Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Oct 2003 03:43:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
301 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote:
> I haven't seen this discussed here so I thought I would bring it up.
>
> On Wednesday the LA Times launched a huge hit piece against Schwarzenegger, with
> four negative articles including a front page story about Arnold's alleged
> indiscressions. It should come as no suprise that Republicans quickly began to
> dismiss these alligations as minor, unsubstantiated, and politically motivated,
> while Democrats (especially leftist womens groups) jumped all over Arnold as
> unfit to govern based on these bahaviors.
>
> The funny twist to this whole thing is that both sides are trapped by their
> stances during the Clinton impeachment. How can a Democrat condem Arnold for
> sexual indiscressions, when they unquestioningly supported Clinton, inspite of
> sexual harrassment and rape charges. On the other hand how can Republicans shrug
> off these serious charges when they actively persecuted Bill for simmilar
> offenses. I think the justifications for the duality of their support are truely
> comedic.
>
> Personally I find both of their actions deplorable, and indefensible. If I did
> not have a tremedous fear that Cruz "Tax 'em when they're down" Bustamante might
> win I would likely change my vote. I also hope the LA Times is unable to succeed
> in their attempts to influence this election in a biased manor.
>
> Although I am aware that California politics do not affect all of you, I am
> curious as to peoples opinions on this matter, and the resultant hypocricy on
> both sides of the asile.
>
> Scott C.
Eeeet izzz trash poh-lo-teecs! Und I vish to ahh-poh-lo-gize to the vemmen I
hoff fon-dohld. Sieg Heil, mein Fuhrer! I can valk!
Heck, even Ahhhnuld has a Strangelovian two-minded reaction to the charges (and
I got to sneak in an oblique reference to the other charges, which seem more
annoying since it is easy to tell they were taken out of context). Anyway, if
it's trash politics, why does he need to issue an apology?
If Clinton and Monica wanna fool around that's their business and Hilary's
problem. If Arnold wants to grope women who do not welcome his attentions,
then that's a legal problem. Since Arnold is apologizing for unspecified
behaviour towards at least some women, there is some level of truth to the
charges.
Who knows what Schwarzenegger stands for? I can't even figure out if he is
Democrat or a Republican, despite his (alleged) party affiliation. But perhaps
I'm not one to judge - I can't figure out if Gray Davis is a Democrat or
Republican, either. Granted, Davis rubber stamps Democratic bills so I suppose
that puts him in their column, but I think he would be just as happy rubber
stamping Republican bills. Republicrats. Demopublicans. Same old same old.
No trap for me. Nor moral dilemma. I'm voting my favorite color come Tuesday.
-->Green-Eyed Devil<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | The partisian trap in California
|
| I haven't seen this discussed here so I thought I would bring it up. On Wednesday the LA Times launched a huge hit piece against Schwarzenegger, with four negative articles including a front page story about Arnold's alleged indiscressions. It (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
