shape
carat
color
clarity

Arnold for Governor!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
You know, it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Plus, you know me & polls. The margin of error is just too great to be an accurate predictor in real life.

But, again, only time will tell.

I do sincerely hope that someone can straighten out what appears to be a big 'ol mess.
 
Ah well, 6 women came out today and accused Arnold of being a "serial groper"

But, in Cali, that prolly won't count for much. Besides, he's not a Dem.

win
 
Orlybear that was funny.
loopy.gif
 
Fire and Ice I would also blame the econimic crises more on the end of the dot com explosian than on Davis being in office.
As a native of San Francisco it was weird to see all that money come and go with the dot commers.
 


----------------
On 10/2/2003 9:02:41 AM winyan wrote:





Ah well, 6 women came out today and accused Arnold of being a 'serial groper'

But, in Cali, that prolly won't count for much. Besides, he's not a Dem.

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

They didn't "come out," the LA Times went to them. I normally like the Times but the timing of this really smells. The article says it was the result of a seven-week investigation--couldn't they have published a progress report instead of holding everything until 6 days before the election?



But you're right that it probably won't amount to much. It didn't prevent Clinton from winning California twice, easily. And like Clinton, this isn't exactly new; the rumors have been circulating for several years.
 
Sorry, LG for the imprecision of the quote, actually I heard it on the radio this a.m. while commuting to work. I guess the radio was going for brevity.

win
 
LawGem wrote:

"They didn't 'come out,' the LA Times went to them. I normally like the Times but the timing of this really smells. The article says it was the result of a seven-week investigation--couldn't they have published a progress report instead of holding everything until 6 days before the election?"

Well...the report was true. So now what do you say? Read Arnold's own words and weep!

From "The New York Times":

October 3, 2003
Sexual Accusations Prompt an Apology by Schwarzenegger
By CHARLIE LeDUFF and DEAN E. MURPHY

SAN DIEGO, Oct. 2 — Faced with new accusations of sexual misconduct, Arnold Schwarzenegger acknowledged on Thursday that "wherever there is smoke there is fire" and apologized for having "behaved badly sometimes" toward women.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, who has been surging in the polls in California's recall election, issued the apology here at the beginning of a statewide bus tour. The six-bus tour, with international news crews in tow, is part of the actor's final push to replace Gov. Gray Davis.

Mr. Schwarzenegger made his apology first thing on what swiftly turned into the most tumultuous day of his brief campaign. In the afternoon he was facing questions about a 1997 book proposal that quoted him saying in 1975 that he had admired Hitler. In an interview, he said he didn't remember the comment and said he despised "anything that Hitler stands for."

His statements on Thursday were the first during the extraordinary recall campaign in which Mr. Schwarzenegger expressed remorse for sexual indiscretions, having previously played down accusations of groping and mistreatment of women as exaggerations, mistruths or provocations.

"Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets," the actor and former bodybuilder said, "and I have done things that were not right, which I thought then was playful. But now I recognize that I have offended people. And to those people that I have offended I want to say to them, I am deeply sorry about that and I apologize because this is not what I'm trying to do."

The announcement came in response to a front-page article in The Los Angeles Times on Thursday about six women who said they were the victims of unwanted sexual advances by Mr. Schwarzenegger when they came into contact with him on movie sets, in studio offices or at a gymnasium, among other places.

Mr. Schwarzenegger's attitude toward women has been an issue since the start of his campaign. But the new accusations, and Mr. Schwarzenegger's reply, set off a maelstrom of protest from his critics, including women's groups, Democrats and Arianna Huffington, who dropped out of the race this week but had repeatedly clashed with Mr. Schwarzenegger during a debate last week.

"I consider his campaign a very expensively produced masquerade," Ms. Huffington, who was running as an independent, said, `the question is will the mask be removed before the election or after. I believe what this story is going to do is really bring to question this big issue of trust and credibility. If his word and image are consistently proven to be false, he doesn't have a leg to stand on."

The Los Angeles Times reported that three of the women said Mr. Schwarzenegger had grabbed their breasts. Another said he reached under her skirt. A fifth said he tried to strip off her bikini in a hotel elevator. The sixth said Mr. Schwarzenegger pulled her to his lap and asked if she was experienced in a particular sexual act. The accusations covered a 25-year period, ending in 2000.

Though some of the accusations had been published elsewhere, including in an article in Premiere magazine in 2001, the Los Angeles Times account included fresh details and named two of the women.

In apologizing on Thursday, Mr. Schwarzenegger denounced the Los Angeles Times article as "trash politics" and did not admit to any of the specific accusations made by the women. "A lot of those that you see in the stories is not true, but at the same time I have to tell you that I always say that wherever there is smoke there is fire," he said. "That is true."

Until now, accusations of sexual misconduct involving Mr. Schwarzenegger have held little sway with voters. But the issue has shadowed the campaign since Day 1. In announcing his candidacy on Aug. 6 on television on "The Tonight Show," Mr. Schwarzenegger was the first to raise the subject.

"I know they're going to throw everything at me, and they're going to, you know, say that I have no experience and that I'm a womanizer and that I'm a terrible, terrible guy," Mr. Schwarzenegger said then.

In August, when stories began to surface about an interview he had given in 1977 to Oui magazine, in which he bragged about group sex and talked about the benefits of drugs and sex before bodybuilding competitions, Mr. Schwarzenegger seemed to have been caught off-guard. He changed his explanation over the course of two days.

When first asked about the interview on a talk radio show in Sacramento, Mr. Schwarzenegger chuckled and said he "never lived my life to be a politician."

He added: "Obviously, I've made statements that were ludicrous and crazy and outrageous and all those things, because that's the way I always was." The next day at a news conference, he backtracked. "I have no idea what you're talking about," he said. "I have no memory of any of the articles I did 20 or 30 years ago." Later, he said he made up the episodes to promote a documentary about himself and to advance his sport.

"There were only a few hundred gymnasiums in America at the time when I came over here," Mr. Schwarzenegger said on "Hardball With Chris Matthews" on MSNBC on Sept. 3. "Now there are hundreds of thousands. So we were very successful with our campaign to promote bodybuilding, to promote fitness, the health industry and all of that."

The decision to apologize was a calculated move by Mr. Schwarzenegger's campaign to prevent the latest accusations from derailing the campaign on the last weekend of the recall race, aides said. Recent polls have shown Mr. Schwarzenegger emerging as the favorite in the election on Tuesday and picking up support among women.

But even as Mr. Schwarzenegger apologized, some of his aides and allies took a different tack, denouncing the Los Angeles Times story and questioning the credibility of the women interviewed.

"I think the behavior of the L.A. Times has been unbecoming of a newspaper," Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who bankrolled the recall signature gathering, said in a radio interview from the Schwarzenegger bus convoy. "They have used dozens of reporters to constantly find new and creative ways to be disingenuous about the recall and anyone who stood up for it."

Democrats and women's group seized the issue, holding news conferences and declaring Mr. Schwarzenegger unfit to govern. And as Mr. Schwarzenegger's convoy rolled from San Diego to Costa Mesa to San Bernardino to Los Angeles, protesters stole some of his thunder.

At one stop, Gail Escobar, a waitress in Santa Monica, accused Mr. Schwarzenegger of threatening to rape her 25 years ago. It was impossible to verify the accusation by Ms. Escobar, who was joined by a representative of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which supports Mr. Davis. Nonetheless, the woman was mobbed by reporters.

Mr. Schwarzenegger was not without defenders. Some yelled, "Lesbian!" Still others hollered, "Liar, liar."

Mr. Schwarzenegger tried to stay above the fray, focusing on a hemorrhaging budget, jobs leaving the state and a burdensome automobile tax. In one campaign stunt in Costa Mesa, Mr. Schwarzenegger dropped a wrecking ball on an automobile in protest of a 200 percent increase in the vehicle license fee.

With nearly 200 reporters traveling with Mr. Schwarzenegger and two unsanctioned busloads of lesser candidates hounding him, his staff tried to tamp down a story that was being carried live to an audience well beyond California.

"Some of the things in the article are not true," said Todd Harris, a spokesman for Mr. Schwarzenegger. "Some are and he's apologized for that. He's addressed it directly and we're going to move on."

Mr. Harris and other Republicans said they were curious about the timing of the article, criticizing Mr. Davis but stopping short of linking him to it. The Los Angles Times said none of the women had been identified by Mr. Schwarzenegger's campaign rivals, and Davis campaign officials denied any involvement.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help |
 
*grin*...First of all I have to say, I'm an independent with liberal leanings.

Secondly, I find this whole 'Arnold' fiasco very amusing.

It was just great for the 'Publicans to cast the first stone when it was Clinton.

Now that one of their own is on the 'sexual' hot seat, they are nay saying for all they are worth!

win
 


----------------
On 10/3/2003 10:03:35 AM AGBF wrote:





Well...the report was true. So now what do you say? Read Arnold's own words and weep!

----------------
Not weeping.
2.gif
I never said it wasn't true. I just think it was unfair of them to sit on it until 6 days before the election. But of course, doing it this way creates a bigger uproar and gets more attention. Can't blame them for wanting to sell newspapers.
12.gif
 
----------------
On 9/26/2003 1:10:09 PM Mara wrote:


If you were in CA and saw the anti-Davis sentiment that flows around...you would see that it's an almost absolute certainty that Davis will be recalled. I don't see him staying in office under any circumstances, he's done way too much damage to the state and its inhabitants. ----------------



Mara, your statement haunted me these past couple of weeks.

You were dead on.

We are stunned by what happened in CA. It's not just me & hubby. Most of the people I talked to are stunned. I think we were too far removed from the situation.

Who'd a thunk - in California - A Democratic governor gets recalled out & a Republican governor gets voted in.

I bookmarked this thread as I would like to re-visit it in a year from now. I really do hope things can turn around in CA.

I heard today that 80% of the budget in mandated by law?
eek.gif
Is this true? Can CA repeal some of the mandates? I don't think they can afford *not* to.
 
This time 'round CA voted down a mandatory 3% of the budget being required to go to infrastructure.

It is stupid to force a certain budge % to go to schools, roads, or whatever. Let your elected officials do their jobs, or boot them out. Don't hamstring them.
 
I'm really not into politics and I never watch the news (blame TiVo for that!)....my better half is much more in touch with what goes on in our state and around the world. He's a Republican. I'm technically a Democrat though my views in general are more inline with Repubs than Dems...though I am some sort of strange hybrid breed I think. Not easy categorizable. Anyway--I don't always vote..I'm very lazy. I've kind of watched the precedings over the last few weeks lazily...from a distance..and through articles and commentary written in papers and found online at basic news sites like MSN while I search for fashion news (since I don't watch the news).




It was all very interesting. Being a Californian by birth, I've seen alot happen in my corner of the state...and I really am not surprised by what goes down here. I know the rest of the nation views Californians as some sort of strange breed of American, I get it all the time from my better half...whose Dad loves to send us articles and jokes in national papers on how screwed up, fruity, and hippie Californians are. I think CA is misunderstood by the rest of the nation, though I do have to admit...at least here in the Bayarea...the home of Silicon Valley...things are a little odd and different, we definitely have our own 'subculture' here and in SF that you will never find elsewhere IMO.




I voted for Arnold. It wasn't a well-educated vote...I just like the guy. I think that he can shake things up. I think he's funny. I like his accent--we make fun of it all the time (KalEEfornEEa). Plus it made my better half really happy. He voted for Arnold too. Last weekend I read some random article in the Metro (like our Bayarea 'cool' newspaper) by some Metro writer who went undercover in the Arnold camp and tried to get the scoop on what was really going on. The article was hilarious, I am still quoting parts of it now. The underlying message was a little disturbing, Arnold's camp seemed kind of out of wack. But then again this entire thing is out of wack! The writer referred to Arnold and Maria as 'tan androids' which I just found too funny for words. I digress..anyway--the article was also peppered with little 'Arnold Fun Facts'...one of which was that some years ago (many) when he first came here, Arnold was interviewed and said that he had 3 top goals in life...I don't recall EXACTLY all three, but I think they were something like 1) win a bodybuilding championship 2) marry a Kennedy and 3) run for political office. The article was like...hmm he has accomplished all three...and kind of seemed to imply that we were all part of a big master Arnold scheme hatched for some nefarious purpose. I was a little surprised because, in my mind, if Arnold said those things maybe 20 years ago..and today he has accomplished all of them..how is that bad? I see it as a good thing. He's driven. He's goal oriented. Maybe that's what we need.




Whats my point with this post? Who knows...I just figured I'd put some thoughts down on this...I am not shocked at all that Arnold won and he won with a large margin. The sentiment around here was very pro-Arnold, and we aren't even IN Southern California where I feel his hold was probably stronger. Most of my friends voted for Arnold too. The oddest thing is that while we all voted for Arnold...we STILL poke fun at him. Friends are like...'I voted for Arnold, I am ashamed to say.' Or 'Arnold, Baby! I'll be baaaaaaack!'




I saw a quote in a paper yesterday about this entire thing..something like 'People are used to seeing Arnold as a larger than life action 'hero' who swoops in and saves the people!'....and I think that quote is dead on. Listening to Arnold speak, you feel like you are watching True Lies for the 20th time...that accent is so familiar to you. It has been in your homes before, as has that familiar large image. People feel comfortable with him. I'm not surprised that he won....but we'll see what he can do.




Funny sidenote..is that my sweet darling better half now says that he feels more comfortable buying property in California now that Arnold is governor. Is that not the strangest (and somewhat disturbing) statement?! Oh well--if it means that this was the final step in convincing him to shell out the half a million for a townhouse here....YAY...I done good.




rolleyes.gif
 
One small comment, Mara...

Knowing of the pre movie 'star' Arnold, that statement was prolly made closer to 40 years ago.

win
 


----------------
On 10/9/2003 10:11:28 AM fire&ice wrote:



I heard today that 80% of the budget in mandated by law?
eek.gif
Is this true? Can CA repeal some of the mandates? I don't think they can afford *not* to.

----------------
The basic idea is true, though I'm not certain how accurate the 80% figure is. But essentially, the state is locked into spending more money than it's allowed to raise. I'm hoping Arnold will tackle this problem somehow, because it's at the root of our fiscal troubles. Some of the mandates are written into the state constitution, unfortunately.
 
I just found out that "Marey Carey" got 10,000 VOTES. Now that is frightening to think 10,000 people voted for a porno star. ugh! Congrats to Arnold and I wish him the best. I hope his first order of business is to make good on his promise to repeal that damn car tax!!! It costs me $600 just to have my 2003 Accord registered this year and the refund can't come soon enough.
 
I think something like 5k people voted for Gary Coleman and 7k for Larry Flynt...even scarier
2.gif
 
----------------
Comic Sans MS' size="2">I saw a quote in a paper yesterday about this entire thing..something like 'People are used to seeing Arnold as a larger than life action 'hero' who swoops in and saves the people!'....and I think that quote is dead on. /blockquote>


Yeah, I do think that is dead on. Funny thing, he's not that big - physcially. I saw the "tan androids"
9.gif
at Shows I was doing in LA. Tiny is a nice word for her. He is significantly shorter & smaller framed than my husband. He can't be much more than 5'8". I guess this surprised me.

That said, your comments were interesting. I've spent quite a bit of time in SF & LA visiting or working. It's *really* different. In some ways good. In some ways bad. In some ways just different. But then, I guess the same could be say about NYC or the crazy South.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm closer to a Rockafeller Republican. I do follow politics more now than when I was in my 20's or 30's. I can tell you this - I *always* voted. If you don't vote, you don't have the right to b*tch about anything the Government does. It's a responsibility I take seriously.

Almost sounds like from your post that people 1. wanted a hero & 2. were so fed up that they wanted something *totally* different.

Oh well, I do wish you'all luck.

Edited to add: I think the 3 things were more like 1. win a body building competiton 2. make lots of money 3. rule the world. Anyone know for sure?
 
----------------
On 10/9/2003 2:26:32 PM LawGem wrote:




----------------
On 10/9/2003 10:11:28 AM fire&ice wrote:

[FONT=<BR]----------------
The basic idea is true, though I'm not certain how accurate the 80% figure is. But essentially, the state is locked into spending more money than it's allowed to raise. I'm hoping Arnold will tackle this problem somehow, because it's at the root of our fiscal troubles. Some of the mandates are written into the state constitution, unfortunately.[/FONT]
----------------


The 80% was from the CBS guy this morning. We all know how accurate the news is
loopy.gif


Funny, I said to my husband that I thought some of the mandates were in your Consitution. He said, "surely not". What does CA have to do to repeal the mandates in the Const. Long hearings & a vote? What is the reasoning behind the mandated laws? Is it something customary to CA since it's statehood?
 
F&I..one of the things was definitely 'marry a kennedy'....because that is the one thing i really remember from the quote. i had heard that before too.
2.gif
 
Time for a google search!
9.gif
 


----------------
On 10/9/2003 4:30:36 PM fire&ice wrote:





Funny, I said to my husband that I thought some of the mandates were in your Consitution. He said, 'surely not'. What does CA have to do to repeal the mandates in the Const. Long hearings & a vote? What is the reasoning behind the mandated laws? Is it something customary to CA since it's statehood?
----------------

Amending the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature followed by an election to ratify it, or just an initiative. Right now, I'm not sure you could get 2/3 of the California Legislature to agree on what day it is.



The spending mandates, for the most part, are just the result of seveal decades of abuse of the initiative process by one special interest or another. There are some, like the mandate for education spending, that make a certain amount of sense, but most of them are pure porkbarrel politics.
nono.gif

 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top