I can't believe that California just elected Arnold to be Gov. What are they thinking!?
I'm beginning to feel like an alien in this country because things keep happening that seem so outrageous..so improbable.. I can't even begin to fathom what would compel someone to vote for Arnold.
I mean...he NEVER really articulated any firm position on any issue; he would NEVER participate in any debate UNLESS he got the questions in advance; he has been accused by no less then 16 women of sexual harrassment; his speaches are like the following:
quote: Gray Davis terminated jobs....we will terminate Gray Davis.
Arrrrgh. Do people in California REALLY think that Arnold is going to be able to step in and deal effectively with the serious problems facing that state? Did anyone here vote for him? If so, why? What is it about him that secured so many votes?
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the sort of things that make me think I don't understand American way of thinking. But maybe neither do you.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I don't know if Schwarzenegger is going to be able to pull this off, and I'm certainly not thrilled about the groping allegations. However, it's very exciting to think that maybe the general public actually CAN have a say in who gets voted into office. Not special interests, not parties throwing their weight around, not this stupid electoral college thing... To think that an unpopular and impotent governor can be ousted by the people alone in two months is really exciting.
I look at the rest of the government and politics in general, and I couldn't feel more alienated. No one in the White House represents me. My state representatives in legislature aren't even aware that my half of the state (NY) exists. They don't care. They don't represent me. And nothing I can do will change that. When the next election rolls around, it'll be decided by factors out of my control: who the Good Old Boys in both parties feel like endorsing, who has the most money, who has ties to unions, etc. Why bother voting? When was the last time I had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I actually WANTED to win?
If there was ever a time when voters felt that politicians actually represented the people, it wasn't in my lifetime. To see Gray Davis, the quintessential lifetime politician focused only on fundraising and the next election, get the boot.... it's thrilling. It gives me hope.
Now, if only Arnold could live up to the dreams of the voters....
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much of Gray Davis' downfall was influenced by Republicans, who spent money on campaigning to get him removed?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
To complain that the White House does not represent you because you did not vote for the people there is a bit strange. That would leave a large portion of the country after any election saying that "Well they don't represent me, I didn't vote for them."
At first I thought this thread was about Clinton, but realized it would have said molester or sexual harraser or serial exposer.
posted
Signature gatherers were paid two dollars a signature for the recall campaign. It's free speech. I can't make sense of it. There is something intutively unethical about it, but you don't make laws around my hasty intuition, well, unless it's combined with everyone else's hasty intution. I don't like mandating how a person can spend their money. But, geez, if Issa is going to get a kick-back after Schwarzenegger's tax cuts that is larger than the amount that he invested in the signature gatherers, then this whole exercise could easily have been for profit.
But the people had a chance to speak. I don't think the Davis campaign focused enough on the positive during the last weeks of the election. But that's my opinion. I think that Schwarzenegger pulled in just under forty percent of the recall vote, and apparently that's enough. Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
posted
Sure, it was started by a few wealthy Republicans, but it quickly became much more than a simple party coup. Plenty of Democrats voted for Arnold, including those who voted for Davis in the last election. This recall was controlled by the people of California, not one party or another.
Another wish I have, in addition to actually feeling like the government is looking out for me, is an end to the absolutely INSANE party politics in this country. To have any weight in elections, you have to be either a Democrat or a Republican. To be either of those, you have to subscribe to a whole list of things that you may or may not personally believe. When did "smaller government, fewer taxes" get tied up with "all gays should burn in hell, and sperm are living human beings"?? Why can't I choose one and not the other without getting shunted off to the side? Why does everything in American politics have to be taken to such freaking extremes??
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:At first I thought this thread was about Clinton, but realized it would have said molester or sexual harraser or serial exposer
I think you confused here.... Clinton and Monica had something called consensual sex. According to the Starr report, Monica pursued Clinton. Now, Arnold is accused of sexual harrassment...this would be non-consensual. Now..why do Republicans not have the same outrage over Arnold's sexual crimes that they had over Clinton's affair.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's days like this that I am reminded of Futurama, the source of all great wisdom in life.
John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates." Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said." John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far." Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To think that an unpopular and impotent governor can be ousted by the people alone in two months is really exciting."
You're excited by stupid things, Poly. Consider what you're saying: that the POPULARLY ELECTED GOVERNOR of a state should be so concerned about retaining his position that he cannot afford to tick off the electorate for fear of losing his position to an action hero.
What would have been EXCITING, in my opinion, would have been a third-party candidate who got on the ballot during the normal election cycle. But we already had Jesse Ventura, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:To complain that the White House does not represent you because you did not vote for the people there is a bit strange. That would leave a large portion of the country after any election saying that "Well they don't represent me, I didn't vote for them."
It does, doesn't it? Isn't half the country saying, "Bush doesn't represent me, I wanted Gore."
The thing is, I'm not upset because my candidate never wins. It's that I'm never ever presented with a candidate on either side who I actually feel represents me, shares most of my beliefs about how things should work, and still has a decent chance of getting to the actual election. Take John McCain, for example. I was excited about McCain. He seemed different, someone who might really change things or run them better than in the past. He was willing to bridge the gaps between the parties, and he wasn't doggedly extreme about "conservative" values.
And what happens? A bunch of old white men decide that they don't like him, and choose instead a FREAKING IDIOT to represent the party. I never had a chance.
And I'm not exactly a wacko out in left (or right) field. I'm certainly not the only one who holds the belief set that I do. It shouldn't be so damn difficult to find plausible candidates who are willing to let people make their own choices when it comes to consensual sex and their own bodies, who also believe that the government has grown too large and inefficient.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Aww, Tom, you've made my day. (((((((((((Tom))))))))))))
Sure Davis was elected 11 months ago. That's all he's really good at: getting elected. His colleagues said that, between his last election and the recall, he was more relaxed than he's ever been before. That's because his job was over. He couldn't get re-elected again, and he couldn't realistically move to a higher office, so he was done campaigning. Oh, he still had four years ahead of him, and needed to work on fixing the massive problems the state faced? Screw that. He was all ready to kick back and wait for the economy to fix itself.
And that's who the people of California were supposed to be happy about having in office for the next 3 years? Ha. I think this recall is proof that the voice of the people is not something that politicians can ignore any longer, and I find it a welcome change.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This recall election may have been run by the people but that just goes to show that the people don't know what they are doing! Arnold?! It shows that maybe it is a good thing to have special interest groups because they, at least, select someone who will get the job done. It is ridiculous to blame Davis in the first place and Californians are forgetting all that he has done in saving their jobs and pensions in his political life-long career. Arnold is about to wreck all that and is on an ego trip. As you can probably tell, I didn't vote for Arnold.
Posts: 58 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just like the results of the election for these reasons:
1) Career politicians just got a wake-up call that yes, they are responsible to the voting public and not just special interests, fund-raising and political parties.
2) That someone who immigrates from another country, works hard, becomes a citizen and believes in a dream can be elected to one of the highest offices in the land (and the highest in a state).
3) That the Republicans were given a mandate that ultra-conservatism WON'T get you elected, but a Moderate position (with a healthy dose of celebrity) will.
4) That Democrats got a hard lesson in actually representing the common person, something they have lost in recent years.
5) That as Americans, we do have the right to recall a leader that isn't doing their job.
6) That even Gary Coleman can be the eighth highest vote recipient.
7) The rest of the nation got a rather entertaining look at Californian wackiness. I know it's a stereotype, but does the state have to keep living up to it? You folks used to be leaders.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see how it goes. We have a governor who was elected ostensibly without special interest groups, with only the money of his rich friends and supporters and their businesses.
Let's see where his priorities are.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
What Clinton did was harassment pure and simple. The feminist gave him a pass.
If any one in that position of power had relations with a female subordinate that low on the totem pole, that would be a prima facia case for harassement. The mere fact the that head of the Executive Branch was doing something with an intern, the lowest of the low in the white house, shows the huge difference in power between the two. If this had been a Republican, the feminist would have been howling.
You know in 5-8 years Monica could decided that instead of her pusuing him, she now actually felt threatened with him firing her. She could then sue him for harrassment. She will say that while Clinton never said anything about her job being in the balance, she KNEW, deep down inside, that if she did not do what he wanted she would get fired. Hostile work place.
posted
Wow! Tom stopped just short of calling somebody stupid! That's not his usual tack. Must have touched a nerve . . .
My points in this thread:
1. Bill, to those of us who didn't like him, was about more than just Monica. Not everything he's been accused of doing was consensual.
2. I don't understand why anyone would feel this election is somehow less honorable or noble or somehow less "the will of the people" just because it wasn't a regular election. Wouldn't that make it MORE the will of the people? A whole bunch of us wanted it, real bad, so it happened. Nobody tied us down and MADE us sign it, even for two bucks a signature.
In fact, the other guys even got in on it. They hired people to go out and get signatures for an ANTI-recall petetion, but made both the booth and the petition look like the real petition. This sounds like I'm making it up, but I'm not. People really stooped to this.
3. Despite what Tom and Bill Clinton say, this election was not about Grey making "tough decisions" that made him unpopular. This was about absolute incompetence on the part of Davis. The final straws were when he grossly underesstimated the budget deficit prior to being relelected, then conviently "discovered" it only after he was safely in office, and when he tripled the car tax in a way that many of us consider to be illegal. He's a horrible manager and doesn't deserve control of the state.
4. To answer Scott's question, I think most of this election was actually determined by Talk Radio, where people were given a forum both to hear about and talk about all the horrible, nasty things they felt Grey had done, whipping them up into a governer toss-them-out frenzy.
5. The LA times stories are being proven to be largely uncredible. Many of them are true, Arnold even admits it, but as you get closer and closer to the present, they become less and less verifiable. The stunt woman who claims Arnold took photos of her on the set of T2 has been discredited, both by the makeup artist who actually took the picture, and the head make-up person who saw the incident take place, with Arnold no where around.
The fact is most of these incidents took place in the seventies, during the height of the free-love movement, when most film and record companies provided crack at every party and a woman in every hotel room. Plus, he came from Europe, where they're a little looser about sexual mores anyway.
There's no doubt in my mind that a lot of the stuff they're saying happened took place. But it was a part of the envirnment of the time, and is being taken out of context. If the fact that he comes from that kind of background offends you, that's fine, but be careful about believing stuff that even the own LA times lawyers felt shouldn't be published, since it would put the papers about three rungs down the publishing ladder from the Enquirer.
I didn't vote for Arnold because I felt he would be a poor leader. Not because I felt he was a Predator.
6. Has anybody outside of california heard any of the accusations that have been made about Davis? That he shook an elderly female staffer for moving some paintings in his LA office? That she now has been relocated to a position where she's assured she won't have to be around him? That story ran in the LA times, too, somewhere around page 25. Is this election really about how people treat people?
7. Don't worry, Poly. It really is exciting.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom stopped just short of calling somebody stupid! That's not his usual tack. Must have touched a nerve . . ."
It touched a nerve, frankly, because it's damn stupid.
Look, it's frankly RIDICULOUS to think of this as a "victory for the people." The "people" elected Davis in the first place, then responded like a fickle mob when somebody started throwing money around. And then, when they had their chance to speak, they acted like star-dazzled groupies.
The problem here isn't even that Arnold's a joke candidate; he isn't, really, any more than Ventura was, and I charitably think there's more to him than a bunch of really bad "Terminator" puns. The problem is that California has now effectively endorsed a process that leads to ridiculous levels of voter confusion AND the arbitrary removal of elected officials.
Elections are ELECTIONS. You aren't supposed to get an unlimited number of do-overs, particularly not when the standards of the do-over are notably lower than the standards of the election in the first place. And people are concerned that politicians worry too much about polls and special interests NOW.
In my opinion, an option like impeachment -- removal of the governor and replacement with the lieutenant governor -- is a necessary one, and a valid one in genuine emergencies that require this kind of drastic action.
But if there's anything this proves, it's that "the people" are, collectively, a bunch of drooling idiots -- and I'm reluctant to trust drooling idiots with the ability to throw out politicians any time the media or the moneymen decide to start spinning things that direction.
8. Davis tried DESPERATELY to focus on the positive during the last few weeks of the election, largely because all of us were saying that the reason he was going around saying that the election was a big-money push by the republican elite to steal control of the governership was because he couldn't come up with any reasons why anybody should vote for him, so all he had left was to attack the recall.
He started trying to be positive. He was walking around saying, "School test scores are up five years in a row and environmentally we're the best in the country," over and over again like a parrot. When, in reality, test scores are up at margin-of-error levels and our position in state rankings hasn't gone up for school tests, and everybody knows that, and we can hardly see him up there on the podium because of the smog and everybody knows that.
Oh, and he even tried to take credit for "keeping the lights on" even though so many of us sat in rolling blackouts for weeks, and he "solved" the electricity crisis by caving to the energy company demands and fixing rates insanely high. (Clinton focused on this one, too, when he was out here campaigning for Davis.)
He really was completely oblivious.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, it's frankly RIDICULOUS to think of this as a "victory for the people." The "people" elected Davis in the first place, then responded like a fickle mob when somebody started throwing money around. And then, when they had their chance to speak, they acted like star-dazzled groupies.
*shrug* I disagree.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not averse to the recall process, though I do wonder if it will make politicians even more unprincipled whores to the polls. I guess I didn't mind the job Davis was doing, and now it's going to be done by a guy whose platform resides on cutting taxes.
I get the same vibe from Schwarzenegger that I did from Bush. Simple irresponsible solutions to difficult problems.
What do you disagree about? That the people did NOT react like groupies, and elected Arnold based on his position on the issues? Or that they were NOT fickle, insofar as they spent millions of dollars on a vote to undo a vote they had done just a little while earlier?
Is it really your contention that "the people" have been waiting for years for someone to remind them that they have the "right" -- granted by California's poorly-written election laws -- to install random celebrities as governor at any given time?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe this will be steam control. In a few years, Californians will remember the important values and other candidates will emerge.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, and I think you're spitting out way too much hyperbole to make a conversation about this possible. So I *shrug*.
Fry: If I were registered to vote I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown! Leela: You're not registered? Fry: Nope. Not vaccinated, either. Besides, it's not like one vote ever made a difference. Leela: That's not true. The first robot president won by exactly one vote. Bender: Ah, yes! John Quincy Adding Machine. He struck a chord with the voters when he pledged not to go on a killing spree. Prof.: But, like most politicians he promised more than he could deliver.
Fry: Now here's a party I can get excited about. Sign me up. Man: [Apathetically] Sorry, not with that attitude. Fry: Okay, then screw it. Man: [Excited] Welcome aboard, brother! Fry: [Cheerfully] All right! Man: You're out.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people AREN'T a bunch of drooling idiots.
I didn't vote for Arnold, and don't like that he won. I agree with you about about the star-struck thing. The fact is this was homecoming, and Arnold was captain of the football team. We vote in the popular kid.
But if the people were drooling idiots, they would have cowered to the media, which, no matter how liberal I know you claimed they aren't, was trying desperately to paint this election in exactly the colors you've chosen for it. Things were being "spun" your way, not ours.
But the people weren't being tossed to and fro by every gust of wind. They were getting thier car registrations in the mail, seeing it was 400 dollars, and getting mad. They were being made to pay more for electricity because Davis had mismanaged that fiasco, and getting mad.
The recall election didn't start with Daryl Issa. It started with mad people. What they were doing was news, and was the talk of the town. Everybody thought it was cool, but didn't think it would go anywhere. So Darryl Issa handed over what they needed to try to make it happen.
Signature gathering is not shady, not underhanded, and not silly. It's the same way some of the best propositions, including prop 13, the holy grail of california propositions, make thier way to the ballot. It's a provision many states have that allows some things to be decided by the direct will of the people, rather than by the electorate. If you can't get the signatures, you don't deserve to be on the ballot.
But if you can, you do! Why are you guys so afraid of the will of the people on this one?
I understand your basic point, and it's why we have a republic and not a democracy--because we don't know everything about running a country, rather than run the country ourselves we vote in people who do. It's an infinitely more effective system.
And I understand the fears of making politicians cower to every poll and worship at every kiss-up-opportunity. Heaven knows that's not going to help us either.
But somewhere between "He commited an illegal act, and must be impeached," and daily re-appointing based on daily polling there must be a place where someone who is incompentent, and commonly known to be incompentent, can be replaced for the good of everybody.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I'm registered in California anymore, so no, I didn't vote for him.
I'd say calling 47% of the voting public "drooling idiots" moves the conversation beyond the realm of the civil. Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, I'd just call it "accurate." But you're right, that probably IS hyperbole; I'm sure at least half of 'em weren't drooling at the time.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Signature gathering is not shady, not underhanded, and not silly. It's the same way some of the best propositions, including prop 13, the holy grail of california propositions, make thier way to the ballot. It's a provision many states have that allows some things to be decided by the direct will of the people, rather than by the electorate. If you can't get the signatures, you don't deserve to be on the ballot.
Did you see the signature gatherers on Issa's campaign. These weren't businessmen on sabaticals. They were poor people who couldn't get any other jobs except as signature gatherers, and the fact that they were economically forced to do this by a governor is going to cut their public assistance is even more slimy.
The proposition system is broken, and you look at Prop. 13 as your saving grace.
I'm worried, too, that this will start a rash of recalls in the other states that allow them. I can't say I find that very likely, though, since you need a whole lot of people to be really really mad about the governor to make something like this happen. Or a celebrity running to replace. If people in other states really are that upset about their current politicians, then fine.
I'm more worried that California will enter a cycle of continuously re-recalling governors as soon as they're put into office. It may happen, and it may not. I'm hoping that Schwarzenegger's obvious victory will weaken any re-recall attempts, and that he'll straighten out these groping allegations before people get all fired up about them again.
Time will tell. I think the result of the recall is worth the possible risks.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson, if California's election laws are so poorly written, why does not the California Supreme Court step in to set things right? I don't think anyone could make a sensible argument that california judges are politically impartial. Yet they have remain silent. Even the federales in the 9th circuit have chosen not to get involved. I would say all that adds up to a substantial argument that the law is well written, and valid.
I have heard the argument that the recall will destabalize the California government, and other states that may follow in recall. I would argue that this concern is not well founded. Right now it makes no political sense for Democrats to fire up their fund raising and recall Arnold. Without a doubt, they COULD, but this would create even more backlash at democrats in California. The recall is a potent RX, when over used it will destroy those attemping to abuse it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Elections are ELECTIONS. You aren't supposed to get an unlimited number of do-overs, particularly not when the standards of the do-over are notably lower than the standards of the election in the first place.
You know, it's not all that crazy at all. Many countries around the world have processes that allow elected officials to be removed at any given time, should they not be living up to expectations. For instance, Tony Blair could be taken out of power at any given moment, if his support declines. Does this cause huge problems? Not particularly.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:TomDavidson, if California's election laws are so poorly written, why does not the California Supreme Court step in to set things right. I don't think anyone could make a sensible argument that california judges are politically impartial. Yet they have remain silent. Even the federales in the 9th circuit have chosen not to get involved. I would say all that adds up to a substantial argument that the law is well written, and valid.
The onslaught of ambiguously worded propositions and sloppy, overlapping laws on the California state books, leaves the courts in a position to divine the intent of the legislature using a sort of temporal esp. The courts did the best they could in ensuring that if we were going to have an election, it would be a fair one, but they had to punt the questions of the sanctity of the process, and whether the initial laws were sensical. That's the legislature's job. The court just has to take the laws and square them with the constitution. Sure, the recall was permissible, but there was a time when it was permissile to beat my wife with something as small as a thumb.
The initiative process in California is a back door for terrible legislation, it circumvents the democratic checks and balances in the name of signatures and money. Sure, it's permissible, but it may be structually negligent.
quote:Many countries around the world have processes that allow elected officials to be removed at any given time, should they not be living up to expectations. For instance, Tony Blair could be taken out of at any given moment, if his support declines. Does this cause huge problems? Not particularly.
The system isn't ubiquitous. You can put a proposition on the ballot, any proposition, for two million dollars. You have democracy for the multi-millionaires. Everyone gets to vote, but only the people with vast individual fortunes pick the issues.
posted
Just as the real holy grail is not everybody's holy grail--even many christian groups consider it worthless, and symbolic--prop. 13 has its proponents and opponents. Does that really change any of my arguements enough to be worth a sidebar for?
-----------------
Democracy for the multi-millionaires? Not hardly. The fact is there's still the matter of signatures, and I hardly think Californians would sign something along the lines of "All millionaires get free airlines and can use the carpool lanes whenever they want."
We already have a system where politics is governed by people with money--they're called special interests, and instead of signature gatherers they hire lobbyists, and instead of appealing to the people, they pay money to politicians.
Even if this system was as you feel it is, which I don't feel it is, it would still be pretty much business as usual, with the exception that the people would be the ones being pandered to, instead of the politicians.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I hardly think Californians would sign something along the lines of 'All millionaires get free airlines and can use the carpool lanes whenever they want.'"
We'll have to agree to disagree about this, then. Because I think they WOULD sign such a petition, if Gary Coleman asked them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooooh it's really close! I bet in Bible times, that whole area was the roman empire or something. . . . . . Could Arnold be the Anti-Christ?
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't favor Arnold as governor, particularly, but I don't think his election is the disaster some think it is. As for the recall and its long-term effects, is it really that bad for politicians to be more afraid of the people? Imagine if Dubya had to be afraid of a recall right now--what do you think he'd have done?
Now what I do find frustrating is that the Republican party is going to view this as a victory. I completely disagree with Arnold's stance on sociomoral issues, and it'd be nice if I could count on a party to agree with. Just because Arnold's a Republican doesn't please me in the least. It's like rooting for a sports team or something--there's so little that's really substantial about the differences anymore.
quote: I can't believe that California just elected Arnold to be Gov. What are they thinking!?
I find this a mite offensive. Nobody elected Arnold people. Nobody was elected. It was a recall election. All you had to do was to pay a $10,000.00 dollar fee and you can run. Why do you think there were so many candidates?
Ultimately, Arnold is far better than Davis. With all the things he did--with the energy crisis the biggest one--, he cost California over 30 billion dollars in debt. That's more than the rest of all the other 49 state's debts combined. Before Davis, there was no giant ponderous debt to pay. Even though the recall cost 58 million dollars, I think it was well worth it to get him out and stop costing me and other Californians money.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. For most (but unfortunately not all) of the allegations, Arnold was not a married man with children. Not so, Bill Clinton
Actually...some of these sexual harrassments happened after Arnold was married.
quote: 2. All of the allegations against Arnold occured when he was a private citizen, not the governor of a state, and not the President
So? Sexual harrassment is sexual harrassment. Now that he is governor do you think his habits are suddenly going to change? He is now a good role model?
quote: 3. Bill Clinton performed his pecadillos with Monica in the OVAL FREAKIN' OFFICE!
Yes. This was not a good idea..but still harrassment is harrassment no matter where it happens.
quote:4. Bill Clinton lied about his actions with Monica on national television. Arnold admitted to his actions, and apologized.
Actually, Arnold just made some vague comment about having done some bad things in his past.. He also said that he'd specifically address these sexual harrassment allegations AFTER the election. So, I don't think he has really specifically apologized or acknowledged that he has done these things yet.
quote:5. For all of his serial groping (which is bad enough), Arnold has not been accused of rape nor of attempted rape, as BC was
All BC is guilty of was having an affair (consensual) and then lying about it when pressed. I'm not saying this was an alright thing to do...I'm just saying that if people are outraged about BC having consensual sex with an intern then they should be upset about someone with a history of non-consensual sexual harrassment/molestation being now the gov.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I can't make sense of it. There is something intutively unethical about it, but you don't make laws around my hasty intuition, well, unless it's combined with everyone else's hasty intution. I don't like mandating how a person can spend their money. But, geez, if Issa is going to get a kick-back after Schwarzenegger's tax cuts that is larger than the amount that he invested in the signature gatherers, then this whole exercise could easily have been for profit.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I think that may be one of the signs of the apocalypse. *runs for cover*
