If a political candidate obtains time on a broadcast station, other candidates for the same office (or their appointed representatives) may obtain an “equal opportunity” on that station. An equal opportunity usually includes equal time, but the term means more than equal time. For example, it means the right to obtain time in a period likely to attract approximately the same size audience as the period in which the opposing candidate appeared. News shows are exempt.
If Arnie jumps ahead in the polls, especially if he wins, it just goes to show that voters have lost it - giltz over substance. Just remember that California has the fifth largest economy in the world. If California is unable to get its economic house in order, it can damage the greater US economy.
What kind of Gov. does Cal. have? I mean, a likeable doofus can be Governor of Texas, because the responsibilities are, well, limited. Similar is true of MN, so we can elect a lout like Jesse and its no biggie. But what about California?
I, for one, knew the voters had lost it in the last election; the Conservatives for choosing Bill Simon (ick!) to be their candidate (why oh why couldn’t they have voted for Riordan??), and the Dems (and others) for reelecting Davis, further allowing him to dig California’s grave.
Energy problems have been pretty much resolved for the time being, what with new plants having been brought online, and the others running at higher capacity. The “energy crisis” did not need to get as bad as it did, and Davis’ “solution” to the crisis didn’t really help at all (man, I hate it when I start putting words in quotes…).
The money problems and the out of control spending are two sides of the same coin. California already has among the highest taxes in the US, so even higher taxes isn’t the proper solution. As for the out of control spending, I believe that lands firmly in the lap of Gray Davis. He brought the state from a $12 Billion surplus to our current $38+ Billion deficit, even though taxes and tax revenue grew FAR more than the population did in the same time. And so far, I haven’t seen even a half-reasonable excuse for such atrocius mismanagement of public funds.
Yep, the capacity was there before, too - the “crisis” was manufactured by Enron and the guy Bush called “Kenny Boy”. Perhaps Sam didn’t/wouldn’t hear about that?
It isn’t at all clear that having made “Kindergarten Cop” is a good job qualification here, but what the hell.
That’ll buy him some time, but not that much. The long-term imbalance of revenue and expenses will still be there and still causing problems that no one man, even a neophyte, can fix. He’s going to need a plausible plan PDQ.
Perhaps his presence, along with Larry Flynt’s and a host of others’, will help ensure this affair will be seen as a total farce, if it isn’t already. No telling what effect that will have on turnout.
I assume you’re referring to the Davis long-term energy contracts, and if so I agree that that was a fiasco. However, the “energy crisis” was demonstrably manufactured, as witness the FERC findings that energy companies had colluded to withhold power to drive up energy prices. I can’t imagine how someone could lay the blame for that at Davis’ feet.
Well, I’m not excusing Davis, but can I assume you’ll agree that the CA assembly and legislature also hold a fair bit of responsibility for the budget?
I’m not laying the blame for the energy crisis itself at his feet. There are lots of factors involved with that, including California’s stupid partial deregulation of the energy industry, and the industry taking advantage of it.
However, I think his efforts to get out of it were too little too late, with the Feds sharing some of the blame as well. The crisis itself wasn’t really his fault, but the terrible way it was handled and eventually solved didn’t do anything except further hurt CA’s budget.
They sure do. Considering that the state is so strongly Democratic, I guess I could generalize more and blame those who supported Davis and his policies for the condition CA is in now. But, I don’t like making generalizations about a group, so I’ll just say that those who squandered public funds are at fault, which includes Davis.
Would Arnold be the only governor whose bare ass has been seen by practically everyone? Did the women voters like what they saw? Does a nice ass (I assume but I’m a guy so I don’t know) help get legislation passed? If this proves to be so, will W moon us? Will he moon Iraq?
I’m seriously disappointed. I was rooting for Riordan all the way. Arnie’s just messing everything up. However, I do hope he does well, since it’s too late I guess for things to switch around…
I think he may do quite well, at least in the race. It’s not like he needs to win a majority, or even a plurality to win. In this screwed up recall, someone could concievably become governer with only 10% of the vote. Someone with 30% support is actually pretty likely to get in (unless, of course that someone is Davis. He, and he alone needs a full 50% to win :rolleyes: ).
On the other hand. I don’t see why anyone would want the job. Most of the problems in California are systemic rather than the result of bad policy under control of the Governer.
Hmmm, I found this dubious cite regarding Arnie’s reputed real estate investments. The site’s cite is dead, so I’m not sure how much credence to lend this article.
