cut spending, either way it was one dimensional. I think the major problem with his cut, cut, cut, is that a lot of things the State has budgeted are there by mandate. Oh and you're right on Camejo too, but you had to admire that "It's just four words thing".

Tom it is.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Stuffy
[B]John Mace You're probably right maybe the mantra was cut spending, either way it was one dimensional. I think the major problem with his cut, cut, cut, is that a lot of things the State has budgeted are there by mandate. Oh and you're right on Camejo too, but you had to admire that "It's just four words thing".

It might be one-D, but this whole recall was started over a one-D issue: a huge bugit deficit that seemed to appear out of nowhere. Dealing with that issue is the key aspect of the recall. I'd say that Camejo and McClintock are really the only ones with a plan to to close the deficit. If you think it should be fixed by raising taxes, you should vote for Camejo. If you think it should be fixed by cutting spending, vote for McClintock (or Arnold, if you trust him to do the kind of things McClintock talks about).

[blowero]

Originally posted by musicguy
[B]I was surprised to not see a thread started concerning the election debate that took place on Wednesday in California. Granted, this is probably of limited interest to the many dopers outside of California but I was interested to see what others who saw it had to say.

Yeah, I was surprised too. Well, now we have a thread.

My question is, did they have to make the debate such a circus? Geez, they could have at least disappointed people's expectations by having a little decorum. I didn't like that moderator at all; he did a pretty crappy job of keeping the candidates on topic. At times he seemed to be fueling the flames more than anything else. They should have given him switches to turn off people's mics if need be.

Cruz Bustamonte - Seems to have too many links to special interest groups, notably the indian casinos and illegal immigrants. While seemingly well-informed, there is just something I don't trust about him. I definitely can't agree with him on the subjec of illegal immigrants being issued drivers licenses.

I'll probably vote for him out of principal because I see this recall as an attempted power-grab by the Republicans. But I agree that he didn't exactly bowl me over. I like his idea of a 2-stage vehicle license fee and a tax increase for the wealthiest 5%, though - Hell, why shouldn't the rich folks bail out the state? BTW, his assertion that the top 5% pay less tax than the bottom income level seemed to go unchallenged - is that an accurate statement?

I liked how he for the most part didn't lower himself to the level of petty bickering that Arnold and Arianna were engaging in, but at the same time I thought he was a little too soft-spoken, almost lackadaisical at times.

Arnold Shwarzenegger - Too many jokes and one liners and not enough substance. He has some interesting ideas but doesn't seem to have a comprehensive plan, just ideas. Also, his links to special interest groups leave me a little uneasy.

IMO he came off as very aggressive and cocky, almost like the characters he has played in movies. He should have toned it down a bit and not tried to interrupt and talk over the other candidates so much. He did surprise me by seeming pretty informed on a lot of issues. I thought it was pretty ironic, though, when he vehemently protested that he should not be judged by the actions of Bush and the Republican party, but then turned right back around and criticized Bustamante for things that his party have done. A couple times he tried to blame Cruz for things that Cruz had voted against, and then loudly talked over him when he tried to respond. That's just poor etiquette.

[Tom] McClintock - Way too conservative for me.

Yeah, he'll never win in California.

Arianna Huffingtom - Raised some good points and definitely made the debates more interesting. Still, she doesn't stand a chance. I did enjoy the cartoons at her website, especially "special interest brothel". You can check them out here (http://www.votearianna.com)

I kind of thought she came off as a flake. She couldn't stay on topic; practically everything she said was non-sequiturs or personal insults. I also think she's a little unrealistic. She made great points about the need for government reform, but what's she going to do if she gets in office, counting on all these reforms to balance the budget, and then inevitably discovering that it's easier said than done?

Peter Camejo - I actually liked his ideas the best. No personal attacks, he just stated his position. Obviously, a green party candidate isn't going to be elected though.

I agree, but the Green Party is just too far out in left field to be a serious contender.

[Pleonast]

My take on the candidates:

Bustamante: sounded too much like a politician, way too smooth. Nothing I can put a finger on, so I won't complain too much if he wins. His attempted end-run around fund-raising rules irks me though.

Arnold: closest to myself politically, he came off as glib and superficial. What's with all of his movie references? I'll rapidly grow sick of this style if this is what he'll be like as governor.

McClintock: sounds competent and straight-forward. Too bad I don't like his social agenda. Definitely a no-go.

Camejo: also competent sounding. Too bad I don't like his economics. And doesn't have a chance at winning it. I would give a careful look if he was closer to the top.

Arianna: I really like a lot of what she says, but comes off as too whiny. Probably feeling desparate because of low poll rankings.

My background: I'm new to CA (recently from Boston) so I don't have any big insight into CA politics yet. Politically I'm a socially liberal, economically conservative Republican. I'm voting No on the Recall (Davis won fairly; he deserves the chance to sink or swim again), Arnold or no one for Governor, definitely No on Prop 53 (say no to constitutional micromanagement), Yes on Prop 54 (on principle, even if it's currently impractical).

[John Mace]

Pleonast:

I'm also from Boston, though been in CA for a long time. As I said above, I will also vote no on recall, then most likely yes on Arnold. Same as you on the Propositions, too.

Think more about voting for someone. If you vote for no one, you are throwing your vote away. If you think Arnold is closest to you politicallly, I don't see how you can even consider Cruz or Camejo. Both those guys are all about raising taxes.

[Pleonast]

John Mace, I'm more concerned about budget deficits than taxes. I waver between voting for socially-agreeable and fiscally-agreeable candidates. It's rare that I'm very happy with any candidate. And I'm used to throwing my vote away. :)

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Pleonast
John Mace, I'm more concerned about budget deficits than taxes. I waver between voting for socially-agreeable and fiscally-agreeable candidates. It's rare that I'm very happy with any candidate. And I'm used to throwing my vote away. :)

I understand. But as the saying goes, you miss every ball you don't swing at.:)

Did anyone think the moderator was biased towards Arnold? To me, he seemed to favor the actor in terms of giving him the floor first and making sure he was kept in the thick of things. I, too, wish he had an on/off switch for each microphone to prevent obivous interruptions. Not sure the candidates would've agreed ot that feature, though.

[musicguy]

Originally posted by John Mace
You lost me a bit. Are you voting for Arnold? I actually think Cruz will win if Mack doesn't exit.



Sorry to have lost you with my ramblings. :)

Yes, I will be voting for Arnold and I will be voting no on the recall. I sure hope that Bustamonte doesn't win. But McClintock shows no signs of dropping out which, to me, is sheer arrogance. He doesn't stand a chance but refuses to see it and will probably screw Arnold's chances in the process. If that occurs though, I think it is going to seriously harm any further political aspirations that McClintock has.

(geez, these candidates have long last names. What a pain in the ass to type.)

[John Mace]

I saw Arnold interviewed by Hannity last night and he was actually very good. When he was interviewed last week by O'Reilly, he basically spent 30 minutes saying nothing.

It's hard to believe that McClintock could be so unconcerned about his future in the Republican party, but a lot of political analysts sure seem to think he is. And he keeps saying over and over again that he won't get out. At this point he's almost damned if does and damned if he doesn't. A lot of people will never forgive him if he stays in, but he may never be able to live with himself if he exits.

Maybe he'll luck out and Arnold will actuall win. For his sake, I hope so. I actually like the guy and would hate to see him banished.

[Stuffy]

I read this morning that Arnold lost points in the debate with women, in his attacks on Huffington. If true it's not a good sign for him.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by musicguy


And I have never liked the idea of a recall to begin with. Davis won the election, no matter how much Daryl Issa and the republicans wishes it weren't so. So I will vote no on the recall.


It is extremely important for people to understand that it is not an either/or vote. You vote for whether you want the recall or not, AND you vote for who you want to win IF the recall passes anyway.

I think a whole lot of people are going to fuck this up.

[John Mace]

Stoid wrote:
I think a whole lot of people are going to fuck this up.

I hope so!

[Nobody]

Arnold Shwarzenegger - Too many jokes and one liners and not enough substance. He has some interesting ideas but doesn't seem to have a comprehensive plan, just ideas. Also, his links to special interest groups leave me a little uneasy.
Originally posted by smiling bandit
I don't agree. I think he's being jovial on purpose because it reassures voters they aren't getting a blank-faced suit. He's trying to make voters comfortable with him, rather than make them believe in his ideas.
I don't know if you saw this or not, but before the debates, he was the O'Reilly factor. During that interview he was rather stiff, and answered question by basically firing off memorized lines. In short, he almost seemed like a "blank-faced suit".
I think that his campaign manager or somebody must have convinced him that he needed to loosen up for the debate.

[musicguy]

Originally posted by Stoid
It is extremely important for people to understand that it is not an either/or vote. You vote for whether you want the recall or not, AND you vote for who you want to win IF the recall passes anyway.

I think a whole lot of people are going to fuck this up.

Uh, Stoid, perhaps you didn't see where I said that I was voting no on the recall and yes for Arnold.

[SPOOFE]

Cruz Bustamonte - I thought he performed poorly at times, though I liked his presence in some instances. Oddly I think his answer on Illegal immigrants was the better part of his performance.
Why? He didn't answer the question. He was asked how much he thought we should spend on health care for illegal immigrants... he responded with a flowing rant about how "illegals are people too!".... but gave no number. Does that mean he thinks ZERO dollars should be spent, or an infinite number?

Bustamante is vile, dishonest, and should be catapulted out of the country.

[squeegee]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Bustamante is vile, dishonest, and should be catapulted out of the country.Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd put it quite as vehemently but the Indian Casino thing definitely has me leaning that direction.

Jeezus, what a fuckup this election is turning into.

Recall:

a) keep the current fucked-up status, or
b) roll the dice for some clown.

Some clowns:

Bustamonte: status quo. A nice fuck-you to the recallers if you want that. A career civil servant and someone who seems to know what he's doing. And a suspicious aura of having the Davis handicap: an apparent willingness to sell out the office in exchange for donations. The indian donation thing pisses me off.

Arnold: Amateur hour. Smart guy, but.. jeezus. CA needs someone who knows where the bodies are buried and can beat up the legislature and get shit happening NOW, not some dickhead (no matter how intelligent or well intentioned or determined) who will use up a couple of years finding out who does what in Sacramento.

McClintock: Surprisingly statesmanlike, but I can't go further. His politics are not mine. A non-starter for me, but he's come off pretty well in the debates etc.

Comejo: Also amateur hour. I do like some of his politics; he has damned good points to make about the tax structure. Basically unwinnable, which I'm not sure is a good or bad thing.

Huffington: pure entertainment, she's often fun, or sometimes not. Unelectable.

Plus the zillion dwarves. Whee.

No good choices here. I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for... damnifiknow. :confused:

[blowero]

Am I the only one who isn't particularly bugged if Bustamante is beholden to Native Americans? What's the worst-case scenario? They get legislation passed that allows them to operate casinos and make a lot of money. Considering that we stole their country and committed genocide against their race, it just doesn't seem all that unfair to me.:confused:

[squeegee]

Blowero:

the issue (at least for me) is that Davis has had a bunch of fund-raising scandels, and now Bustamonte seems to be having his own. It looks sleazy.

Which isn't isn't to say that any politician, even Arnold, is a virgin in this area.:dubious:

[blowero]

Originally posted by squeegee
Blowero:

the issue (at least for me) is that Davis has had a bunch of fund-raising scandels, and now Bustamonte seems to be having his own. It looks sleazy.

Yeah, I know Cruz was ordered to give back some money he wasn't supposed to use, but I don't get the objection to the Indian donation thing.

[squeegee]

blowero -

Point taken. I don't get it either, although I haven't seen more than a very little "indian money is eeevil" coverage.

[squeegee]

I must confess I was actually relieved when the 9th circuit had delayed the election:

a) We'd all get a few months to find out who all these clowns really were before taking one home and waking up to something coyote-ugly the next day. I fear it's gonna be one helluva hangover.

b) The recall delay, at least in theory, had the potential to get most of the legal issues out of the way before the election, so we could all vote and be done with it. Now the election is October 7th, and October 8th is the day the lawsuits will start. I fear it will be Florida all over again. (@#$%@#%$)

[John Mace]

Originally posted by squeegee
. I fear it will be Florida all over again. (@#$%@#%$)

Only if Bustamante loses.:)

[squeegee]

Perfect, John. Just perfect. That's the sort of sentiment that we're all going to hear on October 8th and forever after, no matter who wins, from whichever partisans had a losing dog in the race. The Dems and Pubbies will bleat endlessly about how fucked up and dishonest everyone else is, while thier chosen hero is a paragon.

I am so fucking sick of this recall.

[rjung]

No matter who wins the recall election, I'll bet someone else will start the ball rolling on another recall 91 days afterward. ;)

(And no, I had that gag before Doonesbury did. :) )

[John Mace]

Originally posted by rjung
No matter who wins the recall election, I'll bet someone else will start the ball rolling on another recall 91 days afterward. ;)

(And no, I had that gag before Doonesbury did. :) )

Well, there's been a recall effort against every governor for the last 40 yrs. It shouldn't surprise anyone if the next gov gets one after him. In fact, it would be unusual if there wasn't one.

Squeegee: Do you know what a smiley face means?:(

[squeegee]

Originally posted by John Mace
Squeegee: Do you know what a smiley face means?:( Sorry, John. My vitriol was directed at the partisans and sore losers that will be out there on Oct 8th, not at you. I didn't express that very clearly. Apologies.

Well, there's been a recall effort against every governor for the last 40 yrsReally? I hadn't heard that every governor had been targeted. I think I recall a failed recall effort against Wilson.

[John Mace]

Really? I hadn't heard that every governor had been targeted.

I don't have a cite, but I've read it in many different news articles. Perhaps someone else might be able to supply a good cite. I did a bit of googling, but came up dry.

[Sam Stone]

I read this morning that Arnold lost points in the debate with women, in his attacks on Huffington. If true it's not a good sign for him.


I'm coming to this discussion late, but I just had to mention this:

I watched the debate, and thought it was largely a train wreck and none of the candidates came off particularly well. But I thought that Bustamante had an absolutely horrible moment when Huffington was criticizing him, and he was rolling his eyes and grinning at the audience going, "Yes, Arianna... Yes Arianna...Yes, Arianna..." It came off as obnoxiously smug and condescending, and if anyone lost points with women I would have expected Bustamante to lose them right there. Hell, I'm a man and -I- was offended by that behaviour. She's a damned candidate for governor, not a hectoring wife.

And of course, the news now is that Arnold catapulted WAY into the lead after the debates, and he's now leading Bustamante 40% to 25%. Clearly, the audience thought that Arnold was the winner. Probably because all he had to do to 'win' was to show that he wasn't just another hollywood flake. He benefitted big time from low expectations.

As for why Arnold isn't being specific, it's fairly clear to me - he's not being specifics because his plan for the state is not very palatable to California voters. He is basically an economic Libertarian. He actually sends copies of Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose" to friends and acquaintances, and before he became a political animal he couldn't utter three sentences about economics without quoting from Friedman or Hayek.

If Arnold gets elected, it's going to be interesting. I believe he's going to try to cut the state budget dramatically, cut regulations, cut business taxes and regulation, and in general try to behave like an economic Libertarian. Then he's going to run into a buzz-saw of special interests, mandated spending by initiative, vested interests within the government, and recalcitrant local governments.

Then we'll see what he's made of. He'll either use his charisma and popularity to champion real reforms and save California, or he'll back down and become another 'managerial' governor like Davis, or maybe there'll be another recall (!!).

[John Mace]

Sam wrote:
I watched the debate, and thought it was largely a train wreck and none of the candidates came off particularly well.

I thought McClintock did a good job of keeping his comments serious, staying on topic, and giving concrete answers to the questions. But, judged as a whole, it was pretty much a circus.

If your analysis is correct, and I think it probably is, I wouldn't put it past Arnold to go on TV night after night if necessary to badger the pols in Sacramento into action.

[Sam Stone]

Actually, you're right. McClintock came across as the only grownup on the stage, I thought. But he's not going to be elected.

Why was Arianna there? Has anyone explained this? She's polling something like 2%. How does a 2% candidate get into a major debate? The Libertarians have been trying to get their candidates into debates for decades with no luck, and they usually poll in the 3-4% range in pre-election polling, and sometimes as high as 7-8%.

[John Mace]

Someone said, of the first debate, that Arianna was planning to be there even before she was invited. There is no good reason for inviting her other than:

She's a woman
She has name recognition
She's a pest and might make too much trouble if not invited
She provides a certain amount of entertainment value (think Sharpton)

And, yeah, McClintock isn't going to win. But then, only Cruz and Arnold have any chance at all.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
I watched the debate, and thought it was largely a train wreck and none of the candidates came off particularly well. But I thought that Bustamante had an absolutely horrible moment when Huffington was criticizing him, and he was rolling his eyes and grinning at the audience going, "Yes, Arianna... Yes Arianna...Yes, Arianna..." It came off as obnoxiously smug and condescending, and if anyone lost points with women I would have expected Bustamante to lose them right there. Hell, I'm a man and -I- was offended by that behaviour. She's a damned candidate for governor, not a hectoring wife.

It's interesting you saw it that way, because I saw it as his taking the high road. Arianna's attacks, both on Arnold and Cruz, were obviously petty and irrational, and usually off-topic; I don't think she was acting particularly like a candidate for governor. Arnold's response was to interrupt, loudly talk over her, and hurl personal insults, while Cruz's response was to roll his eyes and refuse to dignify her outbursts with a heated response. To me, Arnold's demeanor was much more obnoxious. I guess I'm just bothered by the idea of a debate where the winner is considered to be whoever was the loudest.

[lakersgo]

Gray Davis runs this state as bad as he possibly could! I don't see why anyone will vote no on the recall. Yes, he did win the election...but look at his major competitor, Simon? Come on! Anyone could run all over Gray Davis except this meserable Simon! Yet! He did come close, didn't he? 42% vote him for governor. Anyway...just my rant....

What's the point of voting Arnold if you vote no on the recall?

[Voodoochile]

As for why Arnold isn't being specific, it's fairly clear to me - he's not being specifics because his plan for the state is not very palatable to California voters. He is basically an economic Libertarian. He actually sends copies of Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose" to friends and acquaintances, and before he became a political animal he couldn't utter three sentences about economics without quoting from Friedman or Hayek.

I disagree only in that I think thats exactly why he's so palatable to Cal voters. It does however make him unpalatable to the various elitists we have in this state, which helps to explain his popularity with everyone else.

we'll see what he's made of. He'll either use his charisma and popularity to champion real reforms and save California, or he'll back down and become another 'managerial' governor like Davis, or maybe there'll be another recall (!!).

I agree with your last two statements completely. And though I am no republican, Ill probably vote for Arnie, because I think he has the best chance of the lot to change/alter/remove the status quo, if only because of his popularity with the voters.

Plus, the repubs are only backing him because they think he has the best chance of winning. I dont see him as a party toad; I think he would have no problem ignoring the repub platform on occasion, and politicians ignoring their party elders/seers/gurus in favor of their beliefs and/or constituants is exactly what we need more of.

As far as debating is concerned, Im not really sure why people place so much stock in it. This whole perception of the best debater = good leader is cultural bigotry at best. I dont see a correlation historically; perhaps someone could explain the logic behind this perception.

In my experiance, those who can talk-the-talk in the most slick manner usually do so because of their lack of ability to actually walk the walk. Im far less likely to trust someone who is a slick and professional debater than I am someone who just says it how they feel it. Gimme warts and all; anyone who doesnt have them or pretends not to is by default full of shit, and therefore not to be trusted.

[rjung]

All I know is, I was willing to give Schwarzenegger a fair chance at the start of this mess, but his continued refusal to provide details about his plans if elected is really souring on me.

The fact that he's apparently the front-runner despite this big sucking void in his campaign is just another sign of the impending collapse of society, IMO.