Subject:
|
Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:25:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
497 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
You’ve misinterpreted my intent, so I’ll restate it:
I find your choice “to try someone else” to be insufficient cause for an
informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to another.
Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for choosing an absolute unknown
in preference to one of the other candidates?
|
“Absolute unknown” can take on a lot of possibilities. If you mean unknown to
the public in general then Arnold not an “absolute unknown”.
I have my sample ballot in front of me right now and am going down the list to
see which names I immediate recognize.(Think of it as going through LEGO foder
looking for a part and it just suddenly pops up for a split second.) So here
goes: #36 Mary Cook (saw her on Com Central’s “debate”), #37 Gary Coleman(again,
Com Central, TV show from the ‘80’s), #56 “Ed” Kennedy (not the Mass. one or the
media would have really hyped it.), #59 Peter Ueberroth (1984 Olympics games),
#67 Robert Dole (not the Bob Dole who ran for pres., no media hype), #75 Larry
Flynt (Mr. Porno), #99 Nathan Whitecloud Walton (also on Com Central), #112
Michael Jackson (not the self proclaimed “King of Pop”, again no media hype),
#126 Tom McClintock, #161 Arianna Huffington, #171 Cruz Bustamante, and #177
Arnold.
So there were 12 names I immediately recognized of the 169 flipping though the
pages. That’s 157 names I have never seen or heard of before or if I have they
just passed by me. Of those 12, three have the same name as a known public
figure but were not that particular figure because the media would have hyped
that person if it was. (Michael
“can-never-get-enough-plastic-surgery-and-be-the-self-proclaim-king-of-pop”
Jackson for govenor? OK, so he could have but didn’t.) and one is a slut lover
whose works I don’t care for.
So now we are down to eight, four of whom were on a Com Central “debate”
program. But the fact they were on a Com Central program gave me the idea they
weren’t serious but just wanted to say “I ran for govenor of California.” and
get their names in a California history book to show to friends and family.
We are now down to the final four. Now, I will come out and say I would have
voted for Arianna Huffington because I’ve read her articles in newspapers and
like her thoughts but then she drops out. Three left- Arnold, Cruz, and Tom,
the “ACT”. I didn’t much care for Tom’s ideas. I didn’t care for Cruz, period.
Arnold brought up some ideas I liked. Yes, he is a newbie to this but of those
three on my list my gut said “Go for Arnold”; I decided to take a chance with
him.
| |
So “charisma” is the primary qualifying characteristic, in your opinion?
Based on that criterion, I suppose that you would glowingly endorse Bill
Clinton over any other president from the past few decades, because Clinton
was clearly more charismatic than any other contender.
|
It is not the “primary qualifying characteristic” but it is an element in the
process of gaining the public’s attention. Charasima is only as one sees it.
Billy- hey, you’re the one using the words “glowingly endorse” not me.
I’m in my 30’s and have only participated directly in this political process for
a little over a decade; I have only voted in three presidential elections. Now,
maybe when I hit the six mark then I can look back and say Pres. “So-n-so” was
the most charasmatic or the most “whatever”.
I am not an historian or well known writter or political columnist. It will be
those who will or will not say such words and will be the source future
generations are going to look to for opinions of Billy or any other president.
| |
But perhaps “charisma” is what caught Arnold’s eye about a certain public
speaker from the 30’s?
|
If you’re talking that Hitler crap just drop it. My own view is those who
brought up this are thinking they can pull off another David Duke incident. It
won’t work. I sure haven’t seen neo-nazi videos or photos with Arnold.
Adr.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) Absolute political unknown. I had presumed that you would be able to identify the term within the context of the discussion, but I see that I am in error. You dismissed a range of other candidates just because you didn't know their names. This (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| (...) You've misinterpreted my intent, so I'll restate it: I find your choice "to try someone else" to be insufficient cause for an informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to another. Would you care to elaborate on your (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
