Bustamante, the Lt Gov, is now in. That should pretty ensure that Davis gets the boot. No love lossed between them, but it’s a big sign that the Dems don’t really support Davis. Also, Issa is now out. Somewhat ironic that he fronted about $2M of his own money to get the recall going, and a super-rich guy like Arnold capitalizes.
I also heard an interviewer today (can’t remember who) state that Arnold is a big fan of Milton Friedman. If true, that would seal my vote for him.
An article at MSNBC says:
So don’t underestimate him.
Well, they can, a good reason not to take them. So does booze, though, but I’m unaware of any President who was a teetotaler except Bush, and he used to drink like a fish and snort nose candy. Clinton smoked pot, which can lead to lethargy, brain cell loss, smelling like socks and listening to Phish albums, plus he smoked tobacco and drank beer and wine. Hell, they serve alcohol, the most destructive drug in the history of the world, at State dinners.
I don’t see any evidence Schwartzenegger has emotional balance issues. He is by all accounts a very nice man and a gentleman.
Well, maybe not ALL accounts. Just google “Arnold Schwarzenegger groping”.
Well I get 319 hits. Of course, if I type in “Icarus groping” I get 265 hits.
Upon review some of Arnies political statements, he appears to be that rarest of birds, the moderate Republican. Endangered, but not extinct. I am, of course, wary, since I remember the last major Pubbie who claimed centrist credentials, a “uniter”, as it were. “Feh!”, as they say in Lubbock.
On the other hand, what the heck. If Arnie is there, he can most likely count on a much more sympathetic ear in Washington DC than any Dem is ever going to get, during the energy crunch, it was all CheneyCo could do not to gloat right out loud while they gave CA a jolly good rogering.
I say if Arnie is dumb enough to dangle his pecker in a pool of piranha, lets pull up our chairs and make popcorn. They had themselves a good laugh about Jesse the Body. Now its our turn. Here on the Third Coast, we can enjoy the entire spectacle with smug aplomb.
Arnold is pro-choice and does favor at least some gun control. He also appears to have no problem with “gay rights”. He is a moderate Pub. In fact, he might (as I mentioned in my first post) be even that rarer bird-- a libertarian. A libbertarian of sorts, for sure, but about as close as one can get and still be a viable candidate.
Hey, Elucidator, if you want to see some moderate Repubs come to the right coast–Bill Weld, George Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg…
Anyway, back to Ahnuld.
Did anybody else see that disastrous interview with Matt Lauer on the TODAY show this morning?! I was eating breakfast and getting ready for work so I missed the start, but I was riveted by the end.
Arnold was confident, he had his stump themes ready, which seemed to be “Throw da bums out” “Let’s bring jobs back to the state!” and a rather Helen Lovejoy-ish “Won’t somebody puhlease think of the chilllldren?” which is fine, but that seemed to be all he had. When Lauer pressed him, very lightly, on HOW he planned to do stuff–I remember one question in particular on whether or not he’d repeal a law about paid family leaves, which businesses claim is one of many driving them out of the state–he’d look blank for a sec and then start on another screed about one of his themes. He also talked incessantly over Lauer’s attempt to ask other questions and then claimed the audio wasn’t working, and an obviously suspicious Lauer eventually had to concede and wrapped up the interview.
Now, to be fair, I think Ahnuld’s pretty bright overall and considering it was about 4 in the morning in CA and it’s one of his first interviews he’ll probably get better, but it was weird that he didn’t any ready soundbites in place for some of the most basic HOW? questions yet. And this is five minutes with Matt Lauer–imagine what an hour with Tim Russert will reveal! Blood in the water time.
Unfortunately, I suspect that’s where he’s different from Ventura. Schwartzenegger is a good man and a smart man. Ventura is a good man and a smart man who actually came up with some ideas before he applied for the job.
It’s kind of off topic, but I am always amazed at how many politicians attempt to win office without explaining their plan. Maybe it’s my incorrect view, but it seems to me that a politician or a party that really clearly defines a plan has a huge advantage over one that does not. In my experience in following elections, there seems to me to be a tremendous positive correlation between the clarity of a party’s position and their fortunes at the polls. Ceteris parabis, of course. It doesn’t always work that way but the correlation, when you adjust for other factors, is incredibly strong by any measure I can think of - win/loss record, change in support just prior to the election, performance vs. expected performance, whatever you want. Furthermore, it seems to me that HAVING a well-formed, and clear plan is far more important than the ideological bend of the plan.
It seems to me that if Arnold wants to be governor, he needs a plan. In a pluralistic society, the benefits of giving people a reason to vote for you outweigh the drawbacks that you will be giving other people a reason to vote against you.
Oh bother, I was responding to RickJay’s quote:
It has been widely reported around Hollywood that he enjoys a bit the “grab-ass” with the young lasses. Some have dubbed him “Arnie the Octopus”. Indeed the claims are vigorously denied and disputed, but the accounts do exist. So, I think it is reasonable to say that the statement that he is “by all accounts … a gentleman” not entirely supported.
In reading some about Ahrnold, I am seeing a conservative that I like. He seems fiscally conservative, but doesn’t like the religious right.
There are a few links to Ahrnold web-sites right now on Drudge. Along with a naked picture! Geez, somebody ought to tell Matt thta I am at work here.
Rush mentions on his site that Arnold supports “sensible gun control” measures. We all know what that so often means. Does anybody have a clue as to his actual policy on the 2nd amendment and gun control?
Speaking of Drudge and Rush bashing our new candidate for Governor.
I got to thinking. Arnold will have a very tough time with the press. The mainstream media (or “old media”) or whatever they are called are going to be against him because he’s conservative. California newspapers are liberal, I am sure. The NYT and the Networks will not do him any favors because he is a republican.
Meanwhile the “new media” sources like the Drudge Report and talk radio like Rush and Hannity won’t like him because he is too much of a moderate conservative.
It appears that the exact kind of politician that I prefer is in a tough spot with the US media.
(By mentioning that I prefer him I just mean the fact that he is fiscally conservative but socially liberal.)
Wasn’t Arnold pretty vocal in his opposition to the Republican-led impeachment of Bill Clinotn?
Rickjay said:
The problem today is that when you get into specifics, you’re guaranteed to alienate someone. This is especially true in California. Take that paid leave question: What’s Arnold going to say? If he says yes, we’ll get rid of it, the unions and others on the left will go bananas. If he says, “absolutely not - that program is untouchable”, then he’s open to attacks from the right, and from others who will no doubt say “So, what WILL you cut?”
Almost every question you can ask about specific California problems is a potential landmine, because the state is polarized and everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Can’t cut taxes, can’t cut spending, must balance the budget. That’s the formula to electoral success, but it’s fundamentally irrational. So how do you get around that? You don’t talk about it. Wave your hands, speak in generalities, talk about ‘bringing back business’ without saying how, etc.
The Democrats will be doing the same thing. Only, they’ll promise to go after the evil companies raping the state - without, of course, causing any companies to leave or scale back. They’ll raise taxes on someone, but it’s guaranteed not to be YOU.
Neither side will be specific, because the only real solution in California is going to involve a lot of pain, and no one wants to hear that.
I predict that Arnie will win. Decisively.
Sam Stone, thanks, that’s undoubtedly the reason as to why Arnold didn’t answer anything. I just wonder how they’re all going to pull it off for two months!
Although once they gotten it might be a different story. Bloomberg was elected and was forced, fiscally, to hike up the property taxes by 18% and all kinds of other fees, and managed to avoid the more draconian cuts that were predicted. And most people are angry but they’re willing to listen to his reasoning because, like Arnold, he’s rich and doesn’t “need” the job to fulfill himself.
Sure. And if he had run for the office on the platform, “Vote for me, and I’ll raise your property taxes 18%!”, would he have gotten elected?
I can’t remember his campaign, so maybe he did offer ‘tough’ solutions. But I doubt it. I’ll bet he did was Arnie is doing - speak in platitudes about restoring a great city, about bringing security back to New York, about giving New York back to New Yorkers, and blah blah blah…
Yes, it’s theoretically possible he actually has a sound, practical, implementable plan to fix the state’s finances, and he’s simply keeping it a secret. But there’s another possibility to consider too, isn’t there?
Sam:
I don’t think Californians are any more two-faced than the rest of the country about wanting gov’t services and not wanting to pay for them. This mindset manifests itself more clearly, perhaps, in CA because there is so much use of the Ballot Initiative process here.
I usually have a simple method of deciding whether or not to vote for an initiative. Two tests:
If it invovles raising taxes, I automatically vote no. Money is fungible, and the state already takes in too much. Any time tax revenues are promised to be directed at some particular program, it just gives the gov’t a license to spend more in other areas.
I have to be able to understand the intent of the initiative in no more than 15 seconds. Very often these initiatives are the result of someone’s pet peeve, and amount to nothing more than the ability to eneact the old “there outta be a law” refrain by government interventionist busibodies (on both ends of the political spectrum). And some are worded so poorly that, once they become law, they are as sure to end up in the courts as the sun will rise in the east every day.
I wasn’t meaning to single out California, which is why I used New York as another example. Here in Canada, the same thing happens.
The fundamental problem with government is that there’s a constituency for everything. I’m with you with regard to taxes - taxes don’t fix budgets, spending restraint does. Or, as Davis showed in California, when taxes DO fix budgets during tough times, they just create out-of-control spending when the economy is booming.
But unfortunately, there is simply no political will for serious cuts in almost anything. I became very dispirited about this during the Reagan years. Reagan was as close to a small government fiscal conservative the U.S. had seen in probably 50 years or more. And yet, government spending under Reagan continued to increase.
These days, there’s a lot of talk about empires and how the U.S. will eventually collapse because of its empire building. I find it far more likely that all western nations are eventually headed for collapse not because of military adventurism, but because they can’t break the cycle of tax-and-spend. There’s an irrational disconnect created by government - the people who want things are not the people who pay for them. That applies to both rich and poor. So governments just promise more and more, and keep on finding creative ways to beg, borrow, or steal the money to keep the whole shell game going.
Look at Arnold - today he’s campaigning about returning fiscal responsibility to government, but last year he expended enormous amounts of effort to get a bill passed to provide after-school care to children on the state’s nickel. A bill that will cost California at least half a billion per year. Do you think he sees the hypocrisy in that? No, because HIS pet plans are a ‘special case’.
But so are everyone else’s.