Schwarzenegger rewrites textbook in drive to victory

Sac Bee ^ | 10/12/03 | Dan Walters

[NormsRevenge]

It was the most unusual campaign for high political office that California had ever seen, one that broke many -- perhaps all -- of the informal rules in the book.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger was the most unusual candidate that California had ever seen, a self-made one-time bodybuilder who had parlayed his muscular physique, quick-study intelligence, boundless self-confidence -- and a knack for psyching out rivals -- into a big-time movie career.

[NormsRevenge]

.

[Support Free Republic]

New Thread Here

[Reagan Man]

I wouldn't call Arnold's campaign nearly flawless. It started off stumbling at every turn. But in the end, they stayed focused and on message. Having $18 million to spend, didn't hurt Arnold's chances either. And the truth is, most folks voted YES on recall to remove Boy Davis, not to see Arnold get elected.

The campaign is over. Let's see if Arnold and the Wilsonite's can balance the budget, without reverting to tax increases. Tom Mcclintock campaigned on reducing spending 9.5% over an 18 month period to balance the books. Arnold has said education budget is off limits. Some economic estimates say, Arnold will have to cut spending on whats left in the state budget, by 25% to balance the books. We shall see.

[Roscoe]

Deficit bonds creating long-term debt, plus an Internet tax.

[Hollywoodghost]

Lets see what Arnold will do. The things that count are the things he does when his hand leaves the Bible and he is the new Governor. We will judge him by that and that alone. I believe if anyone can fix things it will be an outsider who can bridge party lines. I also feel its going to be a fun ride to watch.

[Reagan Man]

Boy Davis signed the $99.1 billion Cal budget in early August, which included $15 billion in long term debt bonds, $1.9 billion in pension bonds, $10.7 billion in deficit bonds and $2 billion in bonds backed by tobacco settlement payments from the state general fund. Deficit bonds can't do the job. Serious cuts in spending are necessary.

Maybe Uncle Sam can help, I'm Uncle George.

[aruanan]

And the truth is, most folks voted YES on recall to remove Boy Davis, not to see Arnold get elected.

Ummm hmmm. The design of the election was such that anyone could have voted to remove Davis without voting to seat Arnold in his place. The fact they did the latter shows that they both voted YES on recall to remove Boy Davis AND to see Arnold get elected.

[Roscoe]

Deficit bonds can't do the job.

I agree. Sounds like more of the same old thing, rather than "change."

[Reagan Man]

Hmmm. Let's stay away from sophistry. There was enough of that during the campaign.

Simply put. Exit polling taken by NBC, showed the question of voting YES on recall, was based on a fundamental desire to recall Davis. It wasn't based on an overwhelming desire to elect Arnold. I didn't mention the figures shown, because I wasn't sure if it indicated 65% or 85%. This is simple stuff to grasp. In other words, Arnold wasn't the main reason Californian's voted for recall. And to say it was, is being dishonest. If you voted yes on recall and didn't choose a candidate, that would be downright silly and a waste of time.

[aruanan]

This is simple stuff to grasp. In other words, Arnold wasn't the main reason Californian's voted for recall. And to say it was, is being dishonest. If you voted yes on recall and didn't choose a candidate, that would be downright silly and a waste of time.

A. Look up the meaning of sophistry.
B. To vote no on recall and yet to choose a candidate would be equally silly and a waste of time; therefore, neither makes any sense without the other. That being the case, a vote for Arnold (as opposed to a vote for Gary Coleman or Cruz Bustamante) was at least as important a reason for voting in the recall as recalling Gray Davis.

[Roscoe]

To vote no on recall and yet to choose a candidate would be equally silly and a waste of time; therefore, neither makes any sense without the other.

Hundreds of thousands of Arnold voters did just that.

[Reagan Man]

>>>A. Look up the meaning of sophistry.

sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation... soph·ism: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive.

You may think what you're engaging in, is an open and honest discussion of the truth. I say you're engaging in pure sophistry.

>>>B. To vote no on recall and yet to choose a candidate would be equally silly and a waste of time; therefore, neither makes any sense without the other. That being the case, a vote for Arnold (as opposed to a vote for Gary Coleman or Cruz Bustamante) was at least as important a reason for voting in the recall as recalling Gray Davis.

More sophistry.

You're trying to further legitimize Arnold's election as governor, by saying it was the overriding factor for people voting in the recall election. Not true and all your twisting and spinning won't make it true either.

[vox humana]

And the truth is, most folks voted YES on recall to remove Boy Davis, not to see Arnold get elected.

The ranting of yet another Tom McClintock sore loser. I doubt if they will ever give Arnold any respect.

Arnold got more votes and a higher percentage of the total than Gray Davis received in the 2002 general election.

If the people did not want to see Arnold get elected, why did they vote for him?

[AmericaUnited]

Look, you TomBots have been wrong about virtually EVERYTHING in this campaign.

Enough already! Your opinions have very little to no credibilty.

[Reagan Man]

>>>The ranting of yet another Tom McClintock sore loser. I doubt if they will ever give Arnold any respect.

Another red herring and more sophistry at work from another Arnoldnaut. Look, Arnold won, McClintock lost. Okay. However, my respect is something Arnold will have to earn. So far, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Just like at campaign time, I'm trying to have a rational conversation about a specific issue and you want to engage in further namecalling. So be it. But you're wrong again. The overriding reason for people voting in the recall election, was to recall Boy Davis. What is so hard about understanding that?

>>>Arnold got more votes and a higher percentage of the total than Gray Davis received in the 2002 general election.

Total votes for Arnold, didn't exceed the total votes for recall. It was 54% for recall and 46% for Arnold. As a side issue, I'll betcha up to 25% of the 46% he received, came from last minute switches from McClintock voters and undecided voters who originally supported McClintock. You can believe otherwise.

[Amerigomag]

I assume your point is that California has about $75B in forecast revenues for the next 12 months, under the present taxing system, but commited to approximately $100B in spending over that same time period. The $25B shortfall was to be closed by long term indebtedness that the legislature felt could be offset by the increased tax revenues derived from an improving economy and larger, total income tax revenues as a result of California's increasing population.

Both suppositions are viable but both come with obvious risks and flaws. An improving economy in California is predicted for no other reason than it lags the nation and will eventually catch up. If the national economy is sluggish in it's recovery, then California will be slow to respond to the upturn. A sluggish recovery will doom California to several more years of tight budgets and siphon away up to 5% of California's revenues from the business of the running the state. Exhaserbating the problem is the time it will take to change the present business unfriendly system, recoop the loss in business that California has sustained and create enough new, economically afforable energy that the upswing in business will eventually require. Simply put it will be a long while before the increased indebtedness from the bonding scheme can be offset by increased revenues from business taxes

While California is centainly continuing to expand it's population the potential for increased, spendable revenues from that expanding pool of potential taxpayers may also be based on flawed logic. At present much of California's population increase is derived from immigration and the explosive birth rates among these immigratnts for two or more generations. Two recent studies indicate that this trend in population increase will result in an net increase in demand on the existing revenue stream rather than adding spendable revenues to the tax stream. Simply put these new tax payers may well require more monies from the system than they contribute through the taxes they actually pay.

If California can't withstand (closing substantial portions of the social saftey net and substantially underfuding public education) the necessary spending reductions, ala the McClintock proposals, to produce a balanced budget in the short run then bridging loans may be a necessary evil. But to look to this resource to run a government over a period of years is simply foolish. The large bond scheme being attributed to Schwarzenegger to "reset" the fiscal clock in California is a very dangerous way out of a bad situation.

[Reagan Man]

Look, you TomBots have been wrong about virtually EVERYTHING in this campaign.
Enough already! Your opinions have very little to no credibilty.

Still incapable of discussing the issues, without reverting to personal insults. You've learned nothing.

I said Arnold would win, but McClintock was the best candidate. I said, it was a red herring for people to say, that "McClintock can't win" and was a self fulfilling prophesy in the end. Remember, the last Gallup poll showed McClintock beating Bustamonte 54% to 37%. I also said, that Republicans sold out their principles to elect a liberal with an R next to his name. And finally, I said Democrats would be stupid to challenge the recall results. The people wouldn't stand for it. I stand by all the remarks I made.

My credibility is intact. It's Arnold's credibility that's in question. I wish Arnold and the Wilsonites the best in their efforts to balance the state budget. They have a huge task ahead and increasing taxes will be a tempting option for them.

[NormsRevenge]

LIke I said before,, Lots of sore winners around these days. They still don't realize they can save their vitriol for the 2004 general election. ;-)

[Reagan Man]

Now you want to discuss this issue. LOL This is what I say. California is in total fiscal economic meltdown. No matter what is done by Arnold, the Wilsonites and Donna Arduin, unless education and welfare expenditures are seriously cut, there will have to be increases in taxes. The sale of long term deficit bonds isn't the answer. There's talk of PresBush riding to the rescue to bail out California. I doubt that will happen to Arnie's satisfaction. We shall see.