Arnold hasn't done anything, though. All he did was remove the car tax. He can't get anything by the Legislature, and the Legislature can't get anything by him. It's grrrrridlock.
Posted by muckdog at September 16, 2005 09:17 PMArnold hasn't done anything, though. All he did was remove the car tax.
That's probably the only promise he kept. He's gone downhill since 10 minutes after he was sworn in. Balance the budget? Still waiting... No cuts to education? Hah! He won't take the special interests' money? Pbbft! He makes Gray Davis look like a reformer! I am really tired of the bulls*** - I hope 51% of Calfornia is with me.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at September 16, 2005 09:26 PMWe're not going to bend over this time.
Posted by jillian at September 16, 2005 10:31 PMPhil Angelides is an excellent candidate for governor of California. He is qualified, has integrity and his heart appears to be in the right place. This means, of course, that he is doomed.
I fully expect the voters to reject him and choose an actor who has lied to them repeatedly since he began his political career. I fully expect the corporate press/media to become adjuncts to Arnold's campaign, just as they were the first time around. I expect appearances on Leno, on Oprah and many other TV shows that will not bother to call the Angelides campaign. And why should they? Has he ever made a top-grossing movie? Did he marry a Kennedy?
After the experiences of the last there election cycles, and the David recall election, I am convinced that voters are dullards and are not capable of making any factually based judgments. I expect Arnold will be re-elected by at least seven points.
Posted by James E. Powell at September 16, 2005 11:37 PMSorry for the typos, above. Long, long day.
Posted by James E. Powell at September 16, 2005 11:40 PMI don't know, James. California may be a shallow state (especially compared to Upper Michigan), but the opposition is firmly entrenched enough to give him a run for his money. Back home, I remember seeing far more anti-Ahnuld commercials than pro-Ahnuld, and those pro ones were always responding to the anti ones. Big mistake.
First rule of politics: Don't argue a point from your opponents; just take the hit, respond to it in a press conference or something, and build your own attack machine. Never apologize or rationalize anything; it makes you look weak.
...or was that the motto for talk radio? I get confused there.
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 17, 2005 12:04 AMArnold did manage to avoid regulation of dietary supplements as advertised in the weightlifting magazines that were secretly paying him millions, after he "magnanimously" passed up the governor's salary.
Come on, trolls, aren't htere any of you out there to defend Der Gropinator"?
Posted by Repack Rider at September 17, 2005 12:30 AMArnold is in the toilet right now. He has no idea how to get out of the trouble he's in, so he keeps doing the same thing that got him into trouble. His propositions are going to fail miserably, and then what? He can run for re-election, but with the voters having rejected his agenda, what's the point? The only reason Gray Davis was re-elected is because he ran against a total ass clown. Neither Angelides or Westly fit that description. All he has now is the Republican base. They are far too small in California to get him re-elected. Arnold is too stubborn to change course, which is the only thing that could revive his popularity and his former Wilson advisors will keep pushing him toward confrontation. If he wanted to save himself, he would have called off the special election and tried a more non-partisan approach to things. Clinton dug himself out of a similar hole in his first term by adopting a centrist approach, but Arnold has locked himself into right-wing mode with the special election. I think he's passed the point of no return.
Posted by bushsucks at September 17, 2005 12:34 AMRemember - Diebold is campaigning hard to be the official ballot counting mechanism for California. Even though they haven't yet been certified, they haven't yet surrendered. With Diebold on his side, Arnold could have 99% of the California voters against him and still win.
Posted by pessimist at September 17, 2005 03:45 AMPhil Angelides is an excellent candidate for governor of California. He is qualified, has integrity and his heart appears to be in the right place. This means, of course, that he is doomed.
That is my first instinct as well, but I think Arnold can be beat if we make the campaign about Arnold.
All he has now is the Republican base.
Actually, according to the Field Poll, he only has 66% of the Republican base.
Remember - Diebold is campaigning hard to be the official ballot counting mechanism for California.
California is requiring a paper trail for electronic voting, IIRC starting in 2006.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at September 17, 2005 06:41 AMpessimist,
Let's have one more of those "Be careful what you ask for" moments.
You seem to have a problem with Diebold, and I can appreciate that considering the remark the chairman made.
In the overall question of voter fraud, do you think that if a perfect system is devised, one that unfailingly counts one vote per actual live person only in the appropriate district, that this system would help democrats or hurt them?
Posted by j.west at September 17, 2005 07:01 AMActually, it's an easy win for Arnold.
"These are the guys who raised your car tax."
Then voters will have to decide if they want to send $400 per car to the DMV to vote for the Democrat (and who knows what other tax hikes), or just vote for Arnold again.
Posted by muckdog at September 17, 2005 08:14 AMIf such a 'perfect' vote counting system were to be devised, it would help or hurt depending upon the political make-up of the region involved. There is, thus, no 'magic' involved when honest and verifiable vote counting is spread across the board.
What such a system would do, however, is implant the very trustworthiness that is notable by its lack in the entire GOP since 1980.
Past history is not an indicator of such trust, for no one I personally know, and can recall bragging back then about having voted for Reagan, still does so.
Posted by pessimist at September 17, 2005 08:43 AMpessimist,
I think the famous line of one New Yorker after Reagan took 49 states was "How could he have won? I don't know anyone who voted for him."
On the voter/voting fraud issue, would you support a system that included some form of positive identification (perhaps even biometric), immediate cross checking of absentee ballots with physical voting and other measures to assure the "one actual living person/one vote" premise?
As to the voting machine issue, I fully support a paper trail and any improvement to the security of the system, however, it would be wrong to issue a receipt that a voter could take with them that would identify who they voted for.
A receipt that identified a particular vote for someone would be an invitation to use that receipt as a voucher for pay/cigarettes/liquior/whatever else the dems are handing out. Also, working people would not be in danger of beatings by union thugs brought on by not voting for the designated candidate.
Posted by j.west at September 17, 2005 10:52 AMArnold, competing with Bush for the most hated man in CA. What a competition!
Muck, are you aware that your hero has raised your taxes by 37% now? You really don't understand the national debt and basic economics do you?
Posted by Ga6thDem at September 17, 2005 11:42 AMHey Ga6, prove it. Still waiting.
Posted by muckdog at September 17, 2005 11:51 AMArnold has worn out his welcome. Davis was an idiot in the first place to raise the car tax. Raising the car tax was one of the things that got Bill Clinton defeated for re-election as governor. Arnold is too weak to reform anything. His reforms are nothing more than frauds. How did he "reform" the budget? Take out bonds--no need to raise taxes or cut too much spending--just worry about the debt in 20 years. And the best thing is that big business is not a special interest, but the labor unions are. Maybe that would work in Austria, but it doesn't work in California.
Posted by bushsucks at September 17, 2005 11:55 AMArnold's approval rating is at 38 percent. Democrats and independents dissapprove of his performance. Republicans are the only group that now support him. Large majorities want him to call off his special election, but he absolutely refuses to do that. All of the ballot initiatives he's supporting are failing. He's losing in matchups against two relatively unknown opponenents. Bush could ride on the back of the Republican base and then convince people in the middle that Kerry was too dangerous a chance to take, but Arnold is in no such position. The Republican base is too small in California, so the only way he could win is to reach out to the middle. He shows no signs of being willing to do this, so he'll likely lose the next election. The only way I can see for him to save himself is to call off the special election and pursue a centrist platform, but the time to do that was months ago.
Posted by bushsucks at September 17, 2005 12:05 PMAlso, working people would not be in danger of beatings by union thugs brought on by not voting for the designated candidate.
Do tell! As a union 'thug' myself, I can attest that no one in my union - or any of the other 13 that I have contact with - ever beat anyone at the polls for voting the 'wrong' way.
Leave the pre-Roosevelt Gilded Age world behind, and join the current times - if you are brave enough.
I doubt you are.
Posted by pessimist at September 17, 2005 12:13 PMpessimist,
Apparently you're not in the UAW or Teamsters.
I have to admit, the first time I heard the phrase "knuckle draggers" I thought they were referring to union members.
To be fair, the only union I have a problem with is the one that is destroying our country and ruining the lives of the poor and minorities.... the teachers union.
Posted by j.west at September 17, 2005 12:26 PMI remember having the opportunity to work as a scab for the Longshoreman strike on the west coast in 2003 - it would have paid EXTREMELY well for a high school senior, but the thought of going up against giant, angry Longshoremen who thought I was stealing their jobs was not much of an incentive. I heard rumors that they weren't going to let people leave with their cars intact.
On the other hand, the strikes at the grocery stores last year was quite peaceful from my understanding. All they really did was give dirty looks to picket line-crossers and scabs, maybe heckle them at worst. Not all unions are created equal.
J.west, pray tell, how is the teacher's union destroying America?
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 17, 2005 03:04 PMYes, do tell! My unionized teacher wife would love to hear this.
Posted by pessimist at September 17, 2005 03:54 PMUnions started off as a good idea, but they've strayed from their grass roots mission to help out their members. Now, they're just political organizations. While I'm sure there's an exception or two out there, unions are Democrat funding machines.
Much like Churches are generally Republican funding machines. Of course, the BIG difference is that Churches receive money voluntarily, while unions steal it from their members.
I fully support the Paycheck Protection act in California. If the unions want money to donate to political causes, ask for donations.
If I belonged to a union, I'd be demanding that they spend my dollars negotiating for better salaries and benefits, and to stop playing politics.
That teachers union is something else. When you think about it, they have a conflict of interest. They have to keep their members unhappy and wanting more; and at the same time, appear to be fighting the good fight to improve teacher salaries and benefits. So they spend a lot of money trying to redirect member anger towards Arnold.
Posted by muckdog at September 17, 2005 05:02 PMDon't be daft. He's running because they have promised to Diebold the election for him.
Posted by marblex at September 18, 2005 08:58 AM…your hero has raised your taxes by 37% now? …?Posted by Ga6thDem Hey Ga6, prove it. Still waiting. Posted by muckdog at
If you issue bonded debt to cover current expenses, you are paying a fee to the underwriters and paying interest on that debt. Consequently, it cost more to borrow and spend than to tax and spend. Here is a book to help you understand these complexities.
…Much like Churches are generally Republican funding machines. Of course, the BIG difference is that Churches receive money voluntarily, while unions steal it from their members. …If I belonged to a union, I'd be demanding that they spend my dollars negotiating for better salaries and benefits, and to stop playing politics. That teachers union is something else. When you think about it, they have a conflict of interest. They have to keep their members unhappy and wanting more; and at the same time, appear to be fighting the good fight to improve teacher salaries and benefits. So they spend a lot of money trying to redirect member anger towards Arnold. Posted by muckdog
You must be terribly fond of your ignorance: You are always eager to flaunt it. Firstly, churches receive a tax exemption because they are supposed to be non-profit and non-political. You are just argued they are lying.
Unions are to protect the interest and wages of their members. Those interests have been under constant attack from Republicans since their inception, and those attacks have increased under der Gropenfuhrer. He wants to place their pensions into 401K's where they are subject to the whims of a corrupt stock market, and will not provide survivors benefits. He wants to increase class size and decrease teacher protection, allowing them to be subjected to attacks by rightwing fanatics. He has tried to increase the patient to nurse ratio contrary to California law. If you were a member of a union an had a brain, you would realize that those are intrinsic to your wages and benefits, not "mere politics."
We have seen during the supermarket strike that national chains can easily withstand local actions. They have won a two-tier wage structure which means that future California workers will not have as high a living standard and current ones. That bodes ill for the future of the state.
There are no restrictions on how much corporations can spend to distort the political process. Without union expenditures on the political process, there is no one to rebut corporate lies and political distortions, the best current example of which are the current propositions being pushed by der Gropenfuhrer and his corporate allies.
I'm a teacher and the money I give to NEA for political action is a donation. It's extra money beyond my dues. When I began teaching I made $6500 a year and could be fired without being given a reason. We had to threaten a strike to get a $50 a year raise. Some of the married teachers with families would have been better off as slaves because at least they would have been provided with enough food, housing, and clothing to avoid debt. You wonder why teachers have a strong union-you don't know of the abuses of the past. And it's getting scary again. The reason that you "dittoheads" have been given talking points against public education is because the goals of the rightwing thugs at the top is to destroy it. They not only want to avoid being taxed for it, but they want to scratch the backs of the backers of parochial schools. They see this as way to grab votes from the Catholics and the fundamentalists. And the sad fact is that they laugh up their sleeves at you lower and middle class fellow-travelors. You can beg at the table for scraps from the fatcats, but you're never going to get any.
Posted by bill at September 18, 2005 08:16 PM