One good thing out of CA and the recall in general: The Daily Show. Man, that’s some good squishy. Two wit, a quote from Jesse Jackson: “…a frustrated chicken should not vote for Colonel Sanders.”
If anyone needs me, I’ll be off packing. 
Here, here! Can we not give in blindly to the partisan media feeding frenzy here? I want something other than accusations of “he pinched my ass” in an atmosphere where such accusations make the accuser an immediate media darling before I decide about the sexual harassment issue one way or another.
For some reason, instead of the Twisted Sister song, I’ve had Kalifornia Über Alles stuck in my head all morning. I’m sure it will go away in a few years.
As I said before:
“Like California Politics aren’t enough of a joke.”
The thing I don’t get is why he would want to be governor of California at this particular point in time. As far as I can tell, the state is basically in the economic shitter and pulling it out is going to take a lot of time and a lot of unpopular belt-tightening. If the situation is really fixed, then people are going to feel the pinch of it, and people are going to be pissed off. The governor is the lightening rod for that.
The job he has signed up for is a huge job, and if he does it correctly (IMO), by slashing programs and strong-arming the budget back into the black, the voters will not thank him for it – especially California voters, who appear to believe in broad funded government programs for all, precisely the sort of programs he’s going to have to look at radically reducing, if not eliminating.
It’s going to be tough, it’s going to be boring (budgets), it’s going to take a lot of time, effort, and explaining, and it’s going to make people mad. He has zero experience in this line of work, and if he thinks it’s all photo ops and rallies, he’s going to be disillusioned. But maybe he’s up to it – who knows? It’s not like he’s told anyone his qualifications for the job.
I laugh a little about it, but I wish him the best of luck. He’s going to need it.
Which is why everyone who voted for Nader in 2000 deserves to be pimp-slapped (with respect to Scumpup in the “Men don’t cry” thread).
And anyone who votes for Nader in 2004 is going to get such a pinch!
Perhaps a more apropros way of saying what’s “true” is:
voting for x + imperfect procedures (electoral college) and/or certain situations involving more than two candidates drawing a statisticaly signifigant amount of votes = an increase in the distance between y and the rest of the field.
People get testy because over-simplification misrepresents the intent of an individual’s voting voice. When it comes to voting (among other things), intent can be just as important (if not moreso) than the outcome of the intent.
The difference is that it was clear from the outset that McClintock had no chance. As soon as he entered the race the polls were saying he had no chance. With Arnold, it was not at all certain until the election actually occurred. What was certain was that he actually had a chance, unlike McClintock.
Given the track record of the last mediocre actor who was elected governor in California, that state is in for a rocky ride.
Wow, he groped some women – allegedly. Not so much that they mentioned it before or anything. Sure, the timing was horribly suspect. No, there is no credible evidence whatsoever other than Arnie stepping up and apoligizing for being touchy feely or whatever.
Sure, he’s a cad. So are most politicians I’ve seen. Professional athletes and actors are worse: Arnie is both. Clinton has forever taken the sting out of these kinds of allegations. Sorry, can’t have it both ways.
I have to admit I considered voting for Mary Carey, the Porn Star on the ballot.
BTW Airman you are right, I know the statistics don’t lie, I’m just pissed off in a more general sense about it.
Let’s bombard people with a bunch of contradictory polls about who is leading the race (with each campaign furiously spinning the results in their favor), then extrapolate various scenarios about if X drops out and throws support behind Y, or millions of other scenarios as to what X or Ywould have to win, etc etc etc.
I just don’t like the way the process has evolved over time. Go vote for who you want, and fuck you if you think I’ll vote for someone I don’t want in order to block someone you don’t want.
- not aimed at you specifically AM
So did I.
Bricker, I’m surprised you missed it – it’s been all over the news. Schwarzenegger apologizes for behavior toward women.
I think an admission of guilt by the perpetrator is enough “EVIDENCE for this accusation [of sexual assault],” don’t you? (I won’t touch the rape accusation – that’s pushing it a bit too far, IMO.)
The guy is a disgusting pig creep. I wouldn’t even want to be within 1000 miles of a man who thinks groping women and sexually harrassing them is “playful behavior”. I feel dirty just living in the state he’ll soon be governing. ::shudder::
If you don’t like the California recall procedure, how about getting together and changing the state constitution to something less stupid? Gray Davis got the boot because he was incompetent. Arnold got elected because of the primary-less recall procedure. I’m sure that there are other states out there with provisions for recalling elected officials that don’t result in political circuses. Maybe you all should look into it. Or you could just bitch about it.
Sure - changing state law is as easy as getting a few folks together in your living room.
:rolleyes: :mad:
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read today…and eerily true.
I believe it’s spelled “Aryan”.
You left out Ken Lay.
Where’s the evidence? He apologised thus:( from your quote ) “I have done things I thought were playful that now I recognize that I have offended people” Sounds to me like the apropriate response to what he’s been acused of. Ask yourself this: Arnold is a public figure, prominent with deep, deep pockets. If these women were so blatently “sexually harassed”, why did none of them come forward until a week before the election, when those accusations could be weilded by his opponents to maximum effect? I know sexual harassment ( when it actually occurs ) is a deeply personal and shameful occurance to the victem, and I could see one or two women being so ashamed that they didn’t say anything, but 15? When Arnold is rich enough that you be almost guaranteed a large cash settlement by acusing him? That, and the timing, casts a huge pall of doubt over the entire accusation. You ( and others ) buying the accuser’s story lock, stock and barrel without any proof that I have seen is perhaps more disturbing than anything else. Does there exist in this country a burdon of proof anymore, or is it that if the person accused is a public figure whom one dosent like, is the simple accusation of wrongdoing enough to condem a man ( or woman ) with no proof required?
My disappointment is that Bush and Schwarzenegger are the most viable candidates that the Republican party can offer. Isn’t there anyone better qualified available?