How 12 Editorial Cartoonists View the CA Gov Candidate, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER

Cagle's Cartoon Index ^ | August 2003 | Various Cartoonists

[summer]

(1) Daryl Cagle, Slate.com




(2) Walt Handelsman, Long Island, NY, Newsday




(3) Steve Sack, Minnesota, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune




(4) Jimmy Margulies, New Jersey -- The Record




(5) John Cole, Durham, NC -- The Herald-Sun




(6) Dana Summers, Orlando, FL,




(7) Bill Schorr, United Media




(8) Jeff Stahler, The Cincinnati Post, Ohio




(9) Bill Schorr, United Media




(10) R.J. Matson, NY, The New York Observer




(11) Mike Keefe, The Denver Post




(12) John Cole, Durham, NC -- The Herald-Sun

[Tempest]

I'm not quite sure why so many people are upset about Arnolds positions on education???

If you ask me education is perhaps the only socialized program which actually offers a larger return than it's intial investment by providing society with productive people.

[harpo11]

One power lifter, heavy weight champion body builder, 7 Time Mr. Olympian, successful visionary enterprising businessman, good looking articulate deep voiced manly man vs.

one slimey pandering crook's crook no show no grow no power no ideas incompetent big spending heavy taxing democrat special interest loving govenor bump!

[Tempest]

I hope you weren't trying to imply that somehow Arnold is hard up for the cash of the teachers union?! LOL!!! He's always been passionate about education, which is fair.

I just don't understand how some politicians can be passionate about pork bellies, and sugar exports.

But hey, you know what if he was passionate about funding something that you believed in I'm sure you'd be alright with it. I just happen to believe in providing funds to further society towards independance (i.e. education) as opposed to welfare.

[summer]

I am 500% for education, but in my own experience, I have not found the teachers union to be very open to new ideas from teachers. However, here in FL I was pleasantly surprised to find a GOP gov, Gov Bush, who very much likes to hear from teachers about how to improve education. What a POSITIVE difference he has made for students (and teachers) in this state! :)

[Tempest]

Doh!!! LOL!!! I just read your profile and I'm glad to see that you're one of the few conservatives here that doesn't view public education as great and evil waste of tax dollars. (Maybe just the questionable administration of those funds as a waste of tax payer dollars ;)

Anyways I don't get why there are such issues against Schwarzenegger for being a moderate when some people could consider Jeb Bush to be one as well.

Heck I remember when he stopped by my work here in California many years back before he was governor just so that he could get a better understanding of industrial enviromental issues. (I'm in the alterantive fuel systems industry.)

I imagine some conservatives would have a heart attack at just the thought of Jeb being interested in conservation. Which is nothing as nutty as extreme enviromentalism. Oh well I guess sometimes we get so wrapped up in the dogma of our principles that we're unwilling to compromise to look at the big picture for balance and the greater good.

Which is why I support Schwarzenegger, he's a moderate. Which is what you need to win California. Especially considering the 1.4 million registered voter defecit amongest Democrats vs. Republicans in California. But some people are just not willing or wanting to look at the long term. *sigh*

[Carry_Okie]

I'm a Republican taxpayer in CA.

My family has been in California for five generations.

Bustamante could win this. Arnold could win this. Nobody else.

We disagree. The political demographics when Reagan won were, if anything, more against Republicans than they are now. My biggest problem with Ahnold is that he is untrustworthy and will take too long to learn what to do. McClintock knows what needs to be done NOW. Considerating the rate of fiscal bleeding, that is a huge financial leverage.

A "social liberal" CANNOT be a fiscal conservative, simply because the consequences of social liberalism cost so much. Whether it's single parents (easy divorce), molested children (gay adoption), debauched moral standards in schools (teen pregnancy), or HIV (all of the above), social liberalism costs the State of California a bucketload. Never mind the consequences in lost productivity.

It astonishes me that this simple financial case somehow eludes the public debate. I guess we'd all rather be in denial that "free love" isn't cheap sex.

I'm working up that very case as a thesis for presentation to a number of inner city constituencies. It's high time someone explained how the Slave Party really stays in power.

[cinFLA]

Actually, no. Bush has been very clever at playing rope-a-dope with the mediots.

So has Arnold.

[cinFLA]

I think you missed today's press conference and know nothing about Arnold. How else could you write such an ignorant post.

[Carry_Okie]

I think you missed today's press conference and know nothing about Arnold. How else could you write such an ignorant post.

I can see that you don't live in California and know next to nothing about its politics. How else could you write such an ignorant post?

[cinFLA]

Having Arnold get into offie only to tell me he needs a lot more time to figure out what is going on, and to get his on the job training, just would not appeal to me,

This shows how little you know about CA politics. The only ones that know are the one's that are already in. Until elected, Arnold will be shut off from the true numbers. He has to get in and audit EVERYTHING!

It is an unbelievable mess.

[cd jones]

Maybe not........she does seem kinda rude. ;-)

[cinFLA]

As to the above excerpt from your post, no, that is not at all what I am saying. McClintock is already a senator. Clearly he already won some elections, but, outside of his district, he may not be so well know. I think that is a rasonable observation.

A teacher?

[summer]

A tired one who can't type. Yes. A teacher.

[summer]

BTW, if you want to get picky about it, you posted to me when you meant to post to someone else in your post #150. I freepmailed you to quietly let you know! You're welcome.

[summer]

Carry, Post #150 from cinFLA was meant for you but cinFLA mistakenly used my text and replied to me. Maybe cinFLA was tired and made a mistake - it does happen! Good night! :)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Reagan never needed to call economists (when he was in his 50s) to find out what he thought about things. Reagan stressed tax CUTS, because he believed in the Free Market in what he called the Creative Society.

President Reagan was an economist. Majored in economics and sociology at Eureka College in Illinois.

[truth_seeker]

"We disagree. The political demographics when Reagan won were, if anything, more against Republicans than they are now."

So you state the demographics are more favorable now, than for Reagan (I disagree) and you provide NO support or reasoning.

Then you launch into what you feel is wrong with Arnold, obviously showing you didn't hear his TV time, today.

My family has been here awhile, too. So what? I'm here now, talking to people. Watching every poll, listening to candidates on radio and TV.

And I repeat: Only Bustamante or Arnold can win.

There are still more dems than Reps, and the Reps are LESS conservative than in Reagan's era.

Nobody can show me how McClintock or Simon will miraculously leap from 3rd and 4th place with single digits, to the lead.

And an important fact is McClintock can't compete because he has less money. People with money to give don't give, because they feel he can't win.

There are multiple Republican candidates, a fact which taken ALONE could cost the election.

[Carry_Okie]

Your analysis shows the typically callow understanding characteristic of an ideologue.

So you state the demographics are more favorable now, than for Reagan (I disagree) and you provide NO support or reasoning.

At the time Reagan was elected, Pat Brown was a far more popular governor than Davis, with a larger majority in both houses of the legislature than Davis currently enjoys.

Then you launch into what you feel is wrong with Arnold, obviously showing you didn't hear his TV time, today.

I read enough of it to know that he didn't commit to anything. He's going to appoint a commission to "study the problem." Then what? Why do we need a committee when what we need is a leader. McClintock already knows what to do and can get much of it done in weeks, instead of a year. That alone is worth several billion.

My family has been here awhile, too. So what? I'm here now, talking to people. Watching every poll, listening to candidates on radio and TV.

My, such perspective! How intimate can you get?

And I repeat: Only Bustamante or Arnold can win.

An unsupported assertion, and better men than you think it's crap.

[truth_seeker]

"And I repeat: Only Bustamante or Arnold can win.

An unsupported assertion, and better men than you think it's crap."

Check back with me Oct. 7th. How do you like your Crow? Okie Style?

And I support my assertion with the FACT that not a single poll shows McClintock PLUS Simon higher than 3rd place. This isn't a primary.

And I see no actions by McClintock whereby he will suddenly have much more money, much more name identification, much broader appeal to the middle-of-the-road voters.

Why don't you lay out the actions and the scenario whereby McClintock gets himself to the lead? If you cannot, please have some of the better men do so.

[summer]

Interesting comments, above, from truth_seeker and Carry_Okie (both in CA), on the potential failure/success of McClintock's candidacy.