|
Grex > Agora46 > #121: California's Governor Gray Davis facing recall election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 264 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 139 of 264:
| 
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:
|
Aug 19 13:17 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, the hard right is starting to back away from Ahnold in California.
|
klg
|
|
response 141 of 264:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Aug 19 20:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 146 of 264:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Aug 20 15:31 UTC 2003 |
You missed that my #143 gem was mocking klg's #141.
|
klg
|
|
response 151 of 264:
|
Aug 20 16:12 UTC 2003 |
(Or perhaps not.)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 152 of 264:
|
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:
|
Aug 21 01:44 UTC 2003 |
not to mention centrists.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 154 of 264:
|
Aug 21 01:44 UTC 2003 |
just call me Dr. McCoy, Spock ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 155 of 264:
|
Aug 21 13:38 UTC 2003 |
It's hard to find moderates who are capable of getting worked up about
it. :>
|
albaugh
|
|
response 156 of 264:
|
Aug 21 16:58 UTC 2003 |
The Daily Show last night had a spoof about 2 candidates, dressed up in
"mascot" costumes, one a penis, the other a colored-over-red raising kind of
get up. :-)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 157 of 264:
|
Aug 22 00:30 UTC 2003 |
resp:155 shame, isn't it?
|
richard
|
|
response 158 of 264:
|
Aug 22 02:10 UTC 2003 |
Arnold seems to be tryign to run for Governor without having to take any
stands other than general ones, and without stating at all any specifics
of what he'd do. The article I read today said he's promising only to
have a sixty day audit of the state's financial records and then, and only
then, say what he'll do, where he stands, what he'll cut and what he won't
cut.
Its risky to vote for a candidate who has never held political
office, has never had to be answerable to any constituency and has never
had to explain what he stands for. How can you be sure what you are
getting? A few years back, when Ross Perot was running for President, I
had some friends who thought he was like the ideal candidate. One friend
was a republican ( yes I do have republican friends) who thought Perot was
going to be this great conservative President. Another friend thought
Perot was going to be an independent liberal, basically Bill Clinton
without the partisan packaging. They were probably both wrong, and had
Perot been elected, one or both of them was going to end up very upset
because Perot chose not to define himself or take a great many political
stances.
And now Arnold, like Perot, also seems to think he doesn't need to. That he
is above politics as usual, and you should vote for him because he's ARNOLD
and not because of anything he stands for. Voters IMO deserve to know what
they are getting, they deserve to have candidates who define themselves and
run on understandable platforms. You know what you get if Arnold is elected
and defines himself after the fact, and upsets people who assumed he was more
liberal or more conservative than he really is? Yep, a bunch of irate voters
and yet another recall petition.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 159 of 264:
|
Aug 22 12:31 UTC 2003 |
Yes, well, it's not like the other candidates are rushing forth with
plans that would eliminate a $38B deficit, either. It's a matter of
raising taxes and/or cutting popular programs, and the first person to
propose that is the first person effectively eliminated from the race.
Arnold ruled out tax increases and cuts to education, which puts him in
the position of having to cut every other single bit of state spending
to balance the budget.
|
gull
|
|
response 160 of 264:
|
Aug 22 13:36 UTC 2003 |
There are going to be tax increases in California. There's no way
around it, and everyone knows it. Any candidate who claims they'll
balance the budget without raising taxes is a liar.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 161 of 264:
|
Aug 28 00:58 UTC 2003 |
Dave - over the past five years of the Davis administration and thorough
democrat control of the state, the population has increased some 23%, tax
revenues increased 25% thanks to all the highly productive dot-commers, but...
... spending by the state increased by 40%.
We already pay 9.3% in the top income tax bracket, and an 8.25% sales tax,
plus fairly substantial property taxes (though not as high as Ann Arbor's,
I gather). Add to that the recent significant increase in corporate workers'
comp taxes to support paid leaves-of-absence out of the state's coffers
(which was undoubtedly one of the factors prompting 3Com to pull up stakes
and relocate their Santa Clara headquarters...)
It's not too hard to see that "low taxes" were not the reason a $10 billion
surplus was transformed into a $38 billion deficit over the past five years.
Did you know that the budget that was finally passed (after the Democrat's
scheming to delay it for maximum political advantage was exposed) spends
more this year than they did last year?
If you're in a hole, isn't the first step to stop digging? Apparently that
little bit of folk wisdom is lost on the Democrat-controlled legislature of
California.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 162 of 264:
|
Aug 28 04:41 UTC 2003 |
> If you're in a hole, isn't the first step to stop digging? Apparently that
> little bit of folk wisdom is lost on the Democrat-controlled legislature of
> California.
Digs at the Democrats aside, it's not as if they hold a monopoly on that
particular failing. The current Republican approach seems to be if you
find yourself in a hole, hire Haliburton to speed up drilling..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 163 of 264:
|
Aug 28 06:01 UTC 2003 |
Yes, I noticed the extreme hypocrasy of #161 which applies "in spades" more
to our current nationial administration than to California - who are
transforming a budget surplus to the largest budget deficit in history.
|