Subject:
|
Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:03:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
487 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
You dismissed a range of other candidates just because you didn’t know their
names. This suggests that your vote is based on celebrity or notoriety in
preference to substance; that’s hardly unique to you, but it’s hardly a
commendable trait in a would-be informed citizen.
|
Honestly, I dismissed most of them for pretty much the same reason - I didn’t
know their name simply because they were not seriously running for governor.
And let’s add to that I dismissed the names that were similiar to better known
people but that I knew were not them. One other name got into the press
occasionally, Mary Carey, but let’s not go into her (OooooOOOOooo, can I say
that on Lugnet?). :-)
In one sense, it was good because we didn’t have the parties filtering out the
candidates so that we weren’t limited to the studiosly bland (Davis) or the
darling of the fanatics (Simon). Alas, in that better candidates in Riordan and
Feinstein didn’t run.
| |
But you’ve said numerous times that it was Arnold’s charisma (not
“charasima,” by they way) that won him your vote. Based on that statement
and your statement above, it seems that the primary qualifications for
elected office are:
1. Charisma
|
Clinton won, Bore lost. Motivating people is at least a part of leadership
(though action without direction or in the wrong direction will waste that
ultimately).
| |
2. Having gained the public’s attention.
|
If you don’t you are doomed. But gaining the public’s attention only gets your
foot in the door. Arianna has her published opinion pieces. Camejo has the
backing of the Green Party. Ueberroth had the Olympic Games. In California,
what you really need is money, which helps in getting and keeping the public’s
attention. Which means you either need to raise money (pander to special
interests) or be filthy rich. An barely-known carpetbagger from out of state
spent $30 million of his own money and came with an eyelash of defeating the (at
the beginning of the campaign) most respected officeholder in the state, Diane
Feinstein, simply by running the most negative campaign possible (Arianna’s ex,
Michael Huffington). Arnold had both money of his own, and contacts high within
business and politics.
| |
Woe to the republic if that’s really what it’s about.
|
It has to be said that Schwarzenegger made the most of his opportunity. He
didn’t have to run against a Democrat with the full force of the party behind
their candidate. If it had been two separate votes, Feinstein may have run, and
she was the preferred candidate in all the polls. He didn’t have to face the
conservative forces in his own party during a primary: either a pandering
conservative one to win the primaries (and therefore see his centrist position
destroyed in the general election), or run his centrist general campaign and see
him risk losing to the hard-core right-wingers, as his good buddy did with
similiar philosophies, Richard Riordan, to the pathetic Bill Simon. The
standard filtering system gave California voters the truly awful choice of Davis
or Simon in the last election, and the results can be seen. Arnold became a
symbol of the frustration the voters felt with both major parties.
| |
| |
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.
|
Let me get this straight--rather than discuss an issue with real relevance to
Arnold’s character, you’d prefer simply to drop it? That hardly seems
consistent with the mentality of an informed electorate.
|
I’d say simply drop it, too. Even my ultra-liberal friends dismissed that issue
instantly because it was so obvious that the quotes were taken out of context,
as did I. Events proved that assumption to be right.
| |
Perhaps you’re aware that Arnold spoke very fondly of Kurt Waldheim at
Arnold’s wedding?
“My friends don’t want me to mention Kurt’s name, because of all the recent
Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and
so thank you. Kurt.”
|
Guilt by association? Or expression of ideas?
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: Once again, you're forgetting my prohibition against posting except when you agree with me. I just don't understand you sometimes. (...) There's a difference, I think, between ignoring anonymous (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
