http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=4&u=/nm/20030830/ts_nm/politics_california_dc_7 So Arnie had sex and did drugs. Is this somehow unique among young Californians? Don't Californians have the things we call "issues" in their elections?
Yes of course we have issues. Issues like sex and drugs. Issues like I'm a very likable fellow so you'll want to vote for me. Issues like my opponent is a cohort of the devil so don't vote for him.
So he was young and stupid? We've all been there. The bigger issue is that there is no substance, on purpose, to his campaign. Certainly many politicians have no substance, but usually is an accident. He is purposely trading on only his star power to win the election. Ronald Reagan didn't do that. Jesse Ventura didn't do that. They both won. Playing to the least common denominator, even in California, is bad news for all Californians. Tom Nixon
Dennis: Don't Californians have the things we call "issues" in their elections? John: Yes. One of the biggest issues a decade ago was the Republicans relentless attacking of Bill Clinton over his admitted use of marijuana 25 years earlier. Now the joint is in the other mouth, and it's a harmless youthful indiscretion.
Of course we do: Sex and drugs. What could be more important to a Californian? Seriously though, this stuff is politically significant. I don't know who is pumping it out to the media, but given that a full-scale e-mail campaign seems to have been involved, I'm assuming that it was probably either the Gray Davis and/or Bustamante people, or else one of Arnold's rivals on the republican right. (Remember how Darryl Issa's youthful arrest record was suddenly paraded all over the headlines? This latest is clearly consistent with Gray Davis' style.) The motivation seems to be to split the Republican social/religious right away from Schwarzennegger. If the Republicans split too badly, Bustamante can perhaps slip through on the back of the labor unions and the Hispanic vote. I think that Arnold should just laugh it off and keep going. His support for abortion, gay rights and his lack of born-again Christianity already make the Republican religious right leery of him. These youthful indiscretions won't change things very much in that department. But it could help Schwarzenegger expand his base among moderate and/or dissatisfied Democrats and Independents. It kind of undercuts any (probably inevitable) attempt by the Davis/Bustamante camp to try to put Arnold into bed with the religious right and to scare Californians that way, by prtraying him as some kind of Americo-Taliban fanatic. (That's how the California press often portrays Republicans.) This pretty neatly immunizes Arnie from all that. Nobody can ever paint this guy as a dour no-fun puritan.
This isn't a "California thing". Sex and drugs have always been commonplace amongst celebrities and politicians. It's just that in Arnie's case, you have a Republican who wants to be the next Governor of California....and sex, booze and drugs are a Kennedy trade mark. I would say that he's in the right place at the right time.
As a conservative Republican, I wonder if the recall thing is a good idea at all. I tend to like the idea of one man, one vote. Essentially this was the problem I had with the Dem's in Florida. I also agree if we can make an issue of "I didn't inhale:, it is certainly proper for Democrats to make an issue of "I smoked it and liked it." The problem is that the intelligent people on the board here can debate that. Most people will vote for "The Terminator". That is if they can move the pencil to the right punch card. I have never liked Gray Davis and think he is a moron. But we would eliminate a lot of people from politics under that acid test. Gray Davis has the same problem with the dot com crash as Geroge Nigh did in Oklahoma after the oil bust. I don't think it is entirely fair to put Californias problems on Gray Davis. It is also impossible to blame the economy of the US on George Bush. However, blaming Gray Davis for California, makes it impossible for Republicans to defend George Bush. Ultimately Ann Coulter summed it up. Becoming Governor of California is like marrying Roseann Barr. It will get your name in the paper, but how do you live with it?
California is dead I don't think it will matter if Grayout Davis stay's, Arnold takes over, or even Larry Flint. The state is in decay. What are the numbers? 5% of the population providing the majority of tax revenue. Illegal Immigration costing California 400 million per year. Businesses leaving in record numbers. etc. etc. etc There was an old saying "So goes California, so goes America" God, let's hope not.
timothyrph: As a conservative Republican, I wonder if the recall thing is a good idea at all. I tend to like the idea of one man, one vote. David: In that case, I assume you will agree that having won the popular vote ("one man, one vote"), Al Gore is the REAL President. Also, with seven Republican Supreme court appointees, only two Democratic, we have a selected president, not an elected one.
No We just have the better of two evil's. Maybe the lesser of two idiots. Were not going to make it, were doomed, were doomed. Don't worry Grasshopper. The Red Chinese will own us in 10 years. Thanks to Bill and Al and a continued policy under Bush they already have our manufacturing base. Eor out, Going back to Pooh land
David, No, I still believe in the electoral college for POTUS. Otherwise one could only listen to the needs of three or four cities in the United States to win. An effective campaign would be to have the midwest taxed at a 90% margin to pay for the needs of NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami. It is truly an amazing thing that one can win the popular vote and lose the presidency. But the rules were set up so the president would have to listen to both Miami, Oklahoma, and Miami, Florida. By one man one vote, I meant one should get the right to vote, but only once. In this country we have the huge right to be wrong. It has just come down to no-one wants to be responsible for their own screw-ups.
Not really true, the rules were set up the way they are because the founding fathers didn't magically know that we would so quickly develop into a two party system. In order to vote in a president with a majority in a timely manner back in the 1700's when there would be more than two strong candidates, it required something other than a direct vote. Hence the electoral college was born.
The rules were also set up to guarantee the same number of electors as legislators. That includes two senators for each state. There were numerous reasons for electors, sparse population, large states having preference, distrust of a central government. I think we can agree there might have been more than one reason. However, in a search on electoral college out of curiosity I found something I did not know. The process was patterned after the electoral process for the Pope. The things you can learn in a day. Surely some history buff out there has some information on this?
I recently read or heard somewhere that the recall in CA has been tried numerous times in the past by both parties. This is the first time, however, that enough signatures were gathered to bring it to a vote. Since this is allowed by the CA constitution, more power to the "recallers". At least Arnold is being honest. It's not so much the questionable behavior of the Clinton's that drove (and continue to drive) the Reps. nuts. It's the arrogance of them expecting us to believe the whoppers they tell us about their behavior. Smoking pot, getting a BJ in the oval office, or hiring someone to write your book. So what! But don't insult my intelligence by feeding me ridiculous lie about it.
Ahhnold did drugs when he was younger. So what? My wife, and I still do drugs........ She gives me a little crack, and I give her a big joint.
