Just for fun let's see how much of a microcosm Degree Info is to California. Let's see how close we come. Voting for Davis will be tantamount to voting no on the recall.
Inspite of the allegagtions I voted for Arnold. McClintock is probably the best man running. This was a pragmatic vote. If, however, Arnold pulls Clintonesque behavior while in office, he should go. Had he not apologized and admitted he "behaved badly," I would probably have voted McClintock. I don't buy, however, he was only being "playful."
This is a perfect example of how my old Greek friend's "Dual Ballot" system could work. Two ballots. You vote once with your head and once with your heart. If the winner on the heart ballot gets more votes than the winner on the head ballot, he or she is elected. I happily voted against recall, then voted for Bustamante, so I wouldn't "waste" my vote on Camejo. John Bear ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I understand Iraq needs a new constitution. Why don't we give them ours. We're not using it." --Jay Leno the other night
It appears Ahnuld will win. Good!! http://goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031007/FRONTPAGE/31007012
And it looks, although early, that the Arnold and McClintock votes in CA are close to the Arnold and McClintock votes here. Heard Jessie Jackson say they will challenge the results if Arnold wins but not if Davis wins. Guess disenfranchised voters don't count if your man wins. What a hypocrite! Of course he's the one who was counseling Clinton about his affair with Monica all the while carrying on an affair himself. We need more Ward Connerly's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what are the chances those wacky Republicans will manage to get a constitutional amendment repealing the clause that says the president must be American-born, in time for the 2008 election? It was seriously discussed when Kissinger was in ascendancy.
Sorry folks, but with the election of Governor-elect Schwarzeneggar, you are no longer allowed to rag on former President Clinton. You've just elected the Republican version of that which you detest. You've elected a pro-choice, gun-controlling, form-over-substance, women-chaser. Good luck with that! Suckers!!!!!!!!! Tom Nixon
There is a far cry between Arnold and Bill. Arnold did admit and apologize unlike Sleezy Billy. Anyway, many in the GOP do not detest everything Arnold stands for. I, for instance, support gun control. Gray Davis has a history of woman chasing too. Let's wait and see what happens.
> Arnold did admit and apologize unlike Sleezy Billy. http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=1999/2/3/085218 Some in the White House cracked that Clinton had delivered a "full Swaggart," referring to the flamboyant, sobbing confession that televangelist Jimmy Swaggart gave in 1988 when his sexual transgressions were exposed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/president091298.htm
I voted for Schwarzenegger. First, I like his political position as a socially tolerant, economically conservative republican. I've felt increaingly estranged from the sort of conservative republicans who champion a social/religious right agenda that I don't share. I hope that his election might represent a new direction for the California republicans, making the party more attractive and electable. Right now, the California republican party seems more interested in enforcing its own doctrinal purity than in appealing to the electorate as a whole, most of whom are democrats or independents. A one-party California is not a good thing for anybody. I hope that Arnold can give the California republicans a new face, a new image and a new direction. I hope that he can make them fun. ('Fun' and 'republican' are currently contradictory, something that has to change if the party wants to attract young voters.) Second, I simply didn't like Bustamante and wouldn't vote for him. Third, there was the Davis factor. I don't think that Davis is to blame for most of California's problems. The recession, and especially the dot.com implosion are responsible for most of that. Frankly, I didn't think that a recall was necessary, and I originally leaned towards voting no on it. But then those polls appeared that showed Davis losing handily, and (surprise!) a couple of days later our "independent" and "respected" press unleashed a wave of shit in Arnold's direction. What bothered me was the pattern. If revelations like these appear once, they carry some weight. But if they arise every time a particular politician is challenged, you start to wonder. This isn't the first time that opponents of Davis have found themselves the targets of vicious attack politics. Before Arnold there was Michael Huffington, Bruce Hershenson and most recently Darryl Issa. I was angry, and my gut succeeded in persuading me of what my mind couldn't. I simply couldn't tolerate a man who habitually campaigned like that remaining in office. Personally, I suspect that a lot of Californians felt exactly the same way, fueling the recall turnout and the Schwarzenegger vote. I think that Gray Davis' final desperation defense backfired on him badly.
I think this confirms the distinction I made between Mr. Clinton and Governor-elect Schwarzenegger. Clinton said he "made a mistake." Arnold said he "behaved badly." A mistake is misspelling a name, going to the wrong address, dialing the wrong telephone number, saying two and two are five, etc., etc., etc. Behaving badly admits a choice one made. When I conducted DUI groups I never allowed anyone to get away with calling drinking and driving a "mistake." It was and is a choice, purely and simply.
An important distinction, to be sure! But Clinton also said "I have sinned." Is that more or less contrite than Schwarzenegger's "I have done things [...] which I thought then was playful"? Here is Schwarzenegger's entire statement:
I stated in another post I don't buy Arnold's "being playful" line. Clinton was our President and carried on in the White House. I know people say that was his private life. Yet, these same people would throw a minister out on his/her ears if such took place in a church parsonage (manse, rectory, vicarage) or if a community mental health supervisor had sex with an intern in his/her office. Yes, Clinton said he "sinned." But, what is his definition of sin? After all, "What is, is." Anyway, it's really not so much the actions but the lying. Nixon would not have had to resign and Clinton would not have been impeached had they both just told the truth from the outset. Oh, well, on to 2004 and the Reelect Bush campaign.
Actually, no, Arnold has not completely apologized at all. For some of the accusations, he has specifically stated that he will wait until after the election to discuss them. Tom Nixon
And my gut tells me that people who voted for Mr. Schwarzeneggar have been had. This was a man who would only participate in debates that were scripted and only in one of them, who wouldn't answer most reporter's questions even early on (which is a big mistake always, as he soon discovered), where most public forums were closed to the public (he had a couple in Fresno that were supposed to be a public forum, but was closed to outsiders; this has been reported all across the state), and who has no idea what the limited role of the governorship is in California (and here it is rather limited in contrast to some other states). And he lied. Time and again. That doesn't bother me quite as much these days, though. Did he lie more or less than Grey Davis? Who knows? Btw, I didn't vote for Davis the last time around and I'm not a big fan of Bustamante. My issue is solely with the campaign itself. Question: How can you tell a politician is lying? Answer: He opens his mouth. My guess is that the average I.Q. just dropped in California (and, trust me, it ain't that high now!). Tom Nixon
I don't think you have seen anything yet. The upcoming presidential campaign is positioned to be the nastiest ever. Dean, Kerry, Gephart and Clark will devour one another and then the Democratic nominee will go after Bush worse than Nixon went after Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950. Sorry, Tom, had to use a "Nixon" and a CA race, ha!
It'll be nasty in the sense that the Democratic candidate will go after Bush's record, which is one of the things you almost have to do in order to beat an incumbent; but if a Democrat is going to win, he'll need to provide a positive agenda as an alternative. That's what gave Clinton an edge in both 1992 and 1996--he campaigned positively, with specific ideas and specific policy initiatives. Not campaigning positively, speaking only in vague platitudes like "I'll fight for you," was one of the major goofs that cost Gore his guaranteed dot-com-economy-and-budget-surplus landslide. That's one of the things I do like about the current slate of Dems: they do more than whine. All of the frontrunners are sharp and policy-minded. None of them seem particularly presidential right now, but hoo boy, just wait six months. I don't know where anybody gets the idea that the Democratic primary is particularly vicious; this is probably the most respectful opposition-party presidential primary we've had in decades. I see Bush as a one-term wartime president like his father, but time will tell. Cheers,
You must not have heard Kerry attack both Dean and Clark the other day. He is getting very desperate. Anyway, it's not so vicious right now. But, come January, look out! The economy will rebound, Saddam and Osama will be captured, WMD's will be found (or at least traces of evidence) and Bush will be reelected. Bush 41 lost due to his lack of warmth/personality and Ross Perot's presence. Bush 43 is warm/personable and no third party presence will be around to take votes from him. On the other hand, look out for the possibility of Sharpton or Nader to take votes from the Democrats.
