Posted on 09/12/2003 2:17:52 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Candidates Speak On "Armstrong & Getty Show"
POSTED: 12:13 p.m. PDT September 12, 2003 UPDATED: 1:27 p.m. PDT September 12, 2003
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock had a date of sorts Friday morning.
The hosts of Sacramento talk radio program "The Armstrong and Getty Show" on Talk 650 KSTE arranged a surprise on-air confrontation between the two. McClintock asked Schwarzenegger repeatedly to debate him, and the actor demurred.
McClintock asked: "We've got a Republican convention coming up this weekend, you and I are the two Republican candidates now left in the race, why don't we get together and discuss the major issues of this campaign?"
Schwarzenegger replied that he'd be, in his words, "more than happy" to "get together" with the state senator from Northridge.
McClintock repeated his question: "Can we do that in a debate before the convention Saturday? We're both going to be there."
Schwarzenegger said "No," adding that he would be more than happy to meet with McClintock and discuss issues.
The actor then told McClintock the important thing is to work together on issues. McClintock extended the debate offer a final time and Schwarzenegger signed off by saying, "We will talk about all those things, and we will have a great time at the Republican convention."
A Los Angeles Times poll released late Thursday showed McClintock with support from 18 percent of likely voters to Schwarzenegger's 25 percent. McClintock's support grew 6 percentage points since the August poll, while Schwarzenegger's grew 3 percentage points. Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was the leading candidate in the poll, with 30 percent.
"The Armstrong & Getty Show" also airs on KQCA-58 TV.
Copyright 2003 by TheKCRAChannel and The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Concede? How silly can you be. Are you awake yet? Have you had your coffee yet? Don't cop-out now and don't give me any ultimatims either. Not when you've been AWOL each time I requested you defend Arnold on the significant issues of conservatism and the GOP party platform.
For your edification, let me repeat what I said to you in RE:#164 and #RE:#195, respectively.
The other night, I gave you an extensive list of issues where Arnold differs from the conservative agenda and the GOP party platform. I asked you to defend Arnold's positions and you said, quote, "I'm not going to debate with you...
"I gave you that list on two other occasions. Its clear, precise and concise. You have continually refused to defend Arnold on the real issues of conservatism and those issues which are found in the GOP party platform.
You can dance around the issues and ignore all the legitimate charges I've been raising against Arnold for a full month now, all you like. It doesn't solve the central problem and makes you look petty and whiny.
So what's it gonna be? You can respond to the line item charges against Arnold, that I've posted to you three different times now and then, we'll get around to your points. Or you can move on down the road a throughly beaten and demoralized "Arnoldnaut". The choice is yours.
I await your rebuttal.
Yet, now you want me to answer the points you've listed before you'll even consider answering the issues I've raised. That's pathetic and you know it too. You don't like the way the debate between us is unfolding, so you make up your own rules. Total sophistry. The playing field is level, you just need to step up to the plate. Stop beating around the bush. This is the real world, you can't have it both ways. Stop acting like a juvenile and let's debate the issues.
Right now you owe me a response to the original issues/points I posted to you on several occasions. Stop running away from the challenge. Get busy.
My issues with Arnold aren't distortions and I continue to wait for your reply. I've been very patient with you and I would appreciate a response from you. Running from this challenge makes you look very weak. Please, do yourself a favor and just respond.
Come on. I've alreday put together a response to your list of issues. Its your turn. Show us all, how you're gonna defend Arnold.
>>> Big difference... but you guys seem to have trouble with big differences.
Differences? Wrong. The problem is you're scared to defend, the indefensible. Its hard making Arnold look like something he's not. Arnold is no conservative. He's a liberal.
I told you I was willing to yet again waste my time responding to your entire distorted, mangled list if you answered the question I posed first.... the question I posed in direct answer to your claim in post 183 "Arnold I agree with about 10% of the time."
The level of my agreement or disagreement with Arnold, isn't the issue here. So stop trying to back out of this. Arnold won't debate and he looks like a coward. Now you won't debate either. Need I say more? LOL
>>>You are embarassing yourself by refusing to answer.
Sorry. But you're the one embarrassing yourself. Not me. You've refused to debate me on the issues concerning Arnold, just like Arnold refuses to debate Tom McClintock on the issues.
Come on now. Get with the program and step up to the plate and take your best shot. Within no time, I'll post my response to your list of issues. I promise you. You have my word. Its all ready to go. And if I don't post it, just think, you can call me on it for eternity on FreeRepublic. I pride myself on my integrity. You can't lose on this one.
I'll be waiting my dear and thanks for the extra time. I'll be sharpening my responses in the mean time. ;^)
>>>I'll answer your post later tonight... but promise you will answer mine...
It's waiting for you right now, but you're at the plate. Play Ball! Batter up!
Later
Also, after Tom was interviewed, Jack and Joe found out that Tom's 'mamager' had been on his cell talking and trashing them and their show in general in front of their studio crew. They were pissed. To paraphrase: "Tom won't be coming on the show to talk to their audience until this S*n-of-b*tch appologies first."
heard the replay this morning.
I do not now live or have ever lived in Texas, and I don't consider myself politically or historically informed enough to debate the topic of GWB's past alleged adequacy or inadequacy for the Texas governorship, in comparison to alternative candidates that he ran against.
I am sure there are pros and cons for at least a couple of points of view there. I probably do not have as much prejudice one way or another as you might suspect. I am distantly aware of a historical controversy concerning the topic.
Can we focus back to Arnold for a moment (pardon please) though?
Arnold was quoted in the news within the last couple of days of saying something like "I do not know what goes on at a Republican convention" and goes on to presume he needs to make people see the sense of following and supporting him there.
I really see this as somewhat specious. The guy wants to be governor and perhaps that would imply also being the defacto leader of the state Republican Party. And he will go to the convention (by now, he has come and perhaps gone). But he does not know what goes on at such a meeting, after announcing his intention to win the defacto endorsement of the entire party at the gathering?? Come on, someone is pulling my leg-- he either is a fool, or knows to the Nth degree exactly what goes on at the convention. This is an example of saying something for popular consumption but holding something back, and I assure you it absolutely does not motivate me to support him in any way because I know, and all intelligent people know, that something in the statement he made does not compute.
One thing that makes me nervous is Simon's misstep in 2002 about the campaign fund photo. He should not have done that. Similarly, Arnold in my estimation has a similar problem in that his ego may interfere with his (higher) need to stay on message 100% of the time in an election such as this. In addition, there are dirt-bomb scandal considerations that don't apply to Simon but do to Arnold. Also, there is Arnold's evasiveness on hard questions and the debate evasion.
Individually these might not amount to much, but collectively they represent to me a distinctly recognizable pattern of someone who is not being very honest or straightforward. I distinctly do not like that in the character of a political candidate who is seeking my vote.
I know I am not alone, not just because there is a gaggle of arch-conservative knuckledraggers lurking on this BB. My SO, for example, gets the same reading even though she holds my info gathering and discussion on FR with some degree of genteel disdain. My SO is by no means a carbon copy of my political beliefs-- she is a self-described moderate with no particular affiliation from candidate to candidate or election to election.
Add to this the lack of a crystal ball no matter what today's polls show as a means of predicting the future reliably (prove mathematically that certain results will happen on Oct. 7, and I will just want to grab your time machine and use it for making money in the stock market and horse races-- I don't take too much faith in polls, at least after Dewey "won" in 1948 ;-).
I want to compliment Arnold and have no big problem doing so. He's intelligent, magnetic, and rich. I think he's also politically astute for what that's worth.
But he should know this: that there are still many people who believe that being elected to high political office is not just a popularity contest. A candidate should be required to undergo an initiation, if you will, a series of trials in which he or she can demonstrate in competition that they are as good as they claim.
Arnold does not seem to understand the concept of meritocracy, by his continual avoidance of debating his competitors for the office he seeks. Therefore, to me and probably to many others like me, his use of his popularity as a tool to avoid the more important issue of the real time demonstration of competency for office only qualifies him as arrogant, conceited, and inaccessible. That renders him in my eyes almost totally unfit for my vote.: if I elect him and the qualities that he demonstrate to me now continue or grow while he is in office, I have absolutely no one but myself to blame for mistakenly putting my trust in him.
If Arnold is a really good politician, he should have known this from reading American history. The fact that he seems, even at this time, relatively unaware of how he is perceived by a significant subset of the electorate he claims to be wooing only serves to underscore (to me) his inadequacy for the governorship at this time.
I am perfectly comfortable with Arnold as an active campaigner for a McClintock administration and perhaps even for Babs' seat in 2004. I do hope he drops his arrogant manner towards the electorate he ostensibly claims to represent and submits to the better candidate-- Tom McClintock-- who so far has more than amply demonstrated the qualities of leadership that I expect for the governor of my state. I realize that I in no way represent the views of my neighbors, friends, acquaintences, or others in this state. I only speak for myself. But I need to speak for myself and not others in this election, because that is my ultimate civic responsibility. I respect others' decisions and although I may try to persuade them to my point of view, I will not use the argument of popularity alone to beat them into agreeing with me on this. It's too important. This is not a beauty or bodybuilding contest, or the Academy Awards. It is an election, and in an election, to me, the domain of ideas reigns supreme over any other. I am an adult and I have prepared for the worst possible outcomes of any stand that I take, but life spent solely in avoiding risk to me is indistinguishable from prison. I believe in freedom and opportunity and meritocracy and I'll probably die without changing those beliefs.
I urge Arnold to understand this position and take action if he intends to gain the support of those who believe in merit over popularity. If he does not believe he needs my support, I have no hold over him or his supporters. We part company in peace and may the best candidate win.
So far, the candidate who has worked to win my vote is Tom.
I know you understand and I fervently hope that you receive the healing that I am hearing you need when you speak.
Peace...
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.