California: GOP spokesman: Arnold out

Dan Weintraub weblog ^ | July 30, 2003 | Dan Weintraub

[John Jorsett]

Republican Party spokesman Rob Stutzman, speaking on Eric Hogue's radio show on KTKZ in Sacramento, says it's official: Arnold is out. "I had that confirmed late last night," Stutzman said.

[LieFreeGov]

Put Cox in the Boxer spot?

So SORRY, it just seemed too obvious not to be a pig and go there....

[Gophack]

I would love for Cox to run against Boxer, but that was the rumor in 1998 and he didn't do it. He would have to give up a safe congressional seat to run. I hope he does it. I will 100% support him.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Source?

Huh? It's my prediction (one that I hope proves untrue), not a reprinted report by someone else.

Pogo101, you should realize that posting those "numbers" formatted the way you did without a disclaimer that they were, pulled out of...use your imagination, is irresponsible given that not everyone is going to call you on your Sourcing, and conservatives might believe your defeatist whining comes from actual data.

[AmericanInTokyo]

"I VILL (NOT) BE BACK!!"

[pogo101]

Pogo101, you should realize that posting those "numbers" formatted the way you did without a disclaimer that they were, pulled out of...use your imagination, is irresponsible given that not everyone is going to call you on your Sourcing, and conservatives might believe your defeatist whining comes from actual data.

Don't lecture me, let alone insult me, when it is you who have failed to understand two rather straightforward aspects of my post: (1) it was my personal guesstimation; and (2) it is not defeatist or whining, but meant to illustrate why I hope the GOP vote ultimately is not split on Oct. 7.

PeoplesRep_of_LA, you should realize that my initial post plainly was my personal prediction of what might happen. It even had my little comment, (yay!) after an entry for McClintock.

If you didn't understand, don't blame me or the formatting, or ludicrously assert that I've transgressed some sort of rule about sourcing.

Perhaps you'd care to cite that rule to me, and explain in your own words how I supposedly transgressed it?

It looks like we're on the same page ideologically; it'd be a shame if you decided to pick a fight because you misconstrued what I feel was rather obviously my guesstimation of where Oct. 7 might lead us if we have a crowded GOP field on the recall ballot.

How 'bout, instead, you simply say, "Oh, I see now -- I just read it the wrong way. Gotcha," instead of digging in (as you thus far are doing) and blaming your misperceptions on formatting, etc.?

And then you start with the insults. "Defeatist whining": Uh, no. Read it again. My point isn't that a conservative can't win. It's that, if the conservatives split their votes among several candidates, they could lose despite an overwhelming anti-Davis sentiment. Jeeze. Read the post before you start flinging insults. Or if you're going to insult me, at least do it because we in fact disagree about the election, and I suspect we don't (unless you WANT 4 or more GOP candidates on the ballot; my point is, we want as few as possible).

Sheesh. What a jerk!

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Read the post before you start flinging insults...then follow that up screaming Sheesh. What a jerk!

Apparently I touched a nerve, or you are a completely unstable emotional basketcase. On the internet, what are the odds. In either way, know this; while you did say (yay!) the ending was capitalized and formatted in a way that looks pasted from an actual source, plus you in no way said that you were sourcing yourself.

Now you are right I did insult you by phrasing it as Defeatist whining. Lets look at what you said.

"Defeatist whining": Uh, no. Read it again. My point isn't that a conservative can't win. It's that, if the conservatives split their votes among several candidates, they could lose despite an overwhelming anti-Davis sentiment. then you go off on tangents about how I didn't read and how I am so mean to you.

What's the difference between the conservatives can't win and what you wrote? So back in reality, everyone knows that we are dealing with a ballot that not only has more than one GOP, it has many more. That is perfectly clear this week. So yes, your critique is either trying to turn back time or is indeed defeatist whining because there will be lots of conservatives on the ballot.

I can disagree with you all I want, thank you very much, and not be pigeonholed into wanting Gray. If you'll get a grip on yourself you can recognize that your post does nothing to further the conservative cause, only bring doubt because of the ballot realities.

I hope I haven't caused you any more emotional problems. I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings.

[pogo101]

So many misstatements, so little time. Of course, unable to argue on the merits without insults, you start off AND conclude by asserting that I have some sort of emotional problem, when my post rather mildly called you on your hilarious misunderstandings. (I believe psychiatrists call this "projection.") And now you've presented even more of them:

So yes, your critique is either trying to turn back time or is indeed defeatist whining because there will be lots of conservatives on the ballot.

Uh, no. Go back and actually read the original post. I want the candidates to unite behind one GOP candidate so that my "prediction" -- you know, the one you thought was somehow authoritatively "sourced" from elsewhere? -- DOES NOT come true.

can disagree with you all I want, thank you very much, and not be pigeonholed into wanting Gray.

Who said you wanted Gray? Ludicrous -- but funny! You're stubborn, rude ... but not liberal!

your post does nothing to further the conservative cause, only bring doubt because of the ballot realities.

Two things, chuckles. First, as you continue to be unable (for surely it isn't "unwilling") to understand, my post was stressing the need for unity among the GOP, the need for support to coalesce around fewer than four candidates, even if four technically remain on the ballot come Oct. 7. Second, it is not for you (or me, for that matter) to pontificate on what does, and what does not, further the conservative cause.

What a silly little person. If you had stated your disagreement respectfully, fine; but, perhaps embarrassed at how badly you misread my initial post, and unwilling to admit it graciously, you just go out an insult, insult, insult -- and you ceven your insults contain misreadings and logical errors. I say again: "What a jerk!"

[Green Knight]

While I didn't care for the thought of Arnold running because he was a RINO, that's not the main reason why I'm happy that he isn't running for governor. The main reason is that I want to see King Conan: Crown of Iron made.



Completely selfish on my part? Undoubtedly. Doesn't change the fact, though, that I REALLY want to see this movie made, and it wouldn't be right having Conan played by somebody other than Arnold.

[pogo101]

know this; while you did say (yay!) the ending was capitalized and formatted in a way that looks pasted from an actual source, plus you in no way said that you were sourcing yourself.

Hilarious! Do you have a gag writer?

Where to begin? "Know this." Who do you think you are, the Delphic Oracle? St. Peter? Yoda? Oh, and by the way, the proper punctuation after that is a colon, never a semicolon.

"the ending was capitalized and formatted in a way that looks pasted from an actual source, plus you in now way said that you were sourcing yourself." It's implicit that it's my own guesstimation-if-the-GOP-doesn't-unite, at least to anyone who's literate. Do you really think that some news journal, etc., would print up a table that includes terms like "SOME DEMOCRAT" (as opposed to "UNNAMED DEMOCRAT," let us say) and -- it's particularly laughable that you didn't "get it" due to this one -- "VARIOUS KOOKS" (as opposed to, "OTHER CANDIDATES" or the like)? That's totally implausible.

[byteback]

That sucks. The GOP vote will split between McClintock and Issa and Loretta Sanchez will be the next Governor.

[pogo101]

I think "King Conan" is probably gonna get made. Have you heard anything about its pre-production status? "Development hell," or something more promising?

[Green Knight]

I heard it was on the fast-track, now that the Wachowskis are nearly done with the Matrix movies. John Milius also turned in a re-write of his original script, making it leaner and tighter than before.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

I'm glad to see you rephrase all your attacks as jokularity after I -start off AND conclude by asserting that I have some sort of emotional problem, which I certainly did, and you realized that we are all here to have a good time. Super. Didn't really stop you from calling me a laundry list of names, but at least it was less ridicuously angry and I appreciate that.

First, I was wrong to say that you wanted to pigeonhole me into liking Gray. I am at work and when I quickly skimmed and saw the "jerk" et al, I kinda lost interest. But wrong is wrong, and you didn't imply that I wanted Gray, sorry.

Next, you can reference you original "poll" but you can't add to it. I want the candidates to unite behind one GOP candidate so that my "prediction"
I think I got that.
-- you know, the one you thought was somehow authoritatively "sourced" from elsewhere? -- DOES NOT come true.

Now are we talking about "true" like real life, or true in your personal guesstimation sense? If its the later, I'm counting on you to just say it WON'T happen and then that will be so. Your statements still have a hard time with that whole multitude of candidates that obviously aren't consulting pogo101 respectfully. Therefore, dealing with real voting and real polls, the conservatives are done for, if one believes your defeatist whining.

Second, it is not for you (or me, for that matter) to pontificate on what does, and what does not, further the conservative cause.

Am I the only one laughing at the hypocracy in this statement? Say! Speaking of comical hypocracy, get a load of this!

If you had stated your disagreement respectfully, fine;
I only said it was defeatist whining, it wasn't meant to bring forth such emotion, but despite that I still stand by it 100% since its obvious that the field will not be as small as you need.

perhaps embarrassed at how badly you misread my initial post, and unwilling to admit it graciously, you just go out an insult, insult, insult

I guess I was the one saying these things;

chuckles
What a silly little person.
I say again: "What a jerk!"

I believe it was Woody Allen, or perhaps it was pogo101 who said it most brilliantly; I believe [my] psychiatrists call this "projection."

[pogo101]

Let's review.

1. You hallucinate that my post somehow was cut-and-pasted from elsewhere. (I note that you have NO answer for my comment about how ludicrous this is, given entries such as "yay!" and "VARIOUS KOOKS." What happened, Peoples, no response to that?)

2. You further fail to read the explicit terms of the post, indicating that I hope my projected result doesn't pan out, and that the GOP instead will concentrate its support around fewer candidates (even if 4 are in fact to be on the ballot).

3. You begin calling names and rudely lecturing, both based on your misperceptions of my post. (NOW, of course, you are asserting that calling someone a "defeatist whin[er]" isn't an insult," or that it pales in comparison to "jerk," a real nuclear-tipped piece of nastiness.)

4. I respond by pointing out that my post is clear and that I resent your insults. Yes, I did call you a jerk, because someone who throws insults around without any reason, and who then blows off a fair opportunity to retract them, IS a jerk. Pretty tame stuff.

5. You respond with insults asserting mental instability.

6. I again object to your insults and again label you a jerk for delivering them. I also call you "chuckles." Ooooh. Which you later cite back to me as one of three horrific "insults" I supposedly leveled at YOU. (Your only two other examples are both "jerk." Real doozies, there, as insults go.)

7. You assert that I'm a hypocrite simply because I used the terms "jerk" and "chuckles" in response to your far more weighty insults: "defeatist whin[er]" and assertions of mental instability. With all due respect, that's a pretty lopsided comparison. What I find striking is that you still think "jerk" and "chuckles" are worse!

Peoples, I've been on FR a lot longer than you, so here are some words of advice that goes beyond your apparent failure to read the posts before you post negatively: BE RESPECTFUL, AND YOU WILL BE TREATED WITH RESPECT IN RETURN.

But if you are disrespectful, such as by attacking anyone you so much as PERCEIVE as disagreeing with you as a "defeatist whin[er]," you'll get much more of what you've gotten here today. If you enjoy that, bring it on. I and plenty of other Vets are here to spread the word about you.

7. And by the way, it's spelled "hypocrisy," not "hypocracy" ... "jocularity," not "jokularity." (Not that either usage of your word was appropriate, but *sigh* as I said earlier, "so little time.")

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

I agree with everything you said! In that I skipped to the bottom and read "so little time.")

I'm goin' out tonight and gotta get ready pronto. Keep making polls, but do make them where the good guys win once in a while ;-) bu-bye.

[dr_who_2]

He'll be back.

[Munson]

If Loretta Sanchez becomes governor then we can have Mayor Pringle become Congressman Pringle :)

[pogo101]

Keep making polls, but do make them where the good guys win once in a while

Okay, here's one, not only as a peace offering but also as the one I DO, in fact, hope will happen. (Unlike the last one, the one I "fear.")

VERY Important: in this version, which like the last one is just my guesstimation, Issa and (probably very late in the game) Simon MUST have thrown their support to McClintock. Riordan is in regardless, I suspect:

RIORDAN 25%
ISSA 3%
SIMON 2%
MCCLINTOCK 42%
SOME DEMOCRAT (Feinstein would get more, but not ENOUGH more) 24%
VARIOUS KOOKS 4%

Go McClintock!

[2rightsleftcoast]

I'll second that! McClintock!!!

[zoen]

This guy is no Republican