# California recall debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2003, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-recall-debate/203793 "2003-09-25T17:26:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-recall-debate/203793/41 "2003-09-30T07:46:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![lakersgo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ee59a6/32.png) [@lakersgo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lakersgo)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-recall-debate/203793/42 "2003-09-30T09:52:21Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-recall-debate/203793/43 "2003-09-30T15:43:24Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-recall-debate/203793/44 "2003-09-30T18:15:56Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-recall-debate/203793.md?page=2)