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.

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  :)

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.

response 150 of 264:

Aug 20 15:31 UTC 2003

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

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.

response 154 of 264:

Aug 21 01:44 UTC 2003

just call me Dr. McCoy, Spock ;)

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.  :-)

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.

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.

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..

response 164 of 264:

Aug 28 12:59 UTC 2003

Re #161: That argument is easy to make if you look at government
spending in isolation, pretending that all that money gets poured into a
hole somewhere and buried.  But the fact is all of it gets spent on
services, all of which benefit *someone*, and cutting those services is
always politically painful.  People hate taxes, but they also love
government services.  Unfortunately both the California government and
the Bush administration seem to be telling people that they can keep the
current level of service without paying more in taxes, and with the
economy in the toilet that's just not true.

response 166 of 264:

Aug 28 23:48 UTC 2003

Sometimes I wonder why he thinks he's a Republican. ;>

response 168 of 264:

Aug 29 14:20 UTC 2003

You would need to change some laws for Arnie to be President of the 
USA...