Pat Buchanan: Gov. Schwarzenegger by October?

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 think Cruz Bustamante will be the next govenor after Davis resigns to avoid a recall election.

Yeah, that's another likely possibility. I hope not, I'd rather see Gov. Conan take office.

Possible quotes...

Your tax money will be back...

Hasta la vista.....Davis

Such a shame.... Pro everything Liberal, I really admired him.

Its such a shame, he was a big republican befor he made hollywood... just goes to show how money can currupt ppl. (unless it was his liberal wife)

ppl listen to me, how can someone who live big like ppl in hollywood really expect to understand the common ppl when ppl in hollywood can have everything given to them on a silverplatter ?

As much as I am a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would never vote for him in political offices.

Ah-nuld has said he won't make a decision until after Terminator 3 opens next month.

My guess is he's covering his bets. Arnold hasn't had a hit in years. His litany of stinkbombs includes End of Days, Collaterial Damage and The 6th Day. All were dead-on-arrival and another flop and he's joining Stallone and Seagal in straight-to-video land.

My guess is Davis will survive the recall and Arnold won't run if T3 breaks the $150 million mark.

Then again, I live in Ohio. What do I know about Cali politics?

He's still a big Republican, and like McCain is conservative on most issues, deviant on a few big ones. That may be a good thing, it'll keep him from being perceived as too conservative, making him electable. You'd bet I'd vote for him if I lived in California, he's a lot better than Davis.

It's the Gun Controll, aborting and shaming the republicans that has me disappointed.

From the Buchanan column:


The only one of those I have a big problem with is gun control, and I don't know how pro-gun control he is. I'd expect he'd at least be reasonable, not a Schumer clone.

I can't wait to hear the republican's gushing over Arnold after leading the charge over telling Hollywood to stay out of politics and shut their mouths because they don't know anything.

And let's face it...Arnold's not exactly a brainiac of even that bunch. Nor can he speak our language very well, not that he hasn't spent decades trying. If Spanish was his primary language we could understand him and he'd fit right in here in California. But unless he's going to walk around mumbling one sentence sound bites like, 'I'll be back' no one will know what he's talking about. Oh wait...politicians only speak in soundbites anyway, don't they?

Yet, all you need to get elected is name recognition. Take Bush Jr. getting elected as the governer of Texas for example. What else could it have been? His noteworthy career as an oilman...even though he couldn't find oil in Texas? Or maybe the vast knowledge and experience that comes with owning a baseball team.

Nope...I'm pretty sure it was the name recognition.

It wasn't just name recognition for the Bush leaguer--it was MONEY.

Ronald Reagan was a B-movie actor and did o.k. As a matter of fact, folks like Pat Buchanan would raise a shrine to him if it wasn't a little over the top. Wait--there's that airport...

Ahnold might not be that bad for California. Jesse Ventura didn't destroy Minnesota.

But the Conan I'd rather see in office is Conan O'Brien.

And the scariest thought--and perhaps the subject for another thread--how about Jerry Springer running for the Senate seat for Ohio? I dunno, maybe it would help get some people out to vote who otherwise wouldn't pay attention.

Arnold is from Austria origionally, he's more German then spanish(unless austria's main language is spanish, I'm not sure).

I dunno, I still gotta look more into this. Abortion, thats for the hipocritical Democrats and Liberals, gun Control, not everyones sorce of guns is through wal-mart, it's inaffective, I know ppl who privately sell guns all the time and make their own ammunition, I dunno what you all call gun controll but, private selling of a 12 Ga. or a .22, isn't illegal(or at least not as far as I can see), I'd have to look more into it, but, I am confidnt that I'm going to still find it inaffective. now the Clinton thing, I'm sure Arnold Schwarzenegger has spent his lat 8 years studing all the facts on ever politician to know what he is talking about to go into office as gov...

And gay rights, as I say, if you wanna be gay go ahead be gay, I don't think ppl should be discriminated for their sexuality, so long as they don't discriminate me or someone else for being straight.

Sorry for the confusion. As far as I know Arnold is not Spanish at all. I mentioned the Spanish language being passable here in California because we have a huge hispanic population and had his accent been Spanish we all would understand him alot easier. They sound nothing alike. Guess you'd have to live here to get it.

Spanish is so common here it's probably what the whole argument over making English our official national language is over, but that's just a guess.

However, if his politics were as conservative as you seem to want them to be he would never get elected in such a liberal state as California. What's at issue is that no matter how bad Davis is a Republican still couldn't beat him here last November. The only way for them to get into office is to pull something like this recall...and even then the millions Issa is piling up for the effort is a gamble.

bd123, Why do you insist on calling Democrats "hypocrites"? It doesn't help your arguments.

Gawrsh, a moderate to slightly liberal Republican? The Terminator doesn't like the idea of assault weapons owned by the general populace?

Maybe the guy has a chance.

The Left has been proven hypocrits, every liberal is pretty much the same, shares same exact ideas... lets stick to the topic.

And Assult weapons to the general public, I'm sure wal-mart's going to be selling those anyway. Look, if someone wants assult rifles, there not that hard to find if you know where to look, and they may or may not be legal, I don't care, if someone has $33,000, and they want a Tank, fine let them have a Tank, if someone has $10,000,000 and they want to buy an F-16, let them buy an F-16, if someone has trillions of $, if they want to buy a replica of airforce-one, let them buy a replica of airforce-one.

Please stop with the blanket statements. It makes it extremely difficult for anyone to debate you.

I thought the topic was Arnold not guns. Who's the one not sticking to the topic?

Yep, we were talking about Ah-nold, not guns. Guns came into it as part of the question: "Is he a real Republican?" We know he's pro-gun control because Pat Buchanan said so, but we know none of the details of his position on it. Since Conan the Republican is a pretty sensible level-headed guy (or such is my impression from having seen him interviewed on various talk shows), and one who apparently has ambitions as a Republican politician, it seems unlikely he'd be a radical gun grabber like Chuck Schumer, if only because that'd go over like a depleted uranium zeppelin with Republican voters. Does anyone know what his actual positions on these issues are?

Here's a short interview about politics with Mr. Schwarzenegger:

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Note the following words from his mouth (assuming "Youth Radio" quoted him correctly):

I'm not really sure that Arnold is really a candidate. The recall effort is being more or less spearheaded by Darrell Issa, a conservative Republican Congressman from Orange County, and he would be the front-runner in my opinion. As far as Davis resigning and killing the recall is concerned, there is divided legal opinion on whether that would happen, but I don't frankly see him doing that in any case. I do think he'll be recalled though, he's the most corrupt politician we've had since the days of Willie Brown and it's coming back to haunt him.

So, do you blame the giant deficit in California on Gray Davis being corrupt? What about the energy de-regulation and fraud that stole millions from California? That would be something that Pete Wilson was responsible for putting in place and Enron helped carry out...who was Enron'ns best friend? Who had to be sued to release the documentation on the administrations energy plan and even then wouldn't do it?

We don't need a Republican Governer in this state...if we did we would have elected one last November.

I do believe Arnold will run...the media attention is starting to get serious. I heard him speaking at some kind of political dinner on CSPAN tonight and was not interested enough in what he thought about the issues to try to decipher whatever it was he was saying. He really should speak better English by now.

How someone SPEAKS a language is a poor way to evaluate their competency with it. Writing and comprehension give a better take on how a person can use a language as it bypasses many of the habit-formed tendencies that emerge in speech more than other forms of communication.

Actually, the primary reason in my opinion for the mess in California was that the legislature spent money on worthless programs like crazy when the times were good rather than giving it back to the taxpayers. I'd characterize their spending as 'drunken sailors', but to quote the last really good governor of California, that would 'be an insult to drunken sailors'. Most certainly Davis had a role in that. He also had a role in negotiating the energy contracts as well. He also used a shell game to hide the budget crisis prior to last year's election. Face it, Danya, he's a really bad governor and he's not going to get any better. The fact that he was re-elected instead of Bill Simon is more a reflection of the totally inept campaign run by Simon than by anything good Davis has done.

Personally, from a purely political standpoint, I would prefer that Davis stay in office and remain a good whipping boy in preparation for the next governor's election, but I'm not sure if California can survive that. My ultimate candidate would not be Arnold or Issa though. The one I'd really like to see run for governor is Dr. Condeleeza Rice. She would make a fabulous governor!

You're right of course. I'm usually not like that about accent's either. His just bothers me because he's been here so long and you would think he would speak better English by now. He's just hard to understand.

I don't much care for Davis myself but I am afraid things would only be worse if we had a Republican in office. My specific reason is that it appears the idea is for them to choke funds to get rid of the social programs they don't like in the federal government and I'm afraid that would carry over to state government as well. Our schools are in major trouble...we don't need someone trying to destroy them further so they can push their voucher agenda in that way.

We have a huge unemployment problem...cutting back any social programs right now would cause a lot of people to suffer.

One of the problems in the energy crisis was that while the retail side of energy was deregulated, the wholesale side was not. They also forbode power companies from signing long term fixed price contracts to buy power (read cheaper, non-volatile). This forced the power companies to buy their power on the spot market, where prices are outrageously high. Now I am not dismissing Enron, they manipulated the situation in their favor and made millions at the expense of the consumers in CA. But you need to take into account some of the stupid regulations that only added fuel to the fire.

As far as Davis is concerned, I really do not know too much about him. I do know that you do not fix an ailing economy by hammering the people who are actually employed with more and more taxes. CA was affected severly by the bust after the tech boom, during which the gov't more than likely was giddy with the prospect of all the $$$ rolling in. Now that the revenue source has fizzled, there is not enough cash to go around to keep all the programs above water.

Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the real life Terminators who kill innocent children.

Are you referring to his pro-choice position?

That is one issue. Do you base all of your support on whether the candidate is for or against abortion?

If you do, I respect your position. However, while I am also pro-life, I personally prefer to look at positions on many issues to determine what kind of leader the candidate is going to be for all of the population.

This is not very constructive. It also is inflammatory if you are not willing to back that up. Please check out the Rules before posting again, please.

Someone from the future needs to reprogram Arnold Schwarzenegger and send him back in time to the present, so he can help us fight the Terminators instead of helping them to kill innocent children.

Paladin Elspeth,

This is the story of Arnold Schwarzenegger's run for governor:

A chronic boob-fondler gains the support of women because he supports killing children.

This is the present-day irony of American politics.

Jaime,

Please understand that what I have said about Arnold Schwarzenegger's support for the Terminators is already backed up by the candidate's well-known position on killing innocent children, as discussed in Mr. Buchanan's story.

The first two quotes are from bd123:


But wait a minute! Don't republicans WORSHIP capitalism?! WTF?! By your reasoning then, all Republicans are corrupt!!!!!!



Prove it.

freechildren,

I don't know whether Governor Gray Davis is a "boob fondler," but I believe he is pro-choice (anti-life if you will) as well.

Based on your criticism of Ah-nold, who would be a suitable candidate in your view?

Would you want to see Gray Davis retained as Governor?

Paladin Elspeth,

The difference is that at least Grey Davis does not pretend to be a Republican.

How would you like it if a defense attorney who completely agrees with all the nonsense the prosecutor is talking sits down at your table to represent you? You tell him, "But you completely support the railroading I'm being given in contempt of my rights!"

And Schwarzenegger replies, "I know, but at least I'm a Republican."

And thus we see the problem the Republican party has in California. Dick Riordan would be governor now, he would have easily beat Gray Davis, but no, the Republican party didn't think he was 'Republican enough" for them and instead chose Bill Simon who ran what had to be the most horrible political campaign in history. Michael Huffington would have been a Senator instead of Diane Feinstein, except he dared to run against the "selected" candidate, William Dannemeyer, who didn't have a chance at winning at all, it was a "gold watch" from the California GOP. So, when Huffington beat him in the primary, the GOP sat out the election.

Now we come to a re-call election where there never should have been a Governor Davis in office to recall at all, and what does the GOP do here? We start self-destructing. I don't know that I like Arnold as a governor, haven't heard a lot about his political positions, but at this point, I'd take darn near anyone over Davis. Heck, if Jerry Brown wanted the job, I'd take him over the guy that's in there now. Jerry was a goofball, but he was no where near as corrupt as Davis is.\

Trying to stay on topic here, but I gotta tell you, the California Republican Party is a real mess right now. I doubt we could win a statewide election against Charles Manson at this point.

I have say I agree with Aquila here. You know there is such a thing as standing too firm on principle, so firm you can't win an election. Speaking as a long time Libertarian Party member (since 1972), let me tell you that's something we Libertarians know a lot about!

But for us that's ok because it isn't our mission to win elections, it's to spread libertarian thought and we've been successful to a degree in that. Republicans are part of the two party system, and it IS their mission to win elections, and even if necessary to compromise some principles to do so. Not all of their principles, you have to at least have enough left to be better than the other guys after you win, but if some compromise is required to win in a pretty liberal state, which California has become, then you gotta do it. You gotta run more centrist candidates in a state like that if ya wanna win! Hardcore in-your-face conservatives like "B-1 Bob" Dornan can still win in some districts (yeah, I know he lost but it was a squeaker), but not in the state as a whole.

Well, I think Simon could have won last time against Davis even though he was too conservative for the the state, if only because Davis was so weak, IF he hadn't had a scandal and on top of it run a totally inept campaign. That was just sad.

You didn't answer my question, freechildren. Who would you like to see as the gubernatorial candidate for California?

It really doesn't matter to me--I live in Michigan and I'm as happy as I can be with our governor!

Paladin Elspeth,

I'm afraid you have me stumped.

America is just not producing leaders with courage.

Aquilla, Izdaari,

Simon lost because his view on abortion was based on inaction (no 'litmus test') and so people knew it was only going to make them feel guiltier, without actually doing anything to help the children. So they figured, "Why bother with Simon?"

The reason why Republicans against abortion have been losing political races is because instead of coming across as defenders of children, they come across as "righteousness without courage".

People see through.

Freechildren, welcome to the debate!

Abortion is not the only Republican issue. You can certainly be a Republican and be pro-choice. (it is rare, but it could happen). I think it is disingenuous to disqualify a candidate based upon his stance on ONE issue.

Not if you could broaden that and say something like "Arnold has socialist tendencies" or "Arnold wants to raise everyone's taxes" THEN I could agree that he is a Republican in name only.

Besides, abortion is no longer a state issue. It is a federal issue. And since Arnold won't be on the Supreme Court bench anytime soon, his position on abortion is largely (and sadly in the mind of States' rights people like myself) irrelevant.

amlord,

American actors live in a world of fantasy. People like Arnold Schwarzenegger think "choice" means pushing a button on the woman's belly that sends the stork back to the cabbage patch with the baby. They think the "debate" is that some people think you should never push that button, because you should always be overjoyed to learn that "the stork is on its way". But Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks women should have the choice because not all of them will be overjoyed. Like so many Americans, he does not realize that there can be no choice because there really is no magic button to press.

Instead, it means killing the baby.

In our society, teaching people the truth about the stork is not permitted. It would be like the news telling children, "Santa Claus is your parents." Instead, anyone who tries to explain that the magic button does not exist will be taken off the air. People do not want to face the facts.

The Republican party wants Arnold Schwarzenegger because he is a popular actor. Conservatives in this country have many fantasies to live and they dote on the popularity that comes with actors like Ronald Reagan, Charleton Heston, and Arnold Schrwarzenegger. Facing the truth that the stork is not taking the baby back to the cabbage patch is simply not on the Republican agenda. They want a fantasy.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is proof of that.

An extreme pro-life position would need a miracle to get elected governor in this state, at least for the time being. And don't try to transfer any of your own guilt onto others. Have you considered many people don't share your religion or care about your personal theories on the exact moment life begins or that you have no right passing judgment on strangers you've never met? If you are against abortion don't have one. Simple as that. Now please stop preaching to the rest of us about things that are none of your business because frankly, you're beginning to sound like a raving fanatic. There are threads dedicated to abortion and this isn't one of them.

If the Republican's want the office they are forced to try and take it by overturning the decision of state voters last November. We knew back then how bad the deficit was and how bad things were financially but given the choice it was still better than voting Republican.

Because of name recognition and the whole Reagan history of being a California governor and going on to be President I believe Arnold has a shot at winning. If Rice actually wanted to run she might also get elected. I don't see any other Republican possibility...certainly none without the same level of name recognition even stand a chance.

I think it is. Arnold's welll educated in economics seen here:

Schwarzenegger, Arnold Biography



So he has great potential as a Governor.

Also, his chance may be coming after this Poll describing that a majority back the recall of Davis.


freechildren Posted on Jul 4 2003, 11:00 AM



That doesn't mean he can't be an effecient Govenor!

The ability to recall a state official has been the law in California since 1911, this is hardly something new.

California recall law

And, this isn't the first time it's been attempted......

A little California History



From that article......


This time, it's probably going to succeed. Certainly a recall election is going to be held, they have the signatures, and right now with the polls in California, I don't see Gray Davis surviving it. Face it, Danya, he's a horrible governor.

My personal choice for a replacement would be either Riordan, who thus far isn't running, or Darrell Issa. I'm not thrilled with Arnold since he really hasn't said anything about what he would do as governor. We hit the motherlode once with a movie star, but I know Ronald Reagan and Arnold ain't no Reagan.

I would have to agree that Davis be recalled because he lied the voters about the numbers in the State Budget.

In this case, this would be a Governor version of an impeachment, but with less harsh punishment. Specifically, the punishment is not being able to serve as governor any more

go,
The voters already knew how bad the budget was.

Aquilla,
Thanks for your post. I recall hearing that the only recalls done in this state before this one were all Republican's trying to unseat Democrat's so you have helped to erase that misconception for me. I didn't realize Reagan was one of them.

Obviously not or they would have not believed what Davis told them

GA you have to remember that Davis was running against a businessman in the middle of a business scandal. I think None-of-the-above might have run well.

The frightening thing to me about the CA recall system is that it seems to be ill-designed.

If I am interpreting it right, if the recall goes through, then only the people voting for the recall have a say in the new governor and that it is the person who gets the most votes from the people voting for recall.

If I am reading that right, then it really seems like a poor system of replacing a recalled official.

Do you have any links saying this? It was my understanding there would be a seperate election. I haven't checked though. But that would be completely unfair to only allow those that signed a petition to then make the decision about who the next Governer get's to be.

Edited to add what I learned on the local news a few minutes ago:

Polls show Davis has a 51% disapproval rate and 42% approval with the rest undecided.

Polls show only 22% of Californians inclined to vote for Arnold. Feinstein was the leading contender although they failed to say by what margin.

Polls also show that with the recall and new election costing $25 Million most said they would rather scrap the whole thing.

Hmmm... Have to research this a little more, but my understanding is that it will be a two part ballot in a single election. First part a yes or no on the recall, and the second part would be who to replace Davis, he can't run as his own replacement. If the first question concerning the recall passes in the affirmative, then the highest total of votes in the second part is the winner.

I'm frankly not real thrilled with this if I understand it correctly because theoretically it could mean that 51% want to recall Davis, 49% don't, and oh, say 30% prefer Issa. That would make Issa the winner with 30% of the vote even though 49% of the people preferred to keep Davis in office.

Like I said, I'll have to research it more, but if my understanding is correct, the law is flawed. It seems to me that one should be required to obtain more votes than the number cast opposing the recall to become governor.

I believe that in a Recall Election, a canidate who wants to go for it, has to put up some money and get signatures

Danya,

Why would you call me a raving lunatic for demanding a political candidate with the courage to defend children? That doesn't seem right.

goamerica,

Efficient? You think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be an "efficient" governor?

Despite his support for killing innocent children?

"Efficient" is how the Nazis described their goverment. More children die each day in America at the hands of terror doctors than all the people who died in the 9/11 attack. These are the real life Terminators that Arnold Schwarzenegger supports. They focus on innocent little children who need our help. "Efficient killing machines" is what he calls the Terminators in the movies.


There is no rational validity in the proposition that the use of force must be ruled out in the defense of children.

Danya didn't call you a raving lunatic, but rather mentioned you might begin sounding like a raving fanatic. You're focusing on only one issue of Schwarzenegger's political stance. Not only that, but it's an issue that, if elected, he would have no power to change regardless of whether he was "pro-life." As amlord mentioned earlier, abortion is no longer a state issue but a federal one.

Goamerica's suggestion that Arnold could still be an efficient governor seems to stem from the fact that there are other issues that he would actually have the authority to act on if elected governor. Ignoring the fact that Arnold could not repeal abortion rights if he wanted to, and that there are numerous other issues a Governor must actually face, is not a very sound argument against Schwarzenegger or any other "pro-choice" candidate who may consider running.

If all you want to do is complain about abortion or dish out propaganda, I might suggest you do it in another thread. While it may not be any more appreciated than it was here, you might try THIS THREAD for future complaints/arguments about abortion.