Would he misrepresent reasons to attack another country?
Would you have voted differently if the issues had come up six weeks ago? And do you think any of the many allegations are true? What if they’re all true, would that affect your opinion of Governor Schwarzenegger at all?
Whoo hoo! Arnold wins!
Not a chance. Elmer Fudd has an extensive criminal history, including rape, murder, assault, extortion, and fraud.
Seriously. I’ve seen it.
He’s in the system as a training exercise, so we can practice running criminal histories. 
Plus then we’d have to listen to years of posts complaining about the pronunciation of “Nucwear”, "Amewica"and “Congwess”
As a Minnesota resident I can’t be too smug (tho Jesse was at least a mayor b4 being gov).
Not sure what he can do with the same legistlature and the same constraints based on referendums.
Brian
They ACTUALLY voted him in?!
LMAO
Why wouldn’t he win? At least he has a health plan (free breast exams for all women). The only other Republican to come out with a health plan is Rush Limbaugh (everybody gets 5000 pills per year).
Is it true he actually said this? -
“What are your thoughts on the enviroment?”
Arnold - “Don’t worry about it.”
Or is someone just taking the piss?
Not to mention hunting out of season.
This wasn’t a Republican takeover. The Repubs didn’t have the votes. Plenty of Dems voted for the recall and Arnold. So this can’t be blamed on a right wing conspiracy.
But he’s facing a hostile legislature. I’m not sure he will get his agenda pushed through. California is in a big mess, and I don’t know that Arnold will be able to fix it quickly enough for the voters. Heck, give him six months, and the voters with their short memory will be blaming him for the deficit. Besides, the rabid arm of the liberals will jump on every tiny misstep he makes and blow it out of proportion.
I feel sorry for him. I wouldn’t wish California’s mess on anyone.
I believe it’s pronounced “Nucuwer.”
If Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t a movie star, would he now be governor? No.
Therefore, he is governor due to his status as a celebrity. Is that disputable?
I meant to add that he might do a good job? Who knows? We have nothing to base an opinion on except “The Terminator” and “Total Recall” Heh.
My problem is that celebrity gives you a free pass whereas obscure citizens need to prove themselves at the local level and work their way to the top. I don’t like to see inexperienced people in the private sector leap frog to the top because of nepotism, sexual opportunism, what-have-you.
And yes, the same thing applies to Bush, Hilary, various Kennedys etc.
I used to think it was just a comedian’s cliche. “Granola country,” and all that “Californians are daft” stuff. I was in denial; I see that now. The results are in, though, and a clear majority of Golden Staters are bonkers. Completely, undeniably 'round the bend. I apologise, I was wrong. I’ll never call you sane again. I have seen the light.
There once was a state way out West
Got Grayed to a state of unrest.
Had a Total Recall
Now it heads into fall
With a new governator to test.
Actually, only 10% of the state’s population actually voted for him, but that’s all it took.
And wakimika nailed it: if this had been Arnold N. Smith (N for Nobody), with the same record, credentials, and “character” issues, Smith would just be another of the 134 losers today.
ArchiveGuy wrote
That may be technically true (actually “close to true”, as it’s closer to 15%), but it sorta lines up with Mark Twain’s “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” thing.
This was an undeniable landslide. Further, the participation in the election was extremely high. The implication of your statement differs with these clear truths.
Here are the facts:
California has around 35.4m people
Of those, around 61% (21.8m people) are eligable to vote.
Of those, around 70% (15.4m people) are registered to vote.
Of those, an estimated 65% to 70% participated in this election.
Of those, Arnold took an estimated 49% of the vote, a full 17% in front of his closest competitor.
Basically, in your “10%” number, you’ve included
a) children, felons, non-citizens and others who aren’t eligable to vote,
b) people who chose not to register, and therefore cast their vote for what the electorate chose (i.e. they were happy to give their vote to Arnold), and
c) people who were registered, but chose not to vote, again happily accepting the voters will as their own.
Right now, the participation looks to be the largest turnout for a gubernatorial election in California since 1982.
And had McClintock been decent about things and withdrawn, Arnold would’ve likely pulled in an addition 10 points.
Cites:
http://www.npg.org/states/ca.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/08/state0318EDT0012.DTL
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2003/recall/pages/governor/