Join 3,440 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Arghnold is laughing at you!
August 8, 2003 7:14 AM   Subscribe

Arghnold is laughing at you! Apparently Californians will not be trifled with.
posted by dreamsbay (49 comments total)

 
I'm disgusted by the recall process so I'll... profit from it.
posted by Frank Grimes at 8:02 AM on August 8, 2003


CAOCF ? ( Californians Against Opportunistic Celebrity Fuckwads )
posted by troutfishing at 8:03 AM on August 8, 2003


Democracy now! Power to the people!

Wait a minute, you don't all agree with my viewpoint?

Minority rights! Civil liberties!

If Gray Davis is a terrible governor, and California allows recalls of governors if conditions are sufficiently met, and someone meets those conditions, why is a gubernatorial recall such a travesty, other than the fact that a moderate Republican celebrity might win it?
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:10 AM on August 8, 2003


They should just be glad that foreign born people can't be President.
posted by machaus at 8:23 AM on August 8, 2003


It was all worth it, just to hear Issa crying on the radio yesterday....
"It had nothing to do with Schwarzenegger's decision, other than I needed to know that there would be several strong candidates," Issa said.
no, wait, he really meant to say:
'I spent almost 2 million dollars to buy the governor's mansion and now some foreigner is going to steal it from me'.
posted by m@ at 8:24 AM on August 8, 2003


why is a gubernatorial recall such a travesty

I don't think it is, necessarily. It becomes a little more slimy when you consider the way that 1 rich Republican spent millions of his own money to ram it through. And it sucks that it will cost CA $30 million it doesn't have. And it has turned into a bit of circus. But you're right, it's state law and democracy in action. For whatever that's worth when everyone involved is a shitbag.
posted by scarabic at 8:27 AM on August 8, 2003


I'd vote for Gary Coleman. ;)
posted by dabitch at 8:37 AM on August 8, 2003


I spent $1.7 million to attack democracy and all I got was this stupid t-shirt.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:41 AM on August 8, 2003


Typing "arnold" into Google now will get you a sponsored link: "Vote For Arnold T-Shirts".

I, for one, plan to vote for Arnold *Jackson*.
posted by Slothrup at 8:42 AM on August 8, 2003


Is that shirt supposed to look like Schwartzenegger? Weak.
posted by tomplus2 at 8:52 AM on August 8, 2003


If Gray Davis is a terrible governor, and California allows recalls of governors if conditions are sufficiently met, and someone meets those conditions, why is a gubernatorial recall such a travesty, other than the fact that a moderate Republican celebrity might win it?

As I understand it the only requirement is signatures on a recall petition. No crime, no malfeasance, just a million or so signatures (gathered by professionals at $1 per signature) and you've got a recall.

Anyone with enough money, can pay for the signatures and get a recall. If Arnold is elected, a new recall process could start right away. Government shouldn't be a pissing contest.

Now for a little perspective. Gray Davis is by far the worst governor I haved seen since I've lived in CA (14 years). He does seem a little smarmy. The two main issues that have him in such disfavor are the state economy and the energy crisis. During the energy crisis Davis asked for help from the federal government and was denied. We had made our beds and had to lie in them. Now we know that Enron, who may have helped shape national energy policy, (I would love for Cheney to prove me wrong and release the information) was manipulating the energy market. There was more than just Enron but during the crisis Bush was still referring to his old friend as "Kenny Boy".

As for the state economy, what makes anyone believe that Arnold has the answers to the state's problems? Did you follow the California budget process this summer? Both parties are pitiful! Is Arnold a uniter or a divider?

Stop the insanity!!!
posted by whatever at 9:02 AM on August 8, 2003


Is that shirt supposed to look like Schwartzenegger? Weak.

tomplus2, I think this representation of Arnold is likely modeled after the Obey Giant campaign.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:19 AM on August 8, 2003


If the people want bread & circuses, the people shall have bread & circuses.
posted by rushmc at 9:20 AM on August 8, 2003


Let them eat beefcake.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 9:27 AM on August 8, 2003


If Gray Davis is a terrible governor, and California allows recalls of governors if conditions are sufficiently met, and someone meets those conditions, why is a gubernatorial recall such a travesty, other than the fact that a moderate Republican celebrity might win it?

California, home of the Parliamentary system. What is the point of having scheduled elections in California anymore if a tiny fraction of the people can just call a new one every year?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:28 AM on August 8, 2003


> Is that shirt supposed to look like Schwartzenegger? Weak.

If I had just seen somebody wearing the shirt without knowing what it was about, I wouldn't have had any idea who the picture was supposed to be. It could just as well be a close-up of John Foster Dulles having a kidney-stone attack.
posted by jfuller at 9:43 AM on August 8, 2003


One thing that bugs me is the 'No Political Experience' jibe. What the hell does that mean ? Does it really take years of training to be able to represent peoples views ? Or does 'Political Experience' just mean that your initial ideals have been destroyed and you've learnt to play nice with all the other little cogs ?

Arnie will win this, I have no idea if that is a good or a bad thing and only time will tell.
posted by zeoslap at 9:50 AM on August 8, 2003


I think this representation of Arnold is likely modeled after the Obey Giant campaign.

And then there was the Obey Moron campaign at the outset of the war.
posted by squirrel at 9:56 AM on August 8, 2003


... just a million or so signatures (gathered by professionals at $1 per signature) and you've got a recall. Anyone with enough money, can pay for the signatures and get a recall.

Well, not if a million people won't sign the petition. Or are these "professionals" in the mob sense -- "Sign this petition or you sleep with the fishes?"
posted by kindall at 9:59 AM on August 8, 2003



why is a gubernatorial recall such a travesty, other than the fact that a moderate Republican celebrity might win it?


The only thing that pisses me off about this is that they specifically timed it so we'll have to have a special election, because they know voter turnout will low. If vote were delayed until the next election cycle, I would have no problem it.
posted by electro at 10:02 AM on August 8, 2003


People of California! New Yorkers are laughing at you!
posted by Soliloquy at 10:11 AM on August 8, 2003


Another POV concerning California's unfettered democractic recall process.
posted by linux at 10:29 AM on August 8, 2003


Californians will not be trifled with.

Whaddya mean? I thought that is why California existed in the first place. After all the crap Arizona has taken for it's Governors it's good to see another state step up to the spotlight.
posted by geist at 10:44 AM on August 8, 2003


why is a gubernatorial recall such a travesty?

I think you answered your own question: a moderate Republican celebrity might win it.

If this was GOP Governor being recalled, this would be Triumph for Democracy.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:49 AM on August 8, 2003


Those rules encourage multiple candidates to run, in hopes of winning with a small slice of the vote. Slice representation, great, do you get to pick the pie too. Lemon Mirange on the ballot yet?
posted by thomcatspike at 10:50 AM on August 8, 2003


The great thing is that the Governor will change and California will still be totally screwed - in fact, screwed even more since the state will have had to spend that $30 million on the recall. Where is the money coming from? Not the Feds and, if state tax cuts are introduced, not for the state either.

So, California - which can you live without: roads, schools or emergency services. Choose two.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:14 AM on August 8, 2003


People of California! New Yorkers are laughing at you!

Oh, yes, I've heard of New York. Isn't that one of those smallish states on the east coast? I think the days of Californians caring what New Yorkers think of them are over. If, in fact, they ever cared in the first place.

Go Larry!
posted by mrhappy at 11:16 AM on August 8, 2003


"It had nothing to do with Schwarzenegger's decision, other than I needed to know that there would be several strong candidates," Issa said.

Yeah, it's as if a clown suddenly decided that circuses were beneath his dignity, and that running in his big floppy shoes would be too embarrassing.


Go Larry!
Hell, why not? He's a far more successful businessman than Bush ever was.
posted by trondant at 11:34 AM on August 8, 2003


I'm disgusted by the recall process so I'll... profit from it.

I note he's only charging $1 over the cafepress base price, which isn't exactly gouging.

As for Arnold, would he have known how to avoid California's fiscal crisis? Would he have anticipated the effects of energy deregulation and headed it off at the pass? Yes, Gray Davis and the CA legislature screwed up royally, there's no question about that. But what in the name of fuck would make anybody think that somebody like Arnold would have done better? The people who were supposedly capable of understanding the issues blew it. So the answer is to replace them with someone who isn't?
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:39 AM on August 8, 2003


Steve, please give the "poor little Republican victim" bullshit a rest. The nation has "triumphs for democracy" already. They're called "elections." Perhaps you've heard of them.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:42 AM on August 8, 2003


I will as soon as you give the rest of the "bullshit" a rest.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:58 AM on August 8, 2003


If this was GOP Governor being recalled, this would be Triumph for Democracy.

well, the difference is that millionaire Democrats seldom try to subvert a regular (i.e., no judicial 5-4 vote needed to get in the governor's mansion) election's result using a little-known provision

also, millionaire Democrats seldom try to hound a Republican President out of office with smear campaigns. you wonder what they do with their free time

but I agree that seeing -- for a change -- a not-anti-choice, not-anti-gay Republican in charge could do wonders for the party's Bush/Cheney/Lott/Ashcroft/Scalia GodHatesFags reputation. of course Arnie's got a little Nazi problem, but what can you do. instead of a Triumph of Democracy, you'll get a Triumph of the Will

Steve, please give the "poor little Republican victim" bullshit a rest
Nah, his guys own the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, of course he's feeling besieged.
It's a great RNC tactic, great for rallying the troops


in other news, a new cost-cutting, Welfare-reforming Christian political star is born, in Europe of all places:

A young German politician has sparked outrage by saying elderly people should not burden the creaking health care system by getting hip replacements.
"In the past, people used to walk on crutches," said Philipp Missfelder, 23, the head of the conservative Christian Democratic Union party's youth organisation.

posted by matteo at 12:07 PM on August 8, 2003


Gosh, that's clarification, Steve. You know, it's not my fault that between this recall debacle, the 2000 election, and the attempted legislative coup in Texas that it just happens to always be Republicans heading these creative ploys to exploit and subvert the normal flow of elections. It would be just as easy for me to say that you only seem to not find a problem with any of it for the same petty, baseless reason you're presenting. But instead, I'm choosing to actually justify my position instead of accusing the rest of the site of ignorant partisanship. Besides, you overwhelmingly supported the equal legislative attempts to investigate Bush's lying about the war and subsequent crippling of the budget, didn't you? Because, you know, you're certainly not a complete hypocrite or anything.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:17 PM on August 8, 2003


People of California! New Yorkers are laughing at you!
When Clinton was leaving office remember hearing: He'll move to Hollywood to make pictures. If rumor was true, now wonder if he would have ran in this election. Thing that get me too, ever been to Sacramento, it's quite when compared to the other major cities of the state. Wonder how popular any actor is up in Northern Cali.?

Texas that it just happens to always be Republicans
First time was Democrats where do you think they base their ideas. Heard it well; Republicans defend by History.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:26 PM on August 8, 2003


attempted legislative coup in Texas
posted by thomcatspike at 12:28 PM on August 8, 2003


This thread is going to heck in a handcart, but quick. Please consider using punctuation in your next post, thomcatspike. Also consider a verb. Don't forget the impeachment, XQUZYPHER.
posted by squirrel at 12:51 PM on August 8, 2003


machaus wrote:
They should just be glad that foreign born people can't be President.

JS: "Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?"

LH: "Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor ?"

JS: "Stop! He was President?"

LH: "Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment...

JS: "I don't want to know."
posted by joquarky at 1:03 PM on August 8, 2003


Don't forget the Nixon Administration too, squirrel!

his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment

"You know the one right after 'no flag burning', the elimination of religious rights for non-Christians, and the lifting of all wiretapping restrictions"
posted by Pollomacho at 1:07 PM on August 8, 2003


matteo:
election's result using a little-known provision

The Recall/Referendum/Initiative provision placed in the California state constitution in 1911 by the Progressives is hardly 'little-known' California is constantly having referendums and initiatives. And a recall attempt has been started on every elected California governor since the provision went in to effect. This is just the first successful one.

millionaire Democrats seldom try to hound a Republican President out of office with smear campaigns.

I think you need to buy yourself a history book, my friend. Neither party has a 'clean' record at playing dirty politics. That not withstanding, this recall has nothing to do with Clinton, as I assume you are alluding to.

XQUZYPHYR:
between this recall debacle, the 2000 election, and the attempted legislative coup in Texas that it just happens to always be Republicans heading these creative ploys to exploit and subvert the normal flow of elections.

Well lets start with the 2000 election. Even though many of you can not wrap your clouded partisan minds around that fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has ultimate jurisdiction, and that ignoring that, every full recount done after the fact, even the way Gore wanted them done, still found Bush the victor. Simply repeating this bullshit that the 2000 election was 'stolen' over and over and over and over again does not make it true. It simply shows that you can not deal with reality.

As for the so-called "attempted legislative coup in Texas" this too is bullshit. Both political parties gerrymander in their favor when they have control. The Dems did it in 1990-91 when they had control of the Texas Legislative. When the 2000 census happened the court "redistricted" based on the 1990-91 Democrat plan. But since the Republicans had retaken the majority, they wanted to redistrict in their favor. The GOP controls a majority in both bodies of the legislative, as well as every major statewide seat. Nearly 60% of all votes cast in Texas were for GOP candidates. The only reason that Democrats have a majority of Congressional seats is due to their gerrymander 12 years ago.

So basically you have nothing. Just Bullshit.

It can never ever been that people are unhappy with Democrats, or that they don't like their ideas, or that they are fed up with them.... NO NO it is always that the Republicans tricked and cheated. It is just INCONCEIVABLE to you people that given the choice between a Republican and Democrat, that someone might actually choose a Republican of their own free will. You are so blinded by your ideology that you can't believe that anyone would disagree with you. And if they do disagree... well then you demonize them: they are stupid and simple minded, or they are rednecks, or racists, etc, etc, etc.

There are no elections that are being subverted. Your side is just losing.

You know there are some political analysts that are predicting that the next 10-15 years maybe as bad for the Democrats as the 1930's were for the GOP. While I am not so inclined to see the future so rosy, my advise you all of you is to start learning to deal with reality. If you don't, I fear quite a few of you may have an aneurysm in your near future.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:13 PM on August 8, 2003


There are no elections that are being subverted. Your side is just losing.

Ah, right. Female suffrage, black suffrage, Roe vs. Wade, the recent striking down of the gay/sodomy laws.

Republicans are in office due to a backlash, first to Bill Clinton's personal life, and then from September 11. The culture of America is Democrat, the majority is moving forward.

Republican chicanery will last for a hyperventilating spurt, and then pass away into the fringes.

The United States does not want another 1973. The United States does not want another 1985.

Lastly, the Bush Family (with wealth built primarily on war and government deficit) is a cancer upon the true values of America. They too shall pass.
posted by the fire you left me at 1:59 PM on August 8, 2003


Even though many of you can not wrap your clouded partisan minds around that fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has ultimate jurisdiction, and that ignoring that, every full recount done after the fact, even the way Gore wanted them done, still found Bush the victor. Simply repeating this bullshit that the 2000 election was 'stolen' over and over and over and over again does not make it true. It simply shows that you can not deal with reality.

Except, of course, for all those, you know, newspapers and stuff. Yeah, the ones that noted how Gore won, or at the very least potentially won, the election. So you're either lying or... yeah, you're lying. It's just fun to say "Bush won, get over it" because it sounds like closure, hmm?

It can never ever been that people are unhappy with Democrats, or that they don't like their ideas, or that they are fed up with them.... NO NO it is always that the Republicans tricked and cheated. It is just INCONCEIVABLE to you people that given the choice between a Republican and Democrat, that someone might actually choose a Republican of their own free will.

I see. Because, as you know, the petitions on the recall drive specifically indicated that the voters of California didn't just want to remove Gray Davis, but had to have a Repubican. Suddenly, one man equals an entire party. Gosh, we never heard that during impeachment.

I didn't say with the recall the Republicans tricked and cheated. I said they subverted the election: that's what realizing it costs a lot less money to have a recall drive than run a campaign during an actual election year is. You noted yourself that this is something attempted with every administration: so your argument is that the people of California really hated Democrats this time, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with a two million dollar conservative-backed signature drive?

All of that, of course, is nothing compared to your masterpiece of duplicity in this thread, though.

As for the so-called "attempted legislative coup in Texas" this too is bullshit. Both political parties gerrymander in their favor when they have control. The Dems did it in 1990-91 when they had control of the Texas Legislative.

So... your original argument, one with you fill in your last comment with little bits of partisan ejaculate about how we're all "blinded by ideology" and "can't deal with reality-" your argument that we're only compaining about what horrible thing the Republicans are doing- is to suggest that, in an earlier time other different circumstances, Democrats did something like it?

How dare us! It's horrible that we're all exposing our partisanship by caring only about this perfectly honest and normal action by the Republicans because they're Republicans... but LOOK, those Democrats did this suddenl;y horrible, reprehensible act too! Sort of! That's amazing, Steve! You actually lied to yourself in your own comments! Bravo!

Forget telling me to buy a history book, honey, you need to remember your own last comment: you don't make any form of a credible case by attacking someone on the basis that they're being partisan and then justify your holier-than-though rhetoric by finding partisan excuses for another's actions.

Claiming that Democrats did something to justify what you're saying is nothing wrong on behalf of the Repubicans is a clever way of pretending that what they're doing isn't wrong. You've once again failed to justify anything the right-wing backers of the recall are doing, hidden behind the claim that everyone else is being partisan, and satisfied yourself by claiming the mentality we all explained to you we don't have will be our undoing. All in all a good piece of drivel. You still haven't said anything supporting your case except telling me what mine is.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:03 PM on August 8, 2003


>It becomes a little more slimy when you consider the way that 1 rich Republican spent millions of his own money to ram it through.

So now we have a SUPER-rich republican possibly taking the state because another not-so- rich republican started an astroturf campaign. People should be against the recall on principle alone. Worse, we have Arnold talking about power to the people and democracy. Hmm, why didn't he run during the regular election. Oh right, the opportunism and hypocrisy.

Blah to this mess I say! Americans should be careful about who they elect into high office. I remember another Republican about three years ago who had a lot of name recognition too, described himself as some kind of uniter and moderate, pro-business, also had lots of money to spend, and won his seat through questionable means. Hmm... that worked out well didn't it?

I've consolidated my complains about the recall and especially Arnold here for those who are interested (a lot is mefi rehashing from my earlier posts.)
posted by skallas at 2:28 PM on August 8, 2003


Skallas, I am against the recall on principle alone. I didn't start making accusations that I only hate it because a Republican will likely win. A Republican is likely to win the 2004 presidential election; that doesn't mean I oppose having it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:43 PM on August 8, 2003


>I didn't start making accusations that I only hate it because a Republican will likely win.

Hmm, I didnt mean for that post to be read that way. My apologies if it came off like that.
posted by skallas at 2:47 PM on August 8, 2003


You weren't implying that part; I was referring to your claim that people aren't objecting to this farce on the grounds that it's a farce alone.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:55 PM on August 8, 2003


Except, of course, for all those, you know, newspapers and stuff. Yeah, the ones that noted how Gore won, or at the very least potentially won, the election.
For those on the west coast, some thought not to vote because it did not matter, Florida had won they were told 3 hours before the polls closed. Thus their vote not counting now, but they should have voted regardless, nitwits. There is always two sides. The argument should be present for the future.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:19 PM on August 8, 2003


Roe vs. Wade, the recent striking down of the gay/sodomy laws

Judicial Activism...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:41 PM on August 8, 2003


Neither party has a 'clean' record at playing dirty politics.

of course not. but your side has got the meanest, richest, most ruthless and most military-style smear organization -- and you still haven't given us an example of the Democrat equivalent of the nice anti-Clinton, Richard Mellon Scaife-funded, David Sentelle-lead *, Special Prosecutor witch-hunt of the '90s.
Since you're such a history buff, please name a Democrat millionaire who recently spent millions of tax-free money to smear a sitting Republican President (btw if you're thinking Watergate, well, the WP reporting didn't really look like a smear to me, judging at least by the White House tapes and the amount of convictions).
Willie Horton, anybody? (and don't even try to sell the by-now widely debunked Gore-Horton connection, and I quote here from Slate: Gore never mentioned that Horton was black; indeed, he never mentioned Horton by name. He merely drew attention, correctly, to the damaging fact that Dukakis had tolerated a furlough program for especially violent criminals in his state even after a horrific incident strongly suggested this was a bad policy)


Hell, your buddies even eat their own -- how did you like, as a staunch supporter of the US military that polite chickenhawkish Bush Campaign smear of McCain in the Primaries, you know the "he's nuts", "he has fathered an illegitimate black daughter" business. I mean, McCain is a good guy even for the majority of those damn treasonous Democrats, how can you smear him like that? Sheesh.


If you don't, I fear quite a few of you may have an aneurysm in your near future.

You're very kind to worry about your opponents health. But it's weird to hear a Republican talking about the opposition being rabid, you know. I mean, the late Lee Atwater wrote the playbook, didn't he?


I think you need to buy yourself a history book, my friend.

Always, Steve: you're really kind to mention that: please check out my Amazon Wishlist, I'll be very happy to receive a gift from you. Also, you can contact me by e-mail if you want to borrow something from my library (not the first editions, tho, sorry!). Please feel free to do that, even if I'm afraid that the majority of my books for Ancient History are in Latin and Greek and German (can't really live without Werner Jaeger, and most of the Plutarch and Sallustius translated editions I've checked out left something to be desired, not to mention that the Loeb Classic Library jewels were way too expensive for me), and the Middle Ages stuff is mostly in French and German. I'd say Italian and French for the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century history books, but the English language shelves are reasonably well stocked, too, especially for Contemporary History and Current Affairs


* This changed dramatically after Clinton's election. In 1994, Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- the outspoken conservative and former Nixon solicitor general who was given the court's top seat by Reagan -- named Judge David Sentelle as chair of the Special Division. Last year, Rehnquist reappointed Sentelle, who's a crony of North Carolina's far right-wing Sens. Jesse Helms and Launch Faircloth, despite the fact that Sentelle was widely criticized for his apparent conflict of interest. The Sentelle panel had appointed Starr just after Sentelle lunched with Faircloth, who'd long been calling for the head of Starr's predecessor as Whitewater independent counsel, Republican Robert Fiske.


posted by matteo at 3:42 PM on August 8, 2003


As for the so-called "attempted legislative coup in Texas" this too is bullshit. Both political parties gerrymander in their favor when they have control. The Dems did it in 1990-91 when they had control of the Texas Legislative. When the 2000 census happened the court "redistricted" based on the 1990-91 Democrat plan. But since the Republicans had retaken the majority, they wanted to redistrict in their favor.

This is completely untrue. Almost all redistricting is done early in the decade after population data from the decennial U.S. census comes in. According to Talking Points Memo (scroll down):

mid-decade redistricting -- absent a voting rights lawsuit -- has been virtually unprecedented for the last century and entirely unprecedented since the mid-1950s, in Texas and every other state in the union. You might even call the bar on such gerrymanderly double-dipping part of the "routine course of politics and governing."
posted by jonp72 at 7:50 PM on August 9, 2003


« Older Michael Johnston, a strong voice of the ex-gay mov...  |  Mammoths (Mammuthus) have been... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments