O.K., let me see if I’m understanding this. You believe that people expected taxes to be raised, and even though Arnold promised not to, they expected him not to follow through on his promise. But then they voted for him anyway because he was an outsider. Is that what you’re saying?
Indeed. Nobody cared that he admitted he’d been a “bad boy” in the past. Nobody cared that he’d had group sex. Nobody cared that he’d smoked pot. And nobody cared that he would surely come to realize the folly of his idealism once he got into office and saw the way the government was actually run, resulting in him having to maybe rethink some of his grand schemes. Nobody cared what he wanted to do because we all knew that anything he tried was going to have to be approved by the primarily Democratic legislature or by a vote of the people, anyway.
He was not Gray Davis.
In the end, that is all that mattered.
Wow…
I was adding “outsider” to the list you had already generated, not saying that was the only reason.
Look, Arnold did make a pretty big deal about not raising taxes, but I don’t think that’s why most people voted for him. They voted for him because:
- He’s a famous hollywood movie star with a Kennedy wife
- He’s a centrist, politically, who could as easily be a Dem as a Pub
- He’s not Grey Davis
- McClintock is way too conservative for the state as a whole
- Bustamamte was, well, bleahhh*. A hispanic George Costanza.
- He promised to get rid of the car tax increase
- He was a businessman and not a politician (an outsider)
- He has a charismatic personality (the anti-Davis)
- Barbara Boxer wasn’t running.
The truely die-hard, no new taxes voters most likely voted for McClintock, not Arnold.
Well John, I think I agree with you now. That’s kind of what I was getting at before. Arnold’s a movie star with rippling muscles and a glamorous wife; he’s played aggressive, powerful action-hero roles in the movies, while Cruz is an overweight, balding, soft-spoken man who doesn’t shout catch-phrases. And the other candidates were too extreme for most people’s taste. So everyone’s testosterone got pumping, and they elected Arnold, not really caring that he was spouting complete bullshit. I guess it’s just a little frightening that that’s what passes for political discourse in California now.
There you go again, taking a point of agreement and then launching it in an exagerated direction.
Cruz had his own catch phrases, they just didn’t “catch” well with enough of the public.
So far, Arnold has done (or is well on the way to doing) 3 of his most significant campaign promises: Repeal the 3x car tax, pass the $15B bond, and get the workers comp issue under control. Now, because there is the “hint of a rumor” that he might have to raise taxes, you claim he was talking “complete bullshit”. I think that is a gross overreaction, and simply doesn’t stand up to the facts.
Oh, there I go again, huh? :rolleyes:
I don’t recall him having any catch phrases, but anyway I never said he didn’t have them. I said he didn’t SHOUT them, as Arnold did. In the debate, Arnold constantly interrupted and shouted down his opponents. If you don’t think that’s what happened, then we obviously weren’t watching the same debate.
With no plan as to how he will pay for necessary local government services, which is why the money from the car tax was originally PROMISED to them.
Huh? That wasn’t a campaign promise. It was a bait & switch, and will probably turn out to be a huge mistake.
Campaign promise: Fix state’s financial woes by “opening the books and cutting waste”
Actual course of action after assuming office: Huge bail-out bond initiative to transfer debt to our children
If he does that, then it’s a good thing. So one out of three.
Now you’re waffling all over the place. So are you going back on this statement?
Because if, as you say, people EXPECTED taxes to be raised, and, as I pointed out earlier, KNEW that Arnold promised NOT to raise taxes, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that they KNEW it was bullshit.
Voters know that X is false.
Arnold says X.
Therefore, X is bullshit.
blowero said:
Did you miss the link I posted above? Let me quote from it again:
Sure sounds like campaign promise #2 to me. Whether he can find much money there is another issue, but it looks like he’s taking a serious stab at it, and that’s about all you can ask, right?
As for the 15B bond, I seem to recall that when Schwartzenegger took over, the first thing they discovered was a whole lot of financial jiggery-pokery to make the books look better than they were. He inherited a bigger problem than anyone knew. So cut the guy a bit of slack. He seems to be doing just about everything he can - reaching across the aisle, going to the people, bringing in outside financial experts, etc.
But he’s not a miracle worker, and California is a fiscal disaster.
No, that’s NOT all you can ask. IF you are going to shout down your opponents in the campaign, and insist that you can fix the problems by cutting waste, WHEN VIRTUALLY EVERYONE ELSE SAYS YOU CAN’T - when you’re THAT adament about it, I would expect you to make good on the promise. Either that, or admit you were a pompous idiot.
Say Blowero and Sam Stone go to the movies. Sam Stone parks at a parking meter with a 2 hour limit. Blowero says, “Sam, we shouldn’t park here - we’re not gonna get back in time.” But Sam says, “Shut up, Blowero - you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re wrong, all you do is worry, worry, worry. You get up in the morning and go to the toilet - you worry. You go for the cup of coffee - you worry. I’m telling you, we have to park at the meter. It’s going to work.”
So they get back after the movie and find a $75 parking ticket on the car, and Sam says: “Well, we tried to get back in time. That’s all you can ask, right?”
No, I don’t recall that at all. I recall that the budget was ALREADY in the crapper, and everyone knew it. As they used to say in the Super Chicken cartoon, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.” That’s just a pathetic copout. You’re forgetting that everyone else was TELLING Arnold that his plan wouldn’t work. It was unrealistic from the moment he dreamed it up.
Right, so he shouldn’t have promised all the miracles, should he? I don’t have a problem with a guy not being a miracle worker; I only have a problem with him claiming to be, and then not coming through.
And just to refresh your memory, I have an L.A. Times article from October 12, 2003 that detailed all of Arnold’s promises. Here’s a few:
So how did that work out, anyway?
So I’m curious, since your link says the plan was supposed to be complete by April 30, has it been implemented? Has he cut billions of dollars of waste, as promised? Or were the democrats in fact right ALL ALONG when they said it was an unrealistic goal?
Ha! If he didn’t make those promises (which is what we all wanted to hear anyway), then he wouldn’t have gotten elected. We already know that the average voter in the USA makes his choice based on one or two pet issues which he considers most important and then throws in whether or not the guy seems to have a good personality and would make a fun drinking buddy. Every politician here seems to make promises, few of which are actually delivered on.
As to Bustmante, not only was Bustamante viewed as disloyal to Davis for choosing to run against Davis as an alternative, but he was viewed as part of the team that had caused the problems, which Davis was getting voted out on. And personally, I was very disappointed to read that he had given all of $100 to charity in 2002. Sheese, now that’s cheap.
Being a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Catholic, I avidly await the Catholic Church’s demands that he be denied the sacrements and given an on the sly excommunication.
Oh wait, no. He’s a Republican. Carry on then.
Perhaps you should write the NYT Ombudsman to have this editorial on todays OP Ed page corrected:
It’s actually an interesting piece, as it effectively reverses a negative opinion of Arnold that they touted during the campaign.
Exactly my point.
Bustamante made $117,685 in 2002. Schwarzenegger made $26,138,000 in 2001 - Yes, that’s 26 MILLION (2002 figures weren’t available at the time.) You seriously are going to compare the two?
C’mon, John - that’s weak, even for you. If Schwarzenegger talked about his bail-out idea before he got into office, surely you can find an actual quote, not just some offhand comment, after the fact, in an obviously partisan op-ed piece. Show me an actual cite that isn’t just some pundit trying to paint a rosy picture, and I’ll gladly concede the point.
I make it a point not to debate with people who routinely throw out personal insults. As you seem incapable of refraining from that practice, I’ll let you find someone to debate with who is more patient on that matter than I am.
Calling your arguments “weak” is not a personal insult, any more than your insinuation that I always “exaggerate”.
Oh, but it’s O.K. when you are making the characterization, right? :rolleyes:
No, I wasn’t comparing the two. How could you come to the conclusion that I was? I was simply making a statement that with a 6 figure salary, being in public office and giving only $100 to charity gives the appearance of being cheap. And since as a public figure, you know your finances are going to be shown to the public, it behooves you to at least TRY to make the appearance that you care something about people who have less than you do, regardless of your true belief’s. Personally, I think everyone has a social responsibility to try to help others in need, as much as they reasonably can within their own budget. Now, I haven’t looked in detail at Bustamante’s finances, but I’m confident that he wasn’t living paycheck to paycheck. And I made less than Bustamante in 2002 but gave more than 10 times as much to charity as he did. So seeing that he gave only $100 was enough for me to easily eliminate him from consideration.
Huh? Obviously, if you claim people didn’t vote for one candidate over another for X reason, then you are comparing them. And the fact is that Arnold could have given 26 million dollars to charity and still have more money than Cruz.
You’re not paying attention. I SAID I wasn’t comparing the two. Why isn’t this clear to you?
It is when you add, “Even for you”, which is a personal insult.