You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   105-129   130-154   155-179   180-204 
 205-229   230-254   255-264        
 
Author Message
25 new of 264 responses total.
bru
response 130 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 17 20:54 UTC 2003

also, there is some fear about well known names drawing votes away from
lesser known candidates.

Robert Dole is running as a republican

Micheal Jackson is running as an independent

Of course it isn't the mfamous people we all know.  just local businessmen.
gull
response 131 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 17 22:03 UTC 2003

I think it would have been better to keep the 'conventional'
alphabetical order, but randomly stick a start point for each district
and treat the list as circular.  That way you would randomize the person
at the top of the ballot without completely scrambling this list, and
names would be easier to find.

That's just a band-aid, though.  The root of the problem is that it's
completely ridiculous to have 135 candidates on the ballot for a single
position.
gull
response 132 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 17 22:04 UTC 2003

s/stick/pick/
pvn
response 133 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 17 22:09 UTC 2003

stick was better.
russ
response 134 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 18 03:16 UTC 2003

I heard on the news that the Lt. Gov. essentially made a
plea for voters to oust Davis and elect him.  This marks
the onset of "every man for himself" among the Democrats.

"Et tu, Cruz?" -- Gray Davis
gull
response 135 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 18 12:52 UTC 2003

His message all along has been "vote no, but vote for me," so he's been
talking out of both sides of his mouth for a while now.
slynne
response 136 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 18 15:01 UTC 2003

Not really. I mean he might want all the folks who vote no to the 
recall to vote for him just in case the recall passes. What is he 
supposed to say "vote no but vote for Arnold?"
klg
response 137 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 18 21:30 UTC 2003

Yes.  Go, Ah-nuld.
richard
response 138 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 18 22:59 UTC 2003

#135..the lt. governor is a democrat and is pushing the democrats 
current strategy.  He is encouraging everyone to vote no on the recall, 
but on the recall ballot to vote for him JUST IN CASE.  He's in a no 
lose situation because he'll either end up governor or will 
dramatically increase his name recognition/exposure in advance of the 
next regular election for governor, when he'd presumably be the leading 
candidate or one of them.

There are now polls showing this vote no/vote yes strategy might work, 
schwarzenegger's numbers are slipping and I guess the lt. governor is 
well known enough that he's seen as a safe alternative in the event the 
recall goes through.  

I predict here and now that the recall will fail, because voters will 
realize that the only way to discourage the possibility of another 
recall vote next year and the year after and every year going forward, 
is to nip this one in the bud.  This recall petition effort was 
succesful because one candidate, Issa, is a multi millionaire and 
pumped several million of his own money into heavy advertising.  Which 
was more than enough to get most of the people who voted AGAINST Davis 
last time to sign petitions.  I mean they'd have to figure why not, 
they didn't vote for him in the first place.  So now that the formula 
for a succesful petition drive is in place, it'll happen again and 
again.  Unless voters express their solid preferance at the polls for 
having elections every four years.

This special recall election will cost this state, in an economic 
crisis, $60-75 million to put on.  Surely voters will realize that no 
matter how much they dislike Davis now, it isn't worth setting the 
precedent and spending the money, not just this year but in years to 
come.  And make no mistake, if Davis is recalled, and replaced by a 
Republican, there will be Democrats more than willing to spend millions 
of dollars on another massive recall petition next year.  Because 
turnabout is fair play.  The only sensible move is to stop this now. 
russ
response 139 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 11:28 UTC 2003

Ah-nold is pro-choice and otherwise socially liberal.  His election
in California would all but certainly spell the end of the radical
right's lock on the party there.  One wonders why klg is rooting for
him, when he'd be such a disaster for much of klg's agenda.

Re #138:  $70 million is less than 1% of California's projected deficit.
It's idiocy to quibble about it without addressing the big-ticket
items, and that's one thing that hasn't been done under Gray Davis.
scott
response 140 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 13:17 UTC 2003

Yeah, the hard right is starting to back away from Ahnold in California.
klg
response 141 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 16:11 UTC 2003

We think that practically any electable Republican is preferable to a 
Democrat.  Ah-nuld seems to realize the key to putting the state back 
on its feet is to improve the business climate by reducing tax and 
regulatory burdens.

How can the state government pursue that policy without reducing 
government give-aways?
scott
response 142 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 18:49 UTC 2003

The current federal govt. seems to have no philosophical problem with
give-aways.

Oh, you mean give-aways to non-rich people!  How silly of me.
rcurl
response 143 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 19:52 UTC 2003

...and give-aways to industry. I don't think klg is opposed to those. I
wonder why, though: is he an industral magnate?

I think that any electable Democrat is preferable to any Republican. Then
there would be more attention to human and enviromental issues, and less to
enriching a few industrialists.
gull
response 144 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 20:31 UTC 2003

I think it's amusing to see the same people endorsing Arnold who
complain when other celebrities involve themselves in politics.
richard
response 145 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 20:39 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

richard
response 146 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 19 20:42 UTC 2003

re: #141..klg, this idea that ANY republican is preferable to any 
democrat is contrary to the complexity of american politics.  Here in 
New York City, our current mayor Mike Bloomberg, and former Mayor Rudy 
Guiliani were both lifelong Democrats who only switched parties when 
they ran for Mayor because it allowed them to sidestep the Democratic 
party machine. They are flaming moderates.  Pro choice, 
environmentalists.  Bloomberg is actually pretty liberal, he supports 
legalizing gay marriages among other things. Pataki, our governor, is a 
pro choice moderate.   There are also Democrats in office who are more 
conservative than them (New Jersey Governor McGreevey for instance)  In 
fact both parties are  populated with
people who are centerists,  and when that happens the differences 
aren't that great.  The party IDs become just labels.  When Nixon ran 
against JFK in 1960, a lot of people complained that there really 
wasn't much of a choice because they AGREED on most things.  Nixon was 
a moderate, and so was JFK.

Arnold appears to be, as Nixon was, the kind of politician that the 
right wing of the GOP hates even more than Democrats-- A Rockefeller 
Republican. Arnold doesn't appear to be a Republican because of deeply 
held religious beliefs or political ideology, but because he supports 
big business and is fiscally conservative.  But he is also socially 
liberal or appears to be.  That means he could easily have run as a 
Democrat.  But then, even if he was the same man with the same views, 
you wouldn't find him acceptable?

Remember too that if Arnold gets elected, he has a wife who is an 
outspoken liberal Democrat from a family of political junkies, Maria 
Shriver, and she says she'll be a hands on first lady.   You know that 
Arnold's wife and his cousin, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, 
will have his ear if he gets elected.  They'll keep Arnold in line  :)

klg
response 147 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 20 02:46 UTC 2003

We think that Mr. richard needs to go back and read #141 before 
lecturing us on the complexity of American politics based on what he 
thinks #141 says.
scg
response 148 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 20 04:41 UTC 2003

In Richard's last paragraph, is he saying that Ted Kennedy is Arnold's cousin,
or that Arnold's wife is a he?  (anyhow, Ted Kennedy is Maria Shriver's uncle,
not cousin).

Isn't Richard also the same person who has repeatedly lectured us in the past
about the importance of voting for Democrats, since you're electing not just
a person but a party?  Given the amount of appointments the governor gets to
make, that's probably pretty accurate in this case.

When Al Gore ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a lot of people complained
that there wasn't much of a choice because they agreed on most things.  Wow,
did that turn out to be wrong.
jaklumen
response 149 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 20 07:17 UTC 2003

resp:143 "I think that any electable Democrat is preferable to any 
Republican. Then there would be more attention to human and 
enviromental issues, and less to enriching a few industrialists."

I was *so* waiting for a gem like this.  More bipartisan CRAP.  On the 
one side, you have claims of pumping money into big business.  On the 
other side, you have claims of pumping money into big government.  
Maybe both extremes are wasting money.  You insult an Independent like 
me, Spock.  I'll vote any damn party I please because I'm sorry, I'm 
not going to stoop to such broad, sweeping generalizations.  I don't 
vote platform, I vote individual-- when I do vote.  Unfortunately, the 
country is so likely divided that most politicans doubletalk 
everything just to get their votes and then do whatever business they 
were doing as usual.

Sheesh...
rcurl
response 150 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 20 15:31 UTC 2003

You missed that my #143 gem was mocking klg's #141. 

klg
response 151 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 20 16:12 UTC 2003

(Or perhaps not.)
jaklumen
response 152 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 21 01:43 UTC 2003

Oh was it THAT biting?  Oh, now I'm so depressed... it's not fair... I 
gotta pick on both sides somehow; extreme lefties don't come up often 
enough ;)  Oh well.  Will you just chalk it up to a straw man that I 
had fun burning?  Because I had SO much fun.  Moderates *should* have 
balls.
jaklumen
response 153 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 21 01:44 UTC 2003

not to mention centrists.
jaklumen
response 154 of 264: Mark Unseen   Aug 21 01:44 UTC 2003

just call me Dr. McCoy, Spock ;)
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   105-129   130-154   155-179   180-204 
 205-229   230-254   255-264        
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss