Arnold vs Hillary in 2008? What kind of man is Arnold?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Jacques, Nov 16, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Jacques

    Jacques New Member

  2. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Arnold cannot be President as he is not a native born American. Forget about the amendment - it won't pass. There is a specific reason for the constitution to exclude non-native born American's from being President, and I believe that most American's and most state legislators understand this. I think it is insulting for a chump like Orrin Hatch to even bring up possibly changing the constitution. It is an obvious ploy to favor Arnold and nothing else.

    Arnold is not a bad governor - not a great one though. He balanced the budget the same way that Reagan paid for the 80's military buildup - with a Visa card (so to speak). He still hasn't addressed the reasons why CA had budget problems, namely

    1. The energy problem - caused directly by Enron and the Bush administration (thanks for nothing chimp boy)

    2. The buildup of prisons. Since 1980, CA has tripled the amount of prisoners. In 1980 the strongest union in CA was the Teamsters, now it is the Prison Guard association. Sort of a sad when a public union gets so much power. Dangerous job - but no guard is worth 80-100K a year (where the average guard only has a HS diploma).

    3. The dot com and semi blowout. Still hasn't picked up. We are still in recession even if Bush cannot accept the fact.

    Arnold is a lot like Bush - uncompromising. Might appear to be a good attribute (for a CEO perhaps), but not a government leader. I have found if you offend the legislators too often, they often start to give you the bird back. You have to be able to compromise and negotiate.

    Arnold will have problems because of his obvious steroid use in the past. Although GW's past drug use hasn't been a major issue so perhaps it won't be. Arnold is also known as a womanizer and has several pending sexual harassment lawsuits. That didn't seem to hurt Clinton though.

    The Nazi stuff is stupid. Arnold was never a Nazi - his father was. Arnold has given more to the Simon Wiesenthal Center than any other actor (Jewish or non-Jewish). I hardly think he is an anti-semite. You cannot blame the son for the crimes of his father.

    Just my two
     
  3. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    Even if the amendment passed, there is no way Arnold could win the Presidency.

    He's too liberal.

    There are magazine articles where Arnold talked about having orgies.

    If he were the Republican nominee, not only would the right-wing Christians not vote for him, they would run their own independent or third party "family values" candidate who would suck enough votes to insure that the Republicans could not win.
     
  4. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that Arnold has been an excellent Governor so far. He's surprised everyone with his political skill and has accomplished as much as any man could in his situation.

    But I don't see him as a Presidential contender. The Constitution isn't going to be amended.

    Arnold certainly represents the kind of slightly libertarian Republicanism that I personally support, as opposed to the moralistic religious-right brand.

    I do think that he would have a good shot at winning the Presidency, if he were Constitutionally allowed to run for it.

    I've always argued that elections are best won by seizing the center, and Arnold is well positioned to do that. He'd be the Republican version of Bill Clinton. (Another President I kinda liked.)

    I can think of several possible Republican candidates that could position themselves in the same political space, but none of them have Arnold's pure star-power and ability to work crowds and do PR.

    But Rudy Giuliani may come petty damn close. He could position himself to the right of Hillary, remind people (without saying a word) of security issues where Republicans beat Democrats, all without scaring away urban America, where he plays very well. In other words, he threatens the Democrats' coalition much more than Hillary would threaten the Republicans'.

    Unfortunately for my center-strategy, the primary system kind of makes it difficult. Since most primary elections are only open to registered party members, they tend to be dominated by each party's true-believer base. The Democrats have to please Michael Moore, racial militants, the public employee unions and the Deaniacs. The Republicans have to appeal to countless Southern Baptist preachers waving Bibles. So the Democrats have a dangerous tendency to nominate candidates way to the left of the country, and Republicans nominate candidates way to the right. It's hard for a moderate to win a party primary, even though they are much better positioned to pick up votes in a general election.

    Arnold won his Governorship in a total-recall election, and would have had trouble in a Republican primary if he had faced a candidate to his right.

    Even though that right-wing candidate wouldn't have had a prayer of winning a general election in California. (Actually, he would have had lots of prayers, but that's all.)
     
  5. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

     
  6. tmartca

    tmartca New Member

    1. The energy problem - caused directly by Enron and the Bush administration (thanks for nothing chimp boy)

    The energy problem was exacerbated by the short-sighted energy policies of Gray Davis--stop the development of power within the state, thereby putting us at the mercy of companies like Enron and others. Davis negotiated terrible contracts that cost the state billions.


    Dumbass Davis wasn't the person who set up the system. We have to thank good 'ol boy Jim Brulte and the local electric utility companies to thank for that. Davis and the PUC were the dumbasses that allowed it to spin out of control.

    3. The dot com and semi blowout. Still hasn't picked up. We are still in recession even if Bush cannot accept the fact.

    What many folks don't understand is that economic cycles aren't short-term events. If you set economic policies in motion, like tax cuts to put more life into the economy, it will take years for the benefits to occur. Yes, the money has spent right away, but companies don't hire that fast. I just read an article today stating that unemployment in CA was at a 3 year low (5.7%). At this time last year it was 6.7%. Personally, I don't think tax cuts alone are getting at the root of the problem which is job outsourcing and our country's lack or unwillingness to adapt to changes in the job market. However, there has been some economic improvement however teetering it seems to be with inflation, currency and energy concerns.

    The dot-com blowout certainly affected California in a bad way. The reason for this was that Davis and the CA legislature had (mistakenly) predicted a windfall from the dot-coms and increased their spending accordingly. ... It was not the Bush tax cuts, but Davis spending that put California in its present shape.

    Tony, you are so trigger happy to criticze, but he wasn't talking about the budget, he was talking about the economy. Yes, they based the budget on lofty pipe dreams based on the economy, but the economy is not based on the state's budget. The economy is based on the market. The dot-com bust was because people had too many pipe dreams and investors bought into it. Getting VC funding is so much harder nowadays.


    Just my to dollars (can't get nothing for two cents nowadays)
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The Bush administration is the cause of the entire world's problems!--Mr. Engineer
     
  8. Han

    Han New Member

    There is talk about Rice v Clinton.......... wouldn't that be interesting!
     
  9. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    It certainly would be. Being from the South, I know for a fact that there is no way that MANY southerners (Democrat or Republican) would vote for a woman, especially a black woman.

    This is another case where there would be a third party "traditional values" candidate who would suck away enough right-wing votes to guarantee a Democratic victory.
     
  10. Han

    Han New Member

    But if they were both women, it would be interesting.
     
  11. javila5400

    javila5400 New Member

    I wouldn't vote for Arnold and I'm a Republican. Arnold is a wolf in a sheep's fur.

    I wouldn't mind voting for Colin Powell, though. Too bad many Americans will not vote for someone like Powell mainly because of his skin color.

    Hillary? Holy crap, dudes! She is one nasty dudette. Arrogant and extreme left - kinda like kerry, but worse.
     
  12. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Well, America voted for GW. He is one nasty arrogant self-rightous pius dude. Extreme right - kinda like Robertson but worse. (GW actually has power, Robertson is just a POS with a big mouth and no power)

    :D

    (BTW: I would love CP or Condi on the Republican side. Both are highly intelligent and not idealogues like GW and crowd. My personal favorite is McCain though. On the dems side: Wesley Clark or HRC. I don't think HRC is electable -- too many pius small penis people out there -- but would be formiable against the Reps.)
     
  13. DTechBA

    DTechBA New Member

    From a little more knowledgeable source....

    concerning what is wrong with California's business climate. A quote from "The Economist".

    Since every one one of these problems were created by past California governments, we should put the blame where it lies....
     
  14. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    I don't think HRC is electable, but not for the reason you stated. She's just too liberal. Simple as that.

    I would be interested to hear some reasons why people think HRC SHOULD be elected as President. I can't think of any.
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Since I did so well with my predictions (Bush, Murkowski, Thune, Martinez, Salazar, et. al., I am going to predict that Senator Clinton will lose reelection in '06 if she runs against Rudy or Powell.

    I am not sure anyone else could be her unless former Congresswoman Susan Molinari decides to run.

    I will also state now that HRC will not win the Democratic nod nor will she ever be elected President.

    The Dems are already moving to the center with Senator Harry Reid elected their Senate leader and I am leaning towards thinking they will select Iowa Governor Tom Vilsac to head the DNC.
     
  16. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Re: From a little more knowledgeable source....

    Well- if you want to put it that way, California had 16 straight years of Republican leadership in the governorship. Including 8 years under Pete Wilson - the very man who put into motion the energy crises in the first place. During those 16 years, we also built more prisons than at any other time in our history. I guess the Republicans and Democrats have something in common - just common whores to the DOC Officers Unions.
     
  17. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    There are several points I'd like to make.
    1) Doesn't this thread belong in the Politics forum?
    2) Arnold is ineligible for the Presidency.
    3) They won't change the rule just for him.
    4) Even if he's doing a decent job, he'd get eaten alive in a presidential race. He beat a Democrat who had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. If he wins re-election, then that will begin to mean something.
    Jack
     
  18. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

    We should be thankful that Arnold can't be President -- a man with a DL degree in the White House? I think not.
     
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Harry Truman didn't have a degree at all!
     
  20. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I'm sorry Jimmy but this means nothing. It was a different world back then. In todays world Harry wouldn't even get elected as mayor to a largish city.
    Jack
     

Share This Page