Posted on 08/31/2005 2:03:20 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Since you don't even give any indication of what the chart is
( campaign contributions perhaps ? )
nor where it came from
( you have to note your employer on contributions, are individuals who work in certain industries lumped in there ? )
you really don't expect a comment do you ?
Sorry to jump in late, but let me get this straight - - you think liberal Demcorat Arnold is doing a good job? And you think he makes a better governor than Tom McClintock would have made??
Thanks!
LH
Good grief. I wouldn't admit to that if I were you, but seeing as you are seemingly incapable of comparing your own posts that I had to find for you to the sourced list I did post above, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
They are campaign contributions to the following of Schwarzenegger's many commitees: Californians for Schwarzenegger, Total Recall, Californians for Schwarzenneger in '06, Recovery Team, Yes on 57 & 58, & Inaugural
The source is ArnoldWatch.org. BTW, they are just as critical of Gray Davis as a money hustler as they are of Arnold, so don't go there.
A lame, but hopeful and artless dodge. Here is the list of Arnold's top 100 donors (you will note within the list a number of traditional Democrat donors, Gap, Yahoo, HP, etc.):
| Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy for governor with a pledge that "I don't need to take any money from anybody" because "I have plenty of money myself." Arnold's about-face on his promise to accept no campaign contributions brought millions of dollars into his campaign chest. Below is a list of the "Top 100" donors to the various campaign committees that the Governor controls*. The data was compiled from public filings with the Secretary of State. Graph last updated 8/31/05. Top 100 last updated 9/2/05 What do they think Arnold owes them? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You never did ask me about that half billion Arnold unnecessarily cost California. Cat got your tongue? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"You never did ask me about that half billion Arnold unnecessarily cost California. Cat got your tongue?"
Nope - See, I don't have the luxury of cut'n'pasting from anti-arnold sites - I have to actually research what you say and call you when you throw out "facts" without any checkable details. Obviously this would be easier if you sourced them.
For example your latest c'n'p contains this interesting tidbit
"various campaign committees that the Governor controls *.
Where does the * lead... nowhere, so again you ask me to accept unsourced material which stems from unsourced material.
ROTFLMAO! You haven't offered ONE citation to ANY source in this entire discussion, much less what I posted in the list to which you have yet to respond.
Try honesty for a change.
As to where I got the information on the cost of Arnold's payoff to Wall Street, it was straight from the mouth of a conservative candidate for State Treasurer, Claude Parrish, although he had the decency not to mention their $300,000 in seed money the first week of Arnold's recall campaign.
"They are campaign contributions to the following of Schwarzenegger's many commitees: Californians for Schwarzenegger, Total Recall, Californians for Schwarzenneger in '06, Recovery Team, Yes on 57 & 58, & Inaugural"
You see, this is just why I want you to source your material -
The Inagural takes place AFTER the election ( duh ) and 57 & 58 were on the March 2004 ballot, so they had nothing to do with Arnold's campaign for Gov. -
I suppose they could make their chart bigger by including donations to the latest props also.
I'm not going to do your homework for you - if you want to post someone else's work, be prepared to defend it.
"You haven't offered ONE citation to ANY source ..."
All you need to do is ask, my friend...
"As to where I got the information on the cost of Arnold's payoff to Wall Street, it was straight from the mouth of a conservative candidate for State Treasurer, Claude Parrish, although he had the decency not to mention their $300,000 in seed money the first week of Arnold's recall campaign."
Well you got me on that one - a "quote" that can't possibly be checked, attached to another un-sourced "fact" which refers to an un-checkable donation from "Wall Street" ( is that the full name, or is it Wall Street, Inc. ? )
"- you think liberal Demcorat Arnold is doing a good job? And you think he makes a better governor than Tom McClintock would have made?? "
Ordinarily I would ignore questions posed in the "still beat your wife" style, as Arnold is not a liberal Denmocrat, but I will make an exception this time...
I think Arnold is doing as good a job as could be done, given the choice of people that we had. I think that Tom would have been totally ineffectual.
"You are incapable of viewing the source of a linked image?"
LOL - I was incapable, as you appear to be, of finding any supporting information whatsoever on what criteria was used in compiling the charts - for example, if YOU worked on a farm, YOUR $100 contribution to support props 57 & 58 would seem to be lumped into and designated an agriculture "special interest" donation to Arnolds campaign.
I disagree that Tom would have been "ineffectual" (sic). I think that he would have bulldogged a lot harder to restrain spending than has the pandering, spend-happy liberal Arnold.
Regards,
LH
I did, in Post 135. I do so now, answer the list in Post 107, point by point, and with sources.
Well you got me on that one - a "quote" that can't possibly be checked, attached to another un-sourced "fact" which refers to an un-checkable donation from "Wall Street" ( is that the full name, or is it Wall Street, Inc. ? )
You really know how to stick your foot in it.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will appear at a New York City fund-raiser this month asking political heavy hitters in the nation's banking and finance capital to donate as much as a whopping $500,000 each to his campaign to sell Californians on a $15 billion bond proposal.
The top ticket price - a cool half-million for donors who want to be listed as a chairman of Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team campaign - may be the highest solicitation on record to aid a campaign in the Golden State. It immediately drew criticism from campaign finance watchdogs who recalled Schwarzenegger's insistence during last year's gubernatorial recall campaign that he would not rely on special-interest donors.
A minimum donation of $50,000 gets donors in the door at the Feb. 24 dinner, to be hosted by New York Gov. George Pataki at the home of New York Jets owner Robert Wood Johnson IV.
Organizers declined to identify who was invited to the event, other than to say it would be an intimate group. But Schwarzenegger advisers insisted that none of the attendees would have a stake in the bond measure that voters are being asked to approve in March.
"There are specific prohibitions from bond houses, people that engage in public finance, to contribute to an account controlled by a state office," said adviser Marty Wilson.
Citing federal laws meant to curb so-called "pay-to-play" practices in the industry, he added: "You're not going to see money from companies that are active participants in California's public finance markets."
At the same time, Todd Harris, a spokesman for the governor, said it was in the best interest of the finance community at large to get a debt financing plan and a companion balanced-budget measure on the March ballot.
"California is the sixth-largest economy in the world," Harris said. "Passage of Propositions 57 and 58 will be the first step toward putting California's fiscal house in order, and given the size of the economy, that is something that's good not only for every Californian but for anyone doing business in this country or any other, in particular people in New York who work in the finance industry."
Watchdogs reacted with a mix of suspicion and outrage, saying loopholes in "pay-to-play" law allow conflicts of interest.
"This is carpetbagging," said Jamie Court, president of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "The only interest banks and others on Wall Street have in giving money to Arnold Schwarzenegger is to make money by floating more bonds or to get a chit for when they have some business before the state.
"Both scenarios are at odds with the Mr. Clean image that Arnold committed to with the voters."
Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause, said he's reserving judgment until he knows who will attend.
"Most donors at that level give for a reason, and the reason is usually to influence policy," Knox said. "I'm certainly curious about who's invited and why they'd want to pay that much."
Wilson, who is heading the governor's fund raising for the bond campaign, described invited guests as "what I would call traditional Republican supporters form the New York area." He said Pataki, not Schwarzenegger, handled the guest list and that the event was originally planned for last fall as a campaign fund-raiser but had to be rescheduled because it conflicted with the major televised debate in which Schwarzenegger participated.
By the time it was rescheduled, Wilson said, Schwarzenegger's fund-raising priority had become selling voters on the bond campaign.
Republican Party officials in New York confirmed that while Schwarzenegger is in Manhattan, he also is scheduled to appear at two local party fund-raisers.
The California Recovery Team fund-raiser at Johnson's home will come on the heels of a similar event scheduled in Sacramento on Friday. Sacramento Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, both Democrats who have offered to help out the Republican governor and former film star, are hosting a small, $100,000-a-plate dinner on the night of a home game against the San Antonio Spurs. For $25,000 each, other donors can watch the game from the Maloofs' Arco Arena suite.
As to Mr. Parrish's recount about the unnecessary cost of Arnold's bonds to the State of California, he doesn't seem to have a web site yet for me to provide you, but if you doubt the cost to the State, allow me to explain it for those unfamiliar with bond financing.
It's very simple: The bond holders are almost all Californians because of the tax implications. When Wall Street conducts the sales, they pocket a commission to issue them, another to RESELL them in California, and then pay their taxes on both sales in New York. If the sales are conducted through California houses, then the brokerage houses sell directly to holders, with no middle man, and pay taxes on the commissions in California. The commissions were $250,000,000 alone. The taxes on the commissions are over $100,000,000. The rest is in taxes on lost economic activity of the combined $350,000,000 sent out of State.
Your Post 135 - "I want you to take that statement and compare it to the list I posted above."
Was that a question ?
for example - from your laundry list -
"He backed the $3 Billion Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Proposition 71"
When he was running, did he ever say he would NOT back Embryonic Stem Cell Research ?
Or perhaps your -
"He opposed Prop 54 (Racial Privacy), calling Ward Connerly et al., "Right wing crazies."
where the original source ( appears to be an opinion piece )has disappeared and cannot be accessed.
" I do so now, answer the list in Post 107, point by point, and with sources."
You again seemed to have missed the point.. it is YOUR laundry list - don't YOU have sources to prove your accusations ? Are you asking me again to do your homework ?
"When Wall Street conducts the sales, they pocket a commission to issue them, another to RESELL them in California, and then pay their taxes on both sales in New York."
I don't think the Govs office gets to make any of the decisions involving who gets to sell these bonds.
You may want to refer to
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pos/er/2004C.pdf
If what you say is true, you may be able to point me to any bills suthored or supported by Tom that attempted to require all such bonds to only be issued in the State.
I'm going to bother with just one of these, because it shows just how dishonest you really are. First you cherry pick the list (that I maintain from time to time, and not just for you) to find SOMETHING, anything you can use to avoid the content. Thus,
Or perhaps your -
"He opposed Prop 54 (Racial Privacy), calling Ward Connerly et al., "Right wing crazies."
where the original source ( appears to be an opinion piece )has disappeared and cannot be accessed.
Besides the fact that you know damned well he said that, rather than defend it, you play games. Have a new source, sweetie, and cut the BS. NRO should be good enough for you.
Answer the substance of the charges, or admit that you worked hard to elect a liberal.
"First you cherry pick the list (that I maintain from time to time, and not just for you) to find SOMETHING, anything you can use to avoid the content."
Wrong again - At a quick glance they jumped out at me as being higher on my interest list.
As far as your misleading statement itself -
"He opposed Prop 54 (Racial Privacy), calling Ward Connerly et al., "Right wing crazies."
The quote itself - taken from your now corrected link is
"I'm against it," he said, "And if the right-wing crazies have a problem with that, so be it."
Now since Arnold never mentions Ward, the only way you can interpret this as Arnold calling Ward a "right wing crazie" is if YOU consider Ward a "right wing crazie".
Kind of like when I mention fanatical conservatives - most conservatives are NOT what I consider fanatical conservatives.
( BTW - not that it matters, but you don't appear to be a fanatical conservative )
( hmm... perhaps I should use the term right wing crazies instead... I'll have to mull that over )
Horse shit. Ward Connerly authored Prop 54. Arnold therefore CANNOT avoid that charge.
"Horse shit. Ward Connerly authored Prop 54. Arnold therefore CANNOT avoid that charge."
I disagree -
There were many, many people who might have had a problem with Arnold being against it - for example the 3,141,950 people other then Connerly who voted for it -
Have you deemed them all "right wing crazies" ?
When he made the statement regarding "right wing crazies" was your first thought " He must be talking about Ward Connerly " ?
No, Arnold did. That's the charge. Defend it, along with the SUBSTANCE of the rest of the list.
When he made the statement regarding "right wing crazies" was your first thought " He must be talking about Ward Connerly " ?
Arnold's statement is non-specific and directed to all who wouldn't like his opposition to it. It is therefore directed toward all supporters of Proposition 54. Even if you could dream up a way of parsing his statement in such a way that it wasn't directed to all supporters of Prop. 54, you cannot avoid having its most strident supporters included by Arnold's statement, Ward Connerly, as the author, being the most intense. Hence, my comment that it was directed to Ward Connerly, et al. If you don't buy that you have totally failed to make a case for your position.
BTW, I am fairly certain that ArnoldWatch uses FPPC data and have emailed them requesting them to cite the origin of their data. In fact, I did that before your post questioning the source knowing that you are likely to pull such a stunt.
So far, you STILL haven't dealt with the substance of a single item in that list and STILL haven't offered a single piece of evidence to contradict it. Nothing.
"If you don't buy that you have totally failed to make a case for your position."
??? In order to buy that, I would have to abandon logic -
Since 36% of the vote went for the prop, YOU are the one that are saying that Arnold considers them all "right wing crazies" - this is absurd. You have abandoned logic.
"So far, you STILL haven't dealt with the substance of a single item in that list"
Perhaps because you still have not said what it is you want - your last request -"I want you to take that statement and compare it to the list I posted above." refering to :
In my opinion he will hold to what he says.
I think that he will have a better chance making the Dem legislature go along with it then his opponants.
How about this ?
For EVERY item on your list that refers to things that he COULD have said something about at the time, It is my opinion he has held to what he said.
For EVERY item on your list that refers to things that he is attempting to have the Dem legislature go along with, I still believe he is doing better then Tom would have.
Do you actually expect me to go through your laundry list and figure out what is really meant by your misleading and/or unsourced statements ?
"BTW, I am fairly certain that ArnoldWatch uses FPPC data and have emailed them requesting them to cite the origin of their data."
Odds are they did/do. My question was regarding just HOW they combine that data, as I illustrated in post 150 where a small contribution from you NOW to a group supporting one of the Props could be classified by them on their charts as a "special interest" donation to Arnold.
They ADMIT this as they keep updating the chart.
I missed this, sorry it's late...
"He never said he was going to author one. He said he would use the one that Arizona passed as a template for an iniative."
So Tom's idea is to NOT author and submit bills as a Senator, but to hold back on these great ideas until he is elected Gov., then start an initiative ?
What's stopping him from doing them now ?( including one restricting bond sales to CA companies )
I asked someone this during the election ( was it you ? ) and the answer I got was akin to " If the people don't elect him Gov, then they don't deserve his good ideas "
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.