Except he didn’t use those exact words, his accusers did. At least not in the link you directed us to, which I’ve reposted here.
Even if you construe his comment that much of the story was “not true” to mean that some of the story was true, I don’t think you can construe that to mean that he concedes he sexually harrassed anyone. Inappropriate touching is a type of “behaving badly” (obviously), but you can hardly conclude he is admitting specifically to the former when he admits to the latter.
In fact, he pretty clearly did not admit to the specifics he has been accused of, and he did not apologize for any specific acts or to any specific people, which is why if I were one of these women, I would not consider his “apology” to apply to me in the least.
With respect, people who refuse to read as much into his mush-mouthed “apology” as you appear to, are hardly “idiots.” I don’t know why this pisses you off so excessively, but everybody’s mad about something, I guess.
So what you’re saying is he should be penalized and be considered a horrid person his entire life for the mistakes and misguidance of his youth when he was a young and famous actor/bodybuilder that probably had women throwing themselves at him on a daily basis in an industry where people switch bed partners more often than they switch underwear?
What you’re saying is that he’s completely incapable of growing up, maturing, realizing what he did in his youth might have been wrong, immature, and misguided, and even though he apologized it’s meanlingless since no one in Shayna’s Bizarro World is ever allowed to make mistakes they regret at a later time or grow up and come to terms with the folly of their youth?
Jodi, why are you just repeating what I’ve clearly already said? OF COURSE he’s not going to use the exact words, “inappropriate touching.” HE WAS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR. He learned from Clinton’s mistake, so he wasn’t about to lie and outright deny it, so he had to say SOMETHING without really saying anything specific. That’s how it’s done! Why is that concept so hard for people to grasp?
What “bad behavior” do you think he was apologizing FOR, if not for “bad behavior” related to the specific charges he was answering to? It’s utterly ABSURD to think he was apologizing for food fights or jumping out from behind a wall and yelling “BOO” to scare the shit out of someone.
These women said he TOUCHED them.
He said SOME of their accusations are true.
How much bloody simpler does it have to get?
JESUS – this is why we have this womanizing prick running our state now. Thanks a LOT!
And yes, you’re a fucking IDIOT if you think he was apologizing for ANYTHING other than what he was ACCUSED of. What would be the POINT, otherwise???
And Cerri, if you’d take your nose out of your ass long enough to actually read any of the news stories about this, you’d learn that the accusations span a 30 year time-frame, up to and including as recently as 2000.
So no, I don’t think he’s learned a goddamned thing.
There are a few things that won’t get you life in prison but still mark you as an asshole to the core, and if your an asshole to the core, that pretty much never changes. Once someone has shown a complete disrepect for someone else’s humanity, they really are pretty much crossed out of my "people I’d like to know’ and my “people I’d like governing me” book.
Off the top of my head, I can think of a few things: Driving drunk, abusing one’s signifigant other or kids, harassing minorities or gay people, and touching women against their will.
Oh, please! Let’s not get started with that crap again. Nader was the best candidate in 2000, and he (or whoever the Greens nominate) will be the best in 2004.
The American public needs to make a choice. Either keep voting for the lesser of two evils that keeps getting lesser and more evil, or vote for a true alternative…the Greens.
There is nothing stopping a majority of Americans from voting Green. Nothing except cowardice, apathy, and laziness. It is long past time for the American public to start thinking outside the one-party-with-two-factions (Demublicans and Republicrats) box. Stop believing the corporate media when they say that you only have two (really only one) choices.
Oh, and the Greens (including Ralph Nader) have been working hard for reforms to the electoral system such as instant runoff voting and campaign finance reform. Meanwhile, the Demublicans and Republicrats do nothing except cater to their corporate puppetmasters.
He’s not admitting he touched those women inappropriately.
Look, I assume you have less experience with legal/political doublespeak than I do, but nothing less than “I touched those women inappropriately” can really be taken to mean “I touched those women inappropriately.” Allow me to channel Ahnold for you:
“Wherever there’s smoke there’s fire, yeah, I got a little over-affectionate, I was just being friendly but they took it the wrong way, but I’m not saying no incident occurred, it’s just that I didn’t know I was acting objectionably and apparently I was. So I guess you could say I’ve behaved badly on the occasional rowdy movie set, and although I was just being playful, apparently some people were offended and so I apologize for that.”
He hasn’t denied he touched them. He hasn’t denied he acted inappropriately. He hasn’t even denied that he touched them inappropriately. But he hasn’t admitted anything beyond “behaving badly.”
Is that a reasonable inference to draw? Sure. Has he said it? Has he admitted? No. He hasn’t said anything he can’t take back, or explain away. Believe me, that is not an admission.
What he apologized for was “behaving badly.” He did NOT apologize for any of the specific things or incidents he was accused of. I won’t say you’re a fucking idiot to not appreciate this distinction – doing you a courtesy that you, in your hysterical overreaction, have failed to do me – but it is an existing distinction nevertheless.
And for God’s sake, take a deep breath or something. Only you know what’s worth throwing a full-on hissy fit for, but I would suggest this particular discussion probably isn’t.
Easilly, because I’m not trying to read more into the situation because of my own predjudices. Here’s a scenerio:
Suppose we ( You and I ) were at a party where things got a little wild. Suppose I yelled to you “Whoo, Baby, show me your tits, you got a nice rack!”. You get offended at this. That would be sexual harassment. Years later I’m running for Governor of California ( Say when Arnie gets recalled ). Several women accuse me of inapropriate touching. You, being no fan of mine because of the party, come out and claim I did too. Maybe you’re lying to hurt me more, maybe you just remember being sexually harassed but not the specifics and what other women have accused me of reminds you of the party and you say “Me too”, it dosen’t really matter. When asked about it, I remember the party, I remember you getting upset at me after I yelled “Show me your tits”, and I answer the question when it is posed to me " I know I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful but now I recognize that I have offended people. And to those people that I have offended, I want to say to them I am deeply sorry about that and I apologize ". That statement owns up to misbehavior on my part and apologises. Using your logic, I just confessed to inapropriately touching you.
Now am I claiming that this is what happened in Arnold’s case? Not at all, but it’s a scenerio that isn’t, to my mind, far fetched at all in which there was no touching involved and which would result in exactly the statement that Arnold made above. I’m not going to condem the man until the accusations are proven one way or another. “Innocent until proven guilty” is still a vital concept in our society, even if tabloids deem meer accusation as enough of a reason to crucify any public figure.
Jodi, you can assume anything you’d like, but you’d be flat out wrong. I happen to work for an ATTORNEY and we do POLITICAL CONSULTING. We advise politians on what to say, when to say it and how to say it. So no, I don’t have less experience with legal/political doublespeak than you do – I’d venture to guess I have MORE.
Now that we have our credentials out of the way, I can’t fucking believe that you are at the STRAIGHT DOPE and you dare to “CHANNEL” someone in order to INTERPRET their words and try to get away with it. I haven’t extrapolated a single thing – I have quoted the man verbatim.
He was accused to touching/groping/inappropriately touching women in his workplace.
His response to those accusations was to admit that he’d “done things that were not right.”
It was a DIRECT answer to a DIRECT accusation.
To infer that he was responding to a specific charge with an apology for something completely different is IDIOCY.
And I’ll throw a hissy-fit over this if I damn well feel like it, seeing as how he’s my governor now and not yours!
Having read through this thread and I have the utmost respect for both Shayna and WeirdDave…But I gotta side with WeirdDave on this one.
Arnold admitted to possible inappropriate behavior. This is neither admission of guilt nor is it carte blanche for his detractors to use against him a week before the election, smells like something bad to me. I think through my adult life and the circles I run in, what to me is having fun to the next woman is an assault on their selves. It’s all in perception, really.
I think about “sexual harassment” in the workplace, again a very subjective thing here. I was the IT manager for a construction company, a woman, finding porn on various people’s PCs never bothered me, in fact I found it rather amusing to know the person that was looking at porn sites. Of course due to the litigious nature of the US, I would kindly remind them that while I don’t find it offensive, there may be a couple of women (who I did have in my mind as those “types” to take severe offense) in the office that could run across the sites they had looked upon and see it as inappropriate. In fact, I even taught a few of the guys there how to surf and delete the evidence in case one of the admins needed to use their computer. I digress.
Anyhow, Arnold said:
I point back to what some women find inappropriate to another women’s idea of inappropriate. Surely, I believe, that had these women (15 was the latest figure?) at least one of them would have exposed his behaviour prior to his run for governor?!?! I find it suspect and as one that is not willing to sit back and look at the evidence and make an assumption because of what the media has reported.
If in fact these accusations are true, then lets see this being duked out in a courtroom and not tried in the press or on the SDMB. I go off the school of thought that innocent until proven guilty…which goes right back to what is inappropriate for one woman may not be considered the same for another woman.
I’m just saying I see where WeirdDave is going with this and agree with him more so than I do with Shayna.
Which part? In any case, it’s my opinion based on looking at their performances before becoming president. Both had opportunities to shine in positions of responsibility (oil ventures, GHWB in the CIA, GWB as head of the Rangers, etc.), and GHWB overall did much better than his son, despite the advantages of parental influence that GWB had.
techchick, with all due respect, if you’re a parent and you’ve told your child that they aren’t allowed to eat any cookies before dinner, but you suspect they might have, when you confront them and ask, “child of mine that I love so dear, did you take cookies from the cookie jar after I asked you not to?”, and they say, “Yes, mommy, I was a bad girl. I’m sorry,” do you really need them to say the words, “I took the cookies” to know that that’s what they’re apologizing for?
Let’s get real here, people. He was accused of very specific acts. He responded DIRECTLY to those specific accusations by admitting he’d behaved badly, done things that were not right and apologized to those he offended.
It’s really as simple as that.
Keep your partisan heads up your ass if you want. It doesn’t change the facts. They’re his words, not my “channelling” extrapolations.
Shayna, I can understand your anger and disappointment at being saddled with such a ludicrous governor, but if you look at it objectively, it’s clear that Arnold has not admitted to inappropriate touching, period.
He admitted to being a party animal and implied that he was sorry that some people were so prudish as to be offended by it. It’s a spun as spun can be. He accepts no real culpability, and has said that the specifics won’t be addressed until after the election.
I’m disappointed to see him elected office, too. I dislike him on just about every level. He’s a lousy actor, an arrogant prick, and offers nothing to suggest he may actually be capable of doing a decent job for California. That doesn’t mean I’m willing to take it on faith that he is guilty of multiple sexual assaults, though, because that would be stupid.
You’re not arguing from a very strong position, here.
But Shayna, I think the issue here is more the media or an opposing party, using past possibilities to smear him. The Repubs did this in the Clinton vs. Bush campaign…I am not totally convinced (well with later indiscretions of Clinton and Lewinski cemented that more for me) that the usage of such does much good.
I mean really, it does come down to he said, she said. A week before an election that really has little impact on the rest of the nation but because of a Hollywood celebrity who threw his hat into the ring and this kind of thing comes out probably did just the opposite of it’s intended, to paint Schwarzenegger in a bad light.
It’s kind of funny because men and women alike have done things in their past and a week before an election that has the nation Super Glued to the TVs to find out the latest juice??? I know more about the California political system now (well from the media’s perspective) than I do my own state, which is sad because I consider myself pretty in tune with my state’s happenings.
If it hadn’t been Arnold it would have been someone else because any time there is a recall, there is bad blood, blood that’s ready to be smeared on the voters. I have seen that happen here on a local level and it aint pretty.
But the worst thing is, to me, that the political system is being abused in such a manner. Whether these are true or not, you don’t come out with your story of sexual harassment a week before people are going to the polls to vote. It’s no longer about the best guy (or gal) to fill the position, it’s about who can come up with the worst dirt about their competition. I expect that from corporate US not political US…it’s just a clusterfuck if you ask me.
If you feel, as a woman or a man even, that you have been wronged…now is the time to get it out there when the shame and horrible feelings are raw, not when a man is about to be elected for office. Look at the trial surrounding Coby Bryant. If in fact the 19 year old was sexually assaulted and he is proven guilty by facts, then I am all for it. If she’s doing it for some delusional reasons, then I will condemn her as I would anyone…but she came forward. A victim remains a victim as long as he or she stays in the closet about it and sure looks suspect when they come out during a controversial time like this election.
I make no apologies for my fellow women if they remain behind a cloak of shame. You will remain a victim and most likely will be a continued victim if you don’t stand up for yourself and any other women that may come in contact with the offender. The way these accusations were disclosed is just suspect. It’s wrong on all levels.
Much as I am IMPRESSED with your REPEATED use of CAPITALS you’ll have to forgive me if I’m not IMPRESSED by the fact you work for an ATTORNEY seeing as how I am an ATTORNEY, and I consider “working for” and attorney to be even less of a Big Fucking Deal than being an attorney, which is not a Big Fucking Deal to begin with. Nor do I intend to get in some pissing contest with you about who knows more about legal and political parsing – the “chopping fine” which is the bread and butter of those who make their livings “spinning” things – but I would venture to say that a political consultant who does not recognize Arnold’s “appearing to admit to something while not actually appearing to admit to anything” for exactly what it is, is a piss-poor political consultant.
Oh, you’d be surprised what I dare to do, especially in the context of a message board. Frankly, I rarely find posting to a message board to take any daring whatsoever but, hey, if you have to psych yourself up for it, go ahead.
Since, despite your amazing political acumen, you apparently missed it, my “channelling” of the Governator was merely an attempt to explain how he would weasel out of your (incorrect) insistence that he has admitted to anything concrete, which, scream – oh, sorry, SCREAM – about it all you want, he just hasn’t.
But I guess I don’t understand why you are entitled to “INTERPRET” his words and I am not. And make no mistake, you are interpreting them when you assert – wrongly – that he has admitted to guilt for these specific events, which is what you said by posting “I think an admission of guilt by the perpetrator is enough ‘EVIDENCE for this accusation [of sexual assault],’ don’t you?” You INTERPRET his words as “an admission of guilt . . . for this accusation of sexual assault,” which it very clearly isn’t. It is “I behaved badly in the past” (vague as to behavior, vague as to when) and “I offended people” (vague as to who, vague as to how), and “I’m ever so sorry” (for what? You haven’t really admitted anything).
It is quite obviously an INDIRECT answer to a direct accusation. Perhaps you’re having trouble understanding what a “direct answer” might be – hey, proof that you are in fact in political consulting! A direct answer to “Did you grope this woman?” would be “Yes.” Or “No.” Or [point your finger at the camera] “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” An indirect answer to “Did you grope this woman?” would be “I have done [unspecified] things in the [unspecified] past that were not right.” I have no idea why you’re so intent on this being “Case Closed!” Certainly you have enough evidence based on his less-than-candid answers to conclude that he more likely than not did it, and is therefore not worth your respect or support. But your repeated, increasingly strident insistence that he actually admitted to anything concrete is simply incorrect.
Not something completely different; something vague enough to be maybe this, maybe something else, maybe nothing at all. That’s why the “apology” is worthless. Don’t you see that? What value do you place on the apology? Because if he was really alluding to specific events, and apologizing for them, well done him, right? Except he wasn’t. Obviously. Seriously, anyone who’s done any political campaigning or campaign work or spin control would get this.
Let’s look at your cookies example: You say to your child, “Did you take the cookies?” and your child – future politician – says “I behaved badly; I’ve done things that weren’t right; I apologize.” Did your child admit to taking the cookies. No. Of course, in your hypothetical, your child says in response to “Did you take the cookies?” says “Yes, mommy,” which is another example of a direct answer, as opposed to an evasion, and is soemthing that Ahnold did not say.
Clearly, you will. And, y’know, good luck with that. But call me an idiot one more time and you can fuck right off for the hysterical ubershrew you more and more appear to be. Maybe your new governor can help you with that.
Um, well, uh…quite a few of us apparently dont believe in broad funded government programs for all, thats kinda one of the reasons for the recall. The commoners have spoken against the elitists, if you will.
That, and its absolutely incredibly fucking moronically stupid to raise taxes/fees during a recession.
I have no problem with ~effective~ use of public funds to help the worse off, provide very basic services, etc, but thats not what goes on here.
Not to you personally, but its always funny how democrats pretend to be the party of the poor and oppressed, then in cases like this its ‘those stupid uneducated voters’ and ‘joe six pack’ etc etc etc.
Its so different from New England, where the blue collars tend to be democrats and the white collars tend to be republicans. Totally opposite here. The poor in Cal are the democrats greatest threat. I guess they dont see it as a compliment to be patronized.
I just think its a sign the game is up. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. The candidates who followed their Party line did the worst, and Im proud of Cal voters today.
Fuck the Democrats, fuck the Republicans; two moribound ideologies trying to cram their 19th century philosophical/religous views into the 21st century.
