I can’t see many people caring about this, except that the Angelides campaign might as well have hung out a large banner at campaign headquarters saying “We Are Desperate!”
Since the same link quotes Arnold as referring to the matter as a “little trivial thing(s)”, it’s doubtful that it will morph into a huge campaign issue. And he probably won’t lose too many “hot-tempered” voters.
Oh, come on. Not all actors are evil knuckleheaded asswipes, like Reagan and Schwartzene - Shuartze - Shortsene - Ahnold. There are a few actors I would certainly vote for, or a least I would consider it. Johnny Depp. Jodie Foster. Brad “We won’t get married until everyone can get married” Pitt.
Oh, and Starving Artist – you make the mistake of comparing electability with benevolence. This is the same idiocity that says Britney Spears is popular, therefore she must have talent. As an artist, surely you know better than this.
Can I Godwinize yet?
Hitler was a very popular leader who accomplished much, therefore he was a great and benevolent man.
Go ahead, Starving Artist, let’s see you praise both Hitler and Clinton. By your criteria, they were both great leaders. If you don’t, then you’re a fucking hypocrit.
I don’t doubt that at all. Of course, they don’t have any actual goverment experience or record of accomplishment such as Reagan had acquired by the time he became president, given his successful tenure as president of the SAG and the aforementioned two-term governorship of California…but then I wouldn’t expect one such as you to want someone in office who actually knows what they’re doing.
That you can hold such an opinion of Little Ronnie Rea-shit (as a good friend of mine refers to him) marks you as a man who can hold opinions that are worthless pieces of trash. It doesn’t speak well for the value of any other opinions you have shared, however eloquently you may have phrased them.
Well, of course, if you and Oprah like him, that’s enough to tell me he’s more than qualified to be governor. After all, Oprah’s recognized the world over as a brilliant political analyst. :rolleyes: Oh, and Reagan did basically the same job in California that Arnold’s doing. Really not the most ringing of endorsements.
It really is interesting though, watching all the mental contortions they go through to justify actions like Reaganomics.
The minute the primaries were over, all I could think, looking at PA, was, "After all this time with muscle-man Arnie, here’s a man who can put the “goober” back in “gubernatorial”. I think it should be his campaign slogan
Anything awarded to a terrorist like Arafat isn’t worth spit. The same argument could be made for Begin, just not by me.
Arnie is a good governor, Ronnie was a great one, and the Dems can just get used to it. They have both senators, and stand little chance of losing either. But after Davis, the chances of a Dem being elected governor around here are effective zero.
It would be one thing if we were talking about Arafat and someone mentioned the prize as proof that he was a good man. But to dismiss the accomplishments of all the other winners simply because Arafat, Peres and Rabin won it in 1994 strikes me as, oh I don’t know, insane.
Maureen, what exactly has Arnold done that you disagree with? And I mean policywise. I don’t doubt that you disagree with his politics, there is plenty I don’t agree with either, but I am curious to know more specifics. Thanks.
Happy to.
My biggest gripe is with him is about health care (naturally). Last year he tried to roll back the nurses to patient ratio in California hospitals, because the insurance companies he’s taken money from complain that nursing care is too expensive. Aside from being completely illegal, it was a highly dangerous decision. Those levels are mandated to make sure the patients receive a certain level of care. The fewer nurses to go around, the worse quality of care patients receive. The California Nurses Assn. protested (loudly) and the court found in our favor and refused to allow it. He vetoed several bills that would’ve helped save Californians money; not just tax dollars but also the money they pay in deductibles, copays and prescription costs. AB 76 would have made it possible for the state to bairgain for lower costs of prescription drugs for state programs, but he decided it would’ve discouraged pharmaceutical companies from doing business here, which made no sense at all. California’s too big a market. AB 772 would have expanded eligibility for health insurance coverage for children, something he campaigned on, but like most things, as soon as his advisors tell him “it will raise taxes” things tend to get shoved to the back burner. Most recently, he promised to veto a single payer health care bill. I’m sure that had nothing to do with all the money he accepted from health insurance companies.
Education.
“California’s children” was almost like a mantra with this guy when he was campaigning. Not that that’s anything new, we’re just stupid enough to keep buying into it. He actually got a pretty good initiative on the ballot a few years before he got elected which made it easier for kids to get after school care for families with low incomes. Guess what program got suspended when he went into office? He made a deal with the California Teachers Assn. to increase the funding by $2B this year, which is half of what the state has mandated for K-12 funding, in exchange for a promise that once the state economy was more stable, he would return the money from the general fund to education. Once again, probably not going to happen; someone will say “we have to raise taxes to do that” and that will be the end of that. So he’s fucking the kids he supposedly ran for office to help. Fees for UC students have doubled since 2001. In his special election (when he for once didn’t really care how much he was spending in tax dollars), he put out a proposition to increase the probationary period of teachers from two years to five. Our school closure rate is up, our dropout rate is up, and our rating is 43rd in the nation. Pretty fuckin pitiful.