all i have to say is hopefully davis will get kicked out and arnold will run. if arnold does run, i think he is the right choice for gov., with all the work he has done for after school programs he has what it takes.

ARNOLD FOR GOV.!!!!!

Abs like Jesus,

It sounds like you are trying to stifle debate on the key problem of Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy: He supports the real life Terminators who kill innocent children.

I throw a piece of paper into the feudal lord's favorite fishing pond...that is a "felony".

I'm not attempting to stifle anything, FC. Perhaps you would care to explain how his views on abortion are a "key problem" if he were a candidate for governor when the governor has absolutely no power regarding the legality of abortion? You're attacking him for something that has nothing to do with his run for governor of California (should he choose to run).

In a sense, Abs, the governor does have a say at least an indirect one on the abortion issue. Legislation and the appointment of state judges might affect that issue to a certain degree if nothing else force a re-examination of Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court. But, you are right, this recall has nothing to do with abortion one way or the other. If Gray Davis is recalled, and I think he will be, it will be because he spent more time masking the budget problems and paying off political patrons than he did being a responsbile governor, not because he is pro-abortion.

If you want to stop sounding like a fanatic you should use the correct terms such as fetus or embryo instead of children. If he supported murdering children he would be in prison.

PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED - Danya, you know better -Jaime.

The abortion issue is important at all levels of gov't. There are ways to influence the end result even if you don't have the authority to make the law itself. The left is quick to rally the troops against any pro-life candidate at any level so I don't think stifling the issue here is appropriate.

That said, I don't think abortion should define any election or candidate. It is but one issue among many facing legislators. Important, yes. Singular, no. It's sad when either side lays the tag on a candidate and from that moment on never hears another thing he/she says.

Abs,

The governor must represent all of the people in the state. For the governor to support a federal policy harming children is wrong. Just like we teach young people they must "Say No" to gang violence, however difficult, we must expect the same from the governor when it comes to the gangs that terrorize children.

Danya,

Children are children even before the stork officially arrives.

Aquilla,

The governor can send the attorney general to the U.S. Supreme Court to legitimize the children in the whole sense, and then the court would have no choice but to stop the children from being harmed.

Passion51,

Although a plurality of issues faces any governor, some issues are singular in their importance simply because they are unforgiving of wrong decisions. For example, in the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger's support for the real life Terminators who kill innocent children, there is no way to bring those children back. The governor cannot be sent back in time to undo what he has done. Instead, he must protect the children while he has the chance.

All states have equal standing with the Supreme Court and there are some pro-life governors out there with some pro-life legislatures to help them. They could bring actions if they wished, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court would agree with them. To tie this single issue as the litmus test for the governor in California is a losing proposition.

Look, Freechildren, I understand your passion on this issue, and I admire your desire to hold on to your core beliefs, but at some point it's time to be a little more pragmatic and look at some other issues. I think you have to ask yourself at some point whether you prefer a governor like Gray Davis, champion of political patronage, or someone else who will do a better job for California, all of California, not just the special interest groups that donate money to their campaign. Even though that alternate candidate might not hold strictly to your views on abortion. Hold your nose while you vote if you like.

If Roe v. Wade is ever over-turned, and I personally don't think it will be, nor that it has to be in order to curb abortion, it won't be because of something that a governor in California does. That's just not going to happen in this state. There are other issues for California that need to be addressed first.

Abs,

Conservative Republicans need to come clean about the fact that their support for Roe v. Wade is a thinly veiled effort to maintain false appearances in the wake of a national epidemic of socially uncomfortable pregnancies. Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe v. Wade, was a conservative Republican. Ronald Reagan, as California's governor, signed into law the state's first statute permitting abortion-on-demand. Laura Bush jumped up a few days before inauguration to say she supports Roe v. Wade. George W. Bush has had the vote since the day of his inauguration to prevent at least some of these partial-birth abortions, but instead of pushing it through, he has played the issue like a political card.

When Republican candidates like Arnold Schwarzenegger show up telling us they support the real life Terminators who kill innocent children, we need to rethink the false appearances of the Republican Party. We should also be skeptical of the carrot-on-the-stick offered to us by their fellow Republicans, like Pat Buchanan. Buchanan tries to lead us on saying maybe Schwarzenegger will at least take away some of these partial-birth abortions. But even the president has not done that, and he has had the vote behind him all along!

It might not seem like a big deal to some people, but if it is your head that is going to be stabbed in the back by a terror doctor, if it is your life that is going to be "terminated", then I am sure you will realize what a big deal it really is. "This is not about politics, people, this is about saving the lives of innocent children who need our help."

------------------
The Catholic church refuses to expressly affirm the person status of anyone before birth. Instead the church says, "Let me sell you a wooden nickel."

freechildren,

I am anti-abortion. More specifically, I AM pro-children. That being said, I would never use a single "litmus test" to disqualify a candidate.

The opponent in this case is Gray Davis, who is also pro-abortion. California tends to be a very "liberal" state when it comes to abortion rights. Even "conservatives" there are pro-abortion.

It is better, in my view, to get someone in there who is fiscally responsible. The abortion issue is a wash, since there will be a pro-abortion governor in there whether it be Davis or Arnold or Abs like Jesus (sorry Abs ).

You are correct about the President and his partial birth abortion "rhetoric". It seems like the issue has been stalled by other, apparently more pressing, issues. Why not start a grass roots campaign to bring this issue to the attention of George W Bush? He is inclined to sign such a bill, if it can get through the Senate (unlikely, unfortunately).

amlord,

I would much prefer an opponent who says he is against me than an opponent who presumes to sit down in my defense. Both Schwarzenegger and Davis support the real life Terminators who kill innocent children. But only Schwarzenegger dares to presume that the children should somehow have something to thank him for in their defense because he, in contrast, is a Republican.


----------------

No one is going to gift you with the right to bear arms. As soon as you fall in love with the red coat of tyranny, the right to bear arms becomes meaningless.

Perhaps it is time, Freechildren, that you begin to consider the rights of the children who have actually been born in this state, and their welfare. The current deficit, thanks to the mis-management of Gray Davis and the irresponsible spending of the California legislature is $38 BILLION. So, we see a reduction in police protection (their union obviously didn't donate enough to Gray Davis). We see teachers being laid-off and class sizes increased. Once again, not enough money to Davis I guess. We see the car license fees increased by 300%, WITHOUT even a vote. And yes, hospitals, EMT's and trauma centers are being cut back. What about pre-natal care for mothers who want to have their children? That gets cut too. Do you care about that? Do you care about our kids' education and whether they have parks to play in and whether they are safe, or do you just care that they are born, the heck with them after that?

This debate isn't about abortion, I am sure there is a thread here for that. This thread is about the future of California and whether we can afford a corrupt Gray Davis for the next 3 years in California. I don't think we can. I think we can do better. Arnold would be better, Issa would be better, heck, even Diane Feinstein would be better.

I do wonder though about the sanity of anyone who wants to be governor of California. This state is a huge mess!

Aquilla,

Instead of focusing on the babies being killed, California Republicans want to focus on the bath water. They want to keep the bath water, and throw out the babies. The babies are not a major focus of their agenda, the bath water is. Sure, the bath water stinks, but not as much as killing babies does. Sure, Davis is a part of the stench and Arnold Schwarzenegger might put some perfume in it. But still it is the lives of the babies that are the most important, not the bath water.

In September president Bush plans to announce a new mascot for the Republican Party...Ariel Sharon!

:::sigh::::

The California Republican Party isn't looking at the bathwater. Right now, it's not even in the bathroom, heck not even in the house! Thanks to myopic single-issue Conservatives, I don't even know if we can find the front door. Gray Davis is a horrible governor and he's taken this state to near financial ruin. His approval ratings are in the 20's and the sad thing about it all is that the Republican Party couldn't defeat this guy in the election last fall. How pathetic is that? Gray Davis pumps $10 million into the Republican primary to scare Republicans out of nominating Dick Riordan and it worked! Instead we end up with a candidate who is probably the ONLY person in the entire state who could lose an election to Davis.

So now, we end up with a $38 BILLION deficit, closing hospitals and ERs, laying off police officers and firemen and teachers, sneaking in a$4 BILLION regressive tax increase through higher vehicle registration fees, and you want to talk about abortion, Freechildren?

Excuse me if I think that's a little on the ridiculous side. No wonder we can't win an election in this dang state.

Aquilla,

I already told you why Simon lost. His "no litmus test" nonsense about the killing of innocent children made him look like an obvious fraud. Californians are well aware that political candidates patronize them because they know how dependent they have become on killing their own children. But at the same time if they are going to be criticized for it, they at least want someone with courage and integrity.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has not been providing either one.

---------------

All nine U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously agree that the federal Constitution does not guarantee any personal rights to children before birth. Instead, they are merely divided over a "jurisdictional" question. The six pro-federal-choice justices support Roe v. Wade because they believe the federal government accordingly has the right to dictate permission to abort children. But the three pro-state-choice justices feel this decision was "grieviously wrong" because in their view only the states should have ultimate say in determining the extent of such permission, unless the mother's life is at risk, since the federal Constitution does not specifically create a right to abort. Thus, the court is unanimously "pro-choice" at some jurisdictional level, federal versus state, which is contrary to the public view of the debate within the court. This shows how naive Americans are when they project their own debates onto the debates within the court. In a nutshell, Americans are being cheated out of judicial sincerity.

Freechildren, I'm not sure how much more can be said about the issue of abortion in this thread without being redundant, but if you have an interest in discussing the topic of abortion, which you are obviously very passionate about, we do have a couple of other threads going related to this topic:

Why I am against Abortion

Abortion (murder)

Men's Abortion Rights, abortion considered

I'm not trying to discourage you from posting in this thread. If you have additional information to provide that relates to the topic that hasn't already been said, that's acceptable. If not, the aformentioned threads would be a better place to discuss this issue.

Why go half way and vote for Arnold? Why not just go all the way and vote for the Incredible Hulk instead.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this debate?

Yes I do. What I'm saying is that it seems everyone wants a superhero to come and save them from their troubles rather than fix the mess themselves. It's childish thinking in my opinion.

It's very easy to vote for someone like Arnold for Governor when he comes along during a time of crisis making sweeping promises to "terminate the budget" or whatever. But that kind of voting is not well thought out and often leads to more problems. A mild example would be Governor Jesse Ventura taking money earmarked for education and spending it on better roads because "people have a responsibility to educate themselves." An extreme example would be Hitler being swept into power during Germany's time of crisis after WWI.

So, I would say let's not have Governor Schwarzenegger as Governor of California right now and instead let's hunker down and fix our own problems with some of the good citizens of California. I find it hard to believe that we need a power hungry actor with no political experience to "save us" when the state boasts an estimated 34,480,000 population* consisting of some of the brightest people on the planet.

*Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Intercensal Estimates of the Population of California: State and Counties 1990-2000, Report I 90-00 July, May 2001.
California Statistical Abstract, 2000, December 2000.

Somebody has to run for governor. While the good citizens of California may need to hunker down and fix their own problems, electing a governor is part of the way our government is set up. I doubt if anybody who might vote for Arnold (you yourself said they were bright) would imagine voting for him would be the equivalent of electing a superhero, Conan, or the Terminator.

Electing people with backgrounds in entertainment (Jesse Ventura) or the military (Ventura or Hitler) hasn't always proven to be a bad thing in the public perspective. Ronald Reagan was an actor prior to being elected governor in California and went on to fill the highest political office in our country. Dwight Eisenhower was a military man elected to office (as I understand it) because of his military background.

I don't know that I would personally support Arnold myself, but beyond Californians hunkering down and fixing things themselves, who might you support out of the possible contenders at present? Issa? Feinstein, if she opted to run?

It is probably a little early to start talking about a replacement, the recall hasn't yet been certified for the ballot and the Democratic Secretary of State may be dragging his heels on that. The recall supporters have the signatures and are hoping to get the recall election in November, but that's not a certain thing at this point. If the election is delayed until next March, the landscape could change considerably.

Right now, the names that have been most often mentioned are the following....

Darrell Issa - Orange County Congressman who is spear-heading the recall. He is definitely in the race.

Arnold - Interested, but no committment at this time.

Dr. Condi Rice - Interested, but busy elsewhere at the moment

Richard Riordan - Former Mayor of LA, ran last time and lost the primary. Says he's not a candidate, but I think he might change his mind.

Sen Diane Feinstein - Ran once and lost to Wilson. Claims not to be interested, but she could change her mind. She is probably the most popular politician in California and I think would win hands down if she runs as a recall option.


My personal choice would be Dr. Rice, but it may be a bit too soon for her to run. She would be a more viable candidate in 2006 I think.

Abs, I think you really missed my point and turned it into something you want it to be. Always a mistake to do that bro. Now instead of being able to push forward. I have to go backward and address your errors.

Of course somebody has to run for Governor. So what? We all know that. Perhaps you think the only viable candidates are the ones you've heard about. Think out of the box for a minute. I'm talking about personal and corporate responsibility. (Corporate does not equal corporations for the purpose of this discussion). There are MANY talented bright people in California that are able to do a better job than ANY of the candidates you are talking about. Will they get elected? How should I know. I don't have a crystal ball.

As for Arnold not being associated as a Superhero in the minds of many. You're wrong. Arnold IS associated as being something of a Superhero celebrity. You didn't think I was talking literally about a comic book hero did you? Blue collar thinking aside (ie "terminate the budget"), I think there are many who are affected unconsiously by watching their silver screen hero perform supernaturally over and over. The press attention alone proves that point.

As for Ronald Reagan, he was first elected Governor in 1966 and not as the result of a "crisis." Additionally, he had been learning and working in politics during the ensuing years before he ran for Governor. I understand the "Terminator" is married into the Kennedy clan but how can you associate their politics with Reagans! I mean really.

As for military men who have filled political roles, we've always had them. And they've done a lot of good too. Started with our first President George Washington who probably saved the United States from falling apart after the Revolutionary War. I think Dwight Eisenhower might have known a bit more about our system of government than Howdy Doody.

I could go on and on.. but I'm getting bored of this discussion. It's so obvious.

In order to even consider getting elected they have to first run for office. Feel free to expand beyond those names I listed, as Aquilla already did.

The press attention doesn't prove anything about what the public in general thinks about Arnold as a possible governor of the state of California. There's a lot of press in the other 49 states, but clearly they have no say in the matter. From what I recall in earlier postings, there is incredibly low support for the idea of Arnold running even in spite of the publicity.

I didn't associate Arnold's politics with Reagan's. I was merely pointing out that entertainment backgrounds alone, without previous history in politics, has not always proven to be the making of a bad politician, as you seemed to suggest when you said:
Like, for sure!

I think it was a good point wcrockets made about the superhero fix mentality. I believe he would get a lot of votes based on that alone. I wouldn't be sorry to see Davis go unless he's replaced by Issa or Rice. My vote would go to Feinstein due to her proven devotion to this state and her long and respected record in the public service sector.

Even "St. Diane" has a few warts, Danya. Should it come to pass that she does indeed run for governor, I'm sure you and I will have an opportunity to discuss them...... at length.

Aquilla,
I look forward to it...we will have plenty to discuss about your guy Issa as well.

cyan,

Questioning the integrity of a political candidate in this country is inevitably a forum for the topic of killing innocent children. But some people, like many in the Republican party, do not want to question integrity, instead they want to fantasize their conservative presumptions by picking another actor.

-------------

How many American mommy's boys would rather pretend they are defending "the law" than defending innocent children? At the top of the list, U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft comes to mind. He would rather walk around like a jailhouse "punk" with his finger in the belt loop of the terror doctor's white coat and follow him around, than to face the courage to defend even a single child.

My original statement still stands. If you have something new and constructive to add to this debate, please do it, otherwise take the abortion talk to one of the other threads that I mentioned.

Rather than being debatable, I am afraid your last post is simply an argumentative assertion.

If you will kindly read Mr. Buchanan's article, which serves as the topic for this forum, you will recognize that Arnold Schwarzenegger's support for killing children is a major issue of his candidacy in two respects. First, contrary to conservative principles, Mr. Schwarzenegger supports the real life Terminators who kill innocent children. Second, Mr. Schwarzenegger may hold out a carrot-on-the-stick concerning partial-birth abortion, for the sake of conservatives who will want to use "compromise" as an excuse for electing an actor to suit their Republican fantasies.

Quotes from Mr. Buchanan's article back this up:

"Schwarzenegger is ... pro-choice on abortion ... How, then, conservatives ask, could the Terminator win enough GOP support to be elected?"

"Sources tell this writer Schwarzenegger has agreed ... to reach out to the right to cut a deal where it ... is given concessions on partial birth abortion."

So, if you do not want this to be a part of the debate at this forum, then maybe you should have a talk with Mr. Buchanan first.

There is only one exception when "Choice" should be kept alive, and that is when the baby's name happens to be Choice. Then by all means, we should keep Choice alive. But isn't it sad that even in this case the people who are shouting "Keep Choice Alive" really mean the opposite?

I believe redundant might be the key word there. You've brought up "the real life Terminators" like a broken record in this thread, without even so much as publicly considering other issues facing any person possibly elected to be governor of California (should Davis be recalled). The position of the governor is of little importance as he holds no direct say in the matter. The abortion debate is not a "major issue" of candidacy for that political office.

It seems to me the purpose of Buchanan listing Arnold's position of gay rights, abortion, gun control and the impeachment of Bill Clinton is to question his possible choice to run for the GOP rather than another political party.

Without any direct power to influence the right to abortion in this country, the debate over abortion is rather moot when discussing successors in California. More important are the issues brought up by other native Californians here referring to the budget and public services. Even were abortion to be a larger litmus test in the run for governor's office, it has always seemed to be that the bulk of California was indeed pro-choice.

Mr. Buchanan does not define political conservatism, and he most certainly does not define the Republican Party. It seems to me that in the last Presidential election, he ran AGAINST the Republican candidate. I consider myself pretty much a political conservative, and I think most people here would agree with that, but there are few things with which I agree with Buchanan. It is most certainly possible for a person to be a conservative without adhering to Freechildren's or Buchanan's views on abortion, and in California, it's a non-starter. A radical pro-life candidate that wishes to ban abortion entirely simply can not win a statewide election in California, period. It just won't happen.

A fiscal conservative who understands that it's not the job of the state to spend it's citizens' money to pay back campaign donors might be able to win here. I don't know if Arnold is that way or not. However, I will add that much of the media hype surrounding Arnold is exactly that, Media Hype, generated by the media, propagated by the media for the media's sake. Arnold is a movie star, people pay lots of money to see his movies and with his ties to the Kennedys, he's a "sexy story". People would rather watch him on TV than they would a guy like Darrell Issa or even a Condi Rice or Dick Riordan, or, for that matter, a Diane Feinstein. But, the question is, would they vote for him? I don't think so, the people in California might be a bunch of dumb liberals , but they aren't stupid.

Ok, thinking more on this, I'll edit my post here to add some perspective for those around the country who may have something of a misconception about California. We do, from time to time have television and movie stars run for office. Certainly the most famous one was Ronald Reagan, but there have been others as well. It might seem to people that we are simply "star-struck" and vote for the guy who plays a heroic role on TV, but that's not really the case. We have actors getting elected here because we have ALOT of actors who live here. I know several of them, and guess what, they are Real People and some of them share in the desire of some other real people to serve their country in political office. A perfect example of that was the late Sonny Bono. Prior to his tragic accident, he was a real rising star in California politics, and it wasn't because he was a famous entertainer. It was because of his ideas. Sonny told the story of his entry into politics one night on the Tonight Show. It all started when he opened a restaurant in Palm Springs and had a huge hassle with the city bureaucracy. They had all kinds of stupid rules and regulations that made no sense whatsoever, and according to Sonny, he challenged one of the city inspectors on some of those rules. The inspector told him, "This is the rule the way I see it and I'm the one that's refusing to let you open. Just who do you think you are to challenge me?"

Sonny told him, "I'm the guy who's going to run for mayor and when I win, I'm gonna fire your butt!"

LOL!! Sonny ran for mayor and won. No word on that inspector's fate. He then ran for the Republican nomination for Senate and lost, but did pretty well, then ran for Congress and won. Had he not been killed in that skiing accident, I believe he would have become either a California governor or a US Senator. I would have supported him, but not because he was a "star", but because he had good ideas on how things should work.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Also, I'd like to say that the moderators have been extremely kind to this person who obviously has no idea how to take a hint or even direct instructions. Freechildren seems to think this board is a fine place to put up a soapbox and spew rhetoric. I only wonder why this person, who purposely continues to break the rules and disrupt the debate, is treated so much better than a lot of other newcomers that break the rules without meaning to?

Maybe because it's not being reported. It's hard for us to tell how satisfied you all are with the progress of the debate if we don't hear from you.

FYI Freechildren, you need to be constructive in your posts. That means NOT repeating the same post over and over again. Constructive means you add a little more each time to further the debate along. AND we have a WHOLE forum here, you really ought to try out some other threads.

I haven't reported them because first, they give a good edge on which to hone the conservative message. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, it is fun to watch Danya get irritated.

Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the real life Terminators who kill innocent children. Of course, some people would prefer to call the Terminators "doctors" instead. But killing children is not a medical procedure, and in this country even the Terminators themselves insist that they should not be regulated like any true medical profession. Instead, the only reason why they are required to go to medical school in the first place is so (to quote Terminator 2) they can have "detailed files on human anatomy" so as to make each of them "a more efficient killer".

With this kind of view, what kind of example would Arnold Schwarzenegger set for children? Isn't this where kids at school are getting the message that it is okay to kill other children? And then they start shooting their classmates!

With this kind of view, what kind of example would Arnold Schwarzenegger be setting for police officers who need to develop the courage to stand up for children no matter what? Do you believe the governor of California should teach apathy and excuses when it comes to defending innocent children?

Why should America look the other way?

----------------------
Did you know babies hatch?

Probably gonna get in trouble for this because it's not really on topic. But, I do have to ask freechildren why they are chosing to only post abortion posts in this thread when there are other threads specifically dealing with abortion, as have been pointed out here?

It seems to me that if a person is as passionate as this person is about a specific issue like abortion, they would be dominating threads on abortion instead of a thread on the potential recall of Gray Davis. That would only make sense to me. Yet, when I do a search on freechildren's posts, all 15 of them have occured here on this single thread. I find this most curious, and somewhat suspicious as to whether they are what they attempt to portray themselves to be. Just a thought......

What's the matter Aquilla, feel like you're talking to a broken record yet? You aren't getting a little irritated are you?

I'm just wondering if there is a polite way to point out that someone is clearly a troll. I don't want to make it a personal insult or get in trouble or anything but it's plain to see that's what we have here.

It looks to me like Buchanan has assessed the situation accurately: Davis will be recalled, Feinstein will decline to run, and Schwarznegger does indeed have a good shot at becoming Governor of California this year. Does that seem a likely scenario to you, or is Pat missing something about the situation?


I have no Idea who Buchanen or Feinstein is.
But as sure as bums point to the ground know who Arnie is.

Considering the complete mess you 'Septict's' have made of of the last few conflicts ie:--, Wars, Invasions, Kickky-Butt -feel goods etc.
Perhaps Arnie is just the bloke to get your rocks off on.

Regards........Alan

Alan, you have a unique way of expressing yourself, and it can be quite funny, LOL.

Now, for a brief description of Feinstein and Buchanan:

Diane Feinstein is a liberal, Democratic senator from California. I think she was mayor of San Francisco when gays were being bashed (big time) there at the height of the AIDs epidemic. She stood up for gays.

Pat Buchanan is a conservative pundit/erstwhile member of the Republican party who ran for President in 2000 against Dubya. He is more of an old-fashioned Conservative who leans toward isolationism, but he is good at political predictions from time to time.

Arnold is a moderate whose gun control and pro-choice positions are causing no small degree of consternation among the Republican 'true believers,' as you can see by the posts.

Glad I stayed up to read your post.

I get the impression that Democrats are simply pretty embarrassed that they have been given full control of an enormously wealthy state and it is in such shambles. I've heard them blame it on quite a few things, but from the numbers I've seen, it looks like someone there is really badly screwing up. There is no one tho blame it on this time, and I think the sharp reaction they have comes from not wanting to confront the possibility that their economic policies aren't sound.

It's true. But this is not a problem of Dems because the GOP is no longer known for it's fiscal responsibility. California's deficit is unacceptable. 38 Billion dollars needs to be explained and we need to elect someone who is going to reverse it. The same can be said about the record 450 billion dollar federal deficit. It is unacceptable. Someone has to answer for it and we need to elect someone who can and will reverse it by acting responsibly. As it stands our government seems unconcerned about the fact that this deficit is rapidly increasing. They hardly seem to notice that we are headed for disaster and instead only work faster to put laws on the books that will continue to give to the corporations and the people who need it the least as much of our national wealth as they possibly can, oblivious of the destruction and havoc they leave behind.

It reminds me of those games I've seen on TV where they give shoppers four minutes to run wild through the store filling their shopping cart with as much as they can and making it over the finish line before the clock runs out. Instead of a shopper with four minutes we have a President with four years...who has the chance to get two shots at it. They grab what they can from every isle and fill their carts with corporate handouts, money for the rich, defense contracts, and nukes (why be satisfied with only having enough of those to destroy the world many times over? We need more WMD's.)

The anger and indignation we are seeing over California's financial situation is just a glimpse of what exists just under the surface over the nations financial situation. You can see it in the polls.

They say what happens California is an indication of what we eventually see in the rest of the country, that it spills over, and I believe that's true. Things cannot go on this way.

Please forgive me for not knowing too much about American politics.

I do know who Schwartzy is and to be honest he seems a reasonable sorta bloke.
I am told he is an anti-gun lobbyist and a wee bit of a 'getting along together' sorta bloke.

I really do not care what his political leaning are.

Is there some chance some American can let me know how they see this bloke?.

Be care..........Alan

Heh, I think he made too many Terminator movies



I couldn't tell you. I can tell you all about his acting, but not his politics. That is why I haven't really contributed to this thread. I'm taking a "wait and see" approach.

--cheers

C'Mon.......DP.

Give us a break mate.

Is he the sorta bloke you would lend your best 'Roo Dog' and Offroad to......

Onya....and biggies DP..........Alan

Arnold's politics are largely unknown, although I have seen him described as a "Social liberal - fiscal conservative" which is the same way Jesse Ventura described himself. I really don't know quite what that means other than they would love to have a bunch of government programs for all sorts of things, but they don't want to pay for them.

Arnold has been to this point primarily involved in children's programs, physical fitness and after-school activities, and the like. He's been the main sponsor of a program, similar to the Boys and Girls Club for inner city youth that strives to get kids off the streets, out of gangs and into productive behavior.

Inner City Games

This is not surprising actually given his wife's family. Her mother has been involved in Special Olympics and other similar causes for most of her life. Probably the one Kennedy that has ever actually done something.

Recent polls have shown Arnold to be running second to Dick Riordan as a replacement candidate, and Riordan hasn't indicated yet that he'll be a candidate, but I think he will. I'm not real thrilled with Riordan, he's a RINO, but he would probably be a somewhat decent governor and unless Dr. Rice decides to run, he would be my candidate at this point.

This dumb yank doesn't know what a "roo dog" is. But as far as my offroad goes, NO ONE drives but me

I will give Arnold credit. I've never seen him get any bad publicity. And I know he is involved in a lot of charity work. He once called into a local radio station I was listening to at the time, and donated $5000 to a charity drive they were having.

He seems like a reasonable guy. More down to earth than a lot of hollywood actors I imagine.

If I were a Californian, I would probably vote for him.

Sorry mate, that's the best I can do for ya

--cheers

I don't think we're going to see any really great candidates to replace Davis simply because the California governorship is going to be the political mark of death for a while. I don't think there's any question that Davis will be recalled or resign to avoid being recalled but whoever takes over, no matter who it is, will be expected to solve the problem by the Californian voters and... simply put, it ain't gonna happen. Davis has made such a mess that *NO ONE* will be able to fix it in the short term. Even if we get a great governor, the first couple years are going to be rough for everyone and re-election hopes won't look good no matter who ends up in office.

Good point! I sure don't want the job. But, we're gonna have a recall this fall and someone is going to run...... maybe. It is possible that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamonte (sp?) could order a recall election without having an alternative candidate on the ballot, meaning he would become governor if Davis is voted out. That one will go to the courts if he tries it, no idea on how they'll rule. One thing's for sure, California will once again supply the rest of the country with hours of news entertainment. Y'all should really be grateful.

We have Robert Blake's trial coming up.....
Likewise with Scott Peterson....
And of course, Kobe Bryant's thing in Colorado...
and now a recall for the first time in California history.

Sheesh! Thank goodness OJ moved to Florida!


Edited to add.......

Actually, I would take the job and the hits for a couple of years since I don't want to be a career politician. I would like to help this state, I love it here and I think I could do that with some fiscal responsibility. I'd probably have to move afterwards though and that would be okay. I'd like to go home to Colorado. The only problem is that if elected, I'd have to move to Sacramento, and I've been there. I spent a month there one day.......

Looks like The Terminator may be sitting this one out.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger is leaning against running for governor in the Oct. 7 recall election, but no final decision has been made, a senior adviser said Monday.
A decision could be made by the end of the week, the adviser said. Meanwhile the actor's political consultant denied reports that the Republican actor had already decided against running.

There are reports in the media that Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided not to run in the California recall election. These reports are incorrect," consultant George Gorton said in a statement.

"Arnold spent the weekend continuing his due diligence regarding a possible run. He has made no decision at this time. He will continue to weigh the pros and cons with his family and will continue to seek the counsel of supporters and colleagues," the statement said.

A senior Schwarzenegger adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the actor "is leaning against running."

Candidates have until Aug. 9 to file to get on the ballot in the recall against Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

Gorton has said that Schwarzenegger's wife, Kennedy relative Maria Shriver, has concerns about the actor running.

Sacramento Bee political columnist Daniel Weintraub and Fox News both reported Monday that Schwarzenegger, a Republican, would not run. Both reports cited an unnamed source.

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/711...p-8065889c.html

why does schwarzenegger seem to be choking like he did in 2000 about acually running for office he is very popular with all the uc ca campuses i know.