<p>– what do you think of Schwartzenegger (spelling probably wrong, sorry) and will you be likely voting for him ? I’m especially curious to hear what democrats are thinking about him. From an out-of-stater’s point of view, he seems like an interesting and somewhat surprising candidate.</p>
<p>Well, Minnesota actually pioneered the concept of the Action Figure Governor, and here in California we only followed their lead. My thoughts on Arnold is that once you get past the seemingly absurd idea of electing a washed-up Austrian bodybuilder as the governor of the most populous state in the US, he’s probably not that bad as Republicans go. He’s fairly progressive on many (but not all) issues. And he’s got a Kennedy whispering in his ear when he comes home at night. So it could be a lot worse.</p>
<p>The Democrats don’t have much of chance against him this election, because their candidate, Phil Angelides, promptly disappeared from view once he got the nomination. He must have spent all his money securing the primary election victory, because except for a couple anti-Arnold TV spots paid for by the Democratic National Committee, I think the only ads I’ve seen about the governor’s race have been All Arnold All the Time.</p>
<p>From a business owner’s point of view he really helped straight out the workers comp insurance fiasco we were dealing with a few years ago… I could tell you the whole story of my having to go to the State Fund office…suffice to say it involved tears, a strong bladder, four hours in a small windowless room begging them to provide our business with insurance and at the end a bottle of champagne…</p>
<p>The electorate may have a short memory, but I don’t. I agree with Arnold on many things, but I just can’t forgive his arrogant–and wasteful–attempt to subvert the legislative process by holding the special election. A classless move by someone who is far too used to getting his way. No thanks.</p>
<p>Another out-of-stater here and I’m also interested in Californians’ opinions. What interests me is how California voters span the continuum from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. It must be hard to reach the voters in a state with such variety but Arnold seems to have found the middle ground. Does it seem that way from an insider’s view?</p>
<p>If found the middle ground AFTER going so far to the right and alienating so many…</p>
<p>calling teachers, nurses, and firefighters special interest groups backfired</p>
<p>and his referendum elections pretty much bombed</p>
<p>Yes, at least to this Californian. I am a die-hard liberal Democrat and I do respect Phil Angelides’ intelligence, but I will vote for Arnold. I like his policy on curbing emissions, I feel that he is one of the few politicians who is really not divisive and does have a vision of California as a great, dynamic state. I believe that he has helped bring business to the state and helped our economy which was suffering after the dot-com crash. I know a bunch of my Democrat/liberal friends/colleagues who are voting the same way. I also like the way he snubbed Bush on his recent fund-raising trip to California :D. </p>
<p>As far as the special election–he apologized and took responsibility for the mess and understood the message of the voters. I don’t think it will ever happen again. More than you can say of a lot of elected leaders…</p>
<p>I won’t be voting for Ahnold but Angelides is toast.</p>
<p>Ahnold pro-choice, reasonably pro-environment, very pro-business and isn’t nearly a big a schmuck as most national Republicans. That said, I don’t trust him. He tacked Right with his initiatives when he thought he could get away with it, came back to the center only when he got whomped. I fully expect him to tack Right again after the election. He pays lip service to education, plays games worthy of Gray Davis with the budget, has fundraising ethics as bad as Davis if not worth, and is personally a boor. If it weren’t for the Hollywood effect, he’d be a cipher. However, a traditional GOP conservative has a hard time being elected dog catcher these days. I don’t expect Ahnold to do anything about the iron triangle of political gridlock in this state: term limits, gerrymandered districts drawn by the state lege, and Prop 13. The combo is devastating and we’re going to have crummy state government until it changes.</p>
<p>TheMom recently got to hear him, Maria Shriver, the Dalai Lama, Maureen Dodd, Tim Russert, and Anna Quindlen all in the same day. He was the least interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, she was lucky (to hear from such a crowd) and none of them are running ;).</p>
<p>Interesting posts, thanks. I’m a former Californian who still loves the state - and I’m from a family of democrats many of whom will be voting for Arnold. What I think is interesting about him is that he seems to have become more of a democrat – all that proposed infrastructure investment – my only fear is that it’s for reelection purposes only. And yes, I do like his distaste for the Bush administration.</p>
<p>Maria Shriver, the Dalai Lama, Maureen Dodd, Tim Russert, and Anna Quindlen all in the same day. He was the least interesting. </p>
<p>– Well, that’s quite the act to follow! And just think how imbecilic Bush would look in that crowd…</p>
<p>Patient, TheMom said that the Dalai Lama has dry wit. Someone asked him a question, the answer to which was prefaced, “You should understand that I’ve been a monk since I’ve been a five years old and I may not have the best experience to answer the question.” I think she’d vote for the Dalai Lama over Ahnold. Definitely over Bush. Shriver was funny, ending her appearance by saying, “If Arnold is re-elected, maybe I’ll see you again. If not…good-bye.” </p>
<p>Would that some other people be more aware of their limitations.</p>
<p>KM, Ahnold’s distaste for the Bush administration would be more believable if a) he hadn’t campaigned for Bush in Ohio in 2004 and b) the current arms-length treatment weren’t a tactical move in acknoweldgement of how toxic Bush is in this state.</p>
<p>One minute Arnold is “the education” gov, then next minute he makes a deal to borrow money from education, then refuses to keep up his end of the bargain to repay the “loan.” He claims to be spending more on education than any other gov in history, but has only re-allocated and juggled the books to make it look good. One minute he campaigns for Bush, the next minute he opposes the pres. One minute he is far-right conservative, the next minute he panders to the left with big money for social causes…Which Arnold were you asking about?? If only the Democrats could come up with a reasonable alternative! Damn!</p>
<p><a href=“http://billbradley.pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/03/troubled_democrats.php[/url]”>http://billbradley.pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/03/troubled_democrats.php</a>
Maybe Cap’n Jack has been spending too much time in CT with the NedHeads.</p>
<p>TheDad, you too can hear the Dalai Lama! </p>
<p><a href=“http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/10/3/itunesUConnectsStudentsToClasses[/url]”>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/10/3/itunesUConnectsStudentsToClasses</a>
“Classes aren’t the only Stanford-specific downloads available. Web surfers can watch Tom Brokaw’s 2006 commencement address and last February’s visit from the Dalai Lama.”</p>
<p>We have had from time to time Republicans who had universal appeal–and truthfully supported much of the traditional Democratic agenda. In my area, Pete McCloskey was the consummate example of this type of politician. <a href=“http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/NEWS01/511130329/1001[/url]”>http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/NEWS01/511130329/1001</a></p>
<p>More recently, Tom Campbell. Too many links in this post already.<br>
Yes, of course Arnold flip-flops–he knows when he can use the President to his advantage and when he can’t. Any great politician is also a great opportunist, correct? Still, I really believe that he has a vision of California that I like in many ways. Angelides would be a dull policy wonk who would analyze issues tremendously well but would not be able to galvanize energy around anything. IMHO which may be wrong as well as humble.</p>
<p>Driver, you shouldn’t believe everything you read in your pajamas. Dems will sweep the statewide offices except for Governor. I had concerns about Jerry Brown–who doesn’t, given his history?–but the zeitgeist here is blowing blue, very very very blue. Reps are lucky they picked the Dems pocket for mutual gerrymandering.</p>
<p>If I were you, I’d spend your time worrying about Santorum, Swann (snicker), the PA-04, the PA-06, the PA-07, the PA-08, and the PA-10…all much closer to home.</p>
<p>If Ahnold is the type of Republican you’d support across the country, we’d be doing much much much less worse than we are now. I’ll take Schwarzenegger/Rendell over Angelides/Swann if I have to play a quinella.</p>
<p>PA is infinitely more interesting than California, politically. But at least we’re not in disarray. PA-6 and PA-7 are indeed close to home, and interesting to watch as a local. I don’t see either of the incumbents losing, at this point. Santorum–everybody discounts Santorum until he runs over them in the final stretch. Re Swann: snicker about the black guy, if you must, but he’s a very decent, talented, and energetic man who could easily be twice the governor/leader that Rendell has been if given the chance. I’m glad that my party nominated him, even if he won’t beat the old-time PA Democrat-machine guy.</p>