# Schwarzenegger and the Governorship.



## arnisador (Sep 16, 2003)

What do people think--all joking aside--about the kind of job Arnold Schwarzenegger could do as governor of California?

He really has no experience, but then, neither did Ronald Reagan when he ran for governor of California. But what would worry me more than the lack of experience per se is the fear that he won't appreciate that he must work with the legislature to accomplish something. I could see him filling out a term of total legislative gridlock, making things worse.

I'm confident he'll win if the courts don't interfere (as they have in stalling the election). Jesse Ventura did a job that most people would agree was at least adequate in Minnesota. I wonder how Arnold Schwarzenegger would do in the mess that is Californian politics.


----------



## MountainSage (Sep 17, 2003)

Jesse is a little different from Arnold in that Jesse held political offices at the local level prior to running for govenor.  Jesse has at least an idea of how the system worked from the inside.  Another difference, IMHO, is that Jesse ran because he want to change things in Minnesota for the better, Arnold is taking the "next logical step".

Mountainsage


----------



## arnisador (Sep 17, 2003)

I agree on all counts. I understand that working with the legislature wasn't Jesse Ventura's strong, either, despite his previous experience as mayor.

I do think that Schwarzenegger is running not for the best and most noble of reasons although in fairness I think his interest in politics is legitimate. But the Ventura example--strong-willed star who doesn't play well with others having trouble getting his legislation passed despite a number of successes overall--has me wondering if Schwarzenegger, a bigger star and less experienced politician, truly understands that the state's chief executive has the power to accomplish only so much without the support of representatives and senators.

He may be thinking that he can use his popular support amongst the citizenry to put pressure on the legislature--or maybe he really thinks he can work with them. His lack of knowledge in some areas can be overcome by advisors, but the tone of relations with the House/Assembly and Senate will be his (and their) responsibility.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *What do people think--all joking aside--about the kind of job Arnold Schwarzenegger could do as governor of California?
> 
> He really has no experience, but then, neither did Ronald Reagan when he ran for governor of California. But what would worry me more than the lack of experience per se is the fear that he won't appreciate that he must work with the legislature to accomplish something. I could see him filling out a term of total legislative gridlock, making things worse.
> ...



Lets face it...Arnold has "opinons" like everyone else, but opinions are like buttholes. You can't create policy and run a state off of opinions. Arnold does not have the knowhow to be successful on his own. Furthermore, my biggest worry with "Celebs" running for office w/ no prior experience is that I question whether they understand the work that the position (Governor in this case) entails. You have to work your butt off. If Arnold does get elected, he will have to work harder then he has ever had too in his life just to do a mediocre job. And yes, I understand that Arnold is very accomplished and has worked hard in his life, but an elected position such as governor is still a huge amount of work. I question whether or not he has a clue to what he is in for.

Now, on the contrary, there are many professional politicians who know about as much as Arnold today, and less when they got elected into their positions. They're are many elected officials who don't know S**T also, but pretend that they do, and do a horrible job in office. 

What may save Arnolds behind is this: I think that he is at least smart enough to try to seek out the best advisors to help him get the job done. On the Financial News, he stood next to Warren Buffet, a very famous Financial mind and Democrate, and talked about how they would team up to help California out of there state of affairs. That is just one example. So, if he manages to get the best people to help him get the job done, then I think Arnold will do a great job.

So, it could go either way, in my opinion. 

Side note: I question how well Jesse Ventura did in Minnasota. Most people know that he was well liked in his state, but they can't actually state one possitive thing he has done. People always compare the 2 (Jesse and Arnold) because they were both Celebs running for Gov. of a state, but I think that it is an apple to orange comparison. Minn. and Cali. are totally different in their structure for one, and for 2 Jesse and Arnold are totally different in their politacal beliefs and backgrounds.

Also, I believe he dropped out of office early (second term maybe)? I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then I think that is a chickenS**T, spoiled, rich kid way to leave an office (unless it was medical, which I'm pretty sure it wasn't).

Anyways, my 2 cents...


----------



## MountainSage (Sep 17, 2003)

Paul your last paragraph, where you talking about Jesse or Arnold?  If you were speaking of Jesse, he grew up in a working middle class family, did the Navy SEAL thing, and proffesional wrestling.  None of these made him money to a level to be called rich, not even his movie works with Arnold.  I understand Jesse's wife had a bit of money from some wise investing in the horse flesh market, right bloodline at the right time.

MountainSage


----------



## pknox (Sep 17, 2003)

Believe it or not, Arnold's lack of experience may be an asset, both in getting elected and serving while in office.  

First, with the political and economic situation in California being what it is, the people seem to be frustrated with "politics as usual" -- therefore a candidate who is not seen as part of "the system", but instead as an innocent outsider, will not be associated with this bad feeling, and may very well benefit.  Ventura won his election basically by running as "a non-politician", and the people responded.

As far as if Arnold gets elected, and how he would do while in office, think about a martial arts parallel -- you know how in many karate schools we're told that green belts are the most dangerous?  The reason for this is that they know enough technique to THINK they are masters, and therefore do things beyond what they can handle.  Injury and frustration is often the result.  Someone with no training at all, however, will do anything you tell them, and is often easier to teach or work with.  Hopefully, Arnold considers himself a white belt, and is smart enough to surround himself with excellent people that he will listen to.  That would be better than someone with a little more experience trying to do things THEIR way.  Again, appointing good people is exactly what Ventura did, and most people consider his term a success.

Honestly, the people who will lose here, and I feel the most sorry for, are the residents of California.  Unfortunately, I don't care who you elect, your problems will not be solved in three or four years.  I heard Anne Richards (former Gov of Texas) on Larry King a few weeks back, and she said basically the same thing, and added that, "the candidates should ask themselves if they really want this job."  Pretty much the situation can't get much worse, so why not give Arnie a shot?


----------



## stickarts (Sep 17, 2003)

I think arnold would do a good job as governor just based on that he has been a super success at everything else that he has done. He goes in knowing what to expect with a plan to succeed. I think he would get the right advisors to make up for his lack of experience.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *Paul your last paragraph, where you talking about Jesse or Arnold?  If you were speaking of Jesse, he grew up in a working middle class family, did the Navy SEAL thing, and proffesional wrestling.  None of these made him money to a level to be called rich, not even his movie works with Arnold.  I understand Jesse's wife had a bit of money from some wise investing in the horse flesh market, right bloodline at the right time.
> 
> MountainSage *



The last paragraph I was talking about Jesse. 1st off, if you don't think his wrestling career didn't bring him mad cash, your nuts. Wrestlers make a ton of doe, and he was fairly popular for his time. I am sure he made out well.

That is besides the point, though. I wasn't saying he WAS a spoiled rich kid, but dropping out of office is handling the situation LIKE a spoiled rich kid, in my opinion. If you get elected to do a job, serve your term (unless you get some debiltating disease). That is just my opinion.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *What may save Arnolds behind is this: I think that he is at least smart enough to try to seek out the best advisors to help him get the job done. *



Yes, the Reagan and Bush approach. I agree that this is wise--though I suspect it also reflects pollsters' advice that appearances like the one you cite will help at the polls.



> *Minn. and Cali. are totally different in their structure for one, and for 2 Jesse and Arnold are totally different in their politacal beliefs and backgrounds.
> 
> Also, I believe he dropped out of office early *



I don't think he quit early--I think he just surprsied people by not running again. I do agree that the two cases are different, mostly because the states and the problems facing them are so different but also because Jesse Ventura did work his way up with miltary service, a mayorship and even political talk radio.

One likes to think that we would all be good citizen-politicians, growing into the job then returning to our farms like the Founding Fathers. Perhaps this is naive, but I truly believe that things were simpler then.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 17, 2003)

I've split off the Jesse Ventura analysis to a new thread.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2003)

Despite the recent negative news for him, my money is on Arnold Schwarzenegger.


----------



## Ender (Oct 5, 2003)

Arnold is smart. He knows he has a democratic legislation to deal with and they will not be cooperative in the least. His plan is take his agenda directly to the people (as Reagan did) thru the initiative process. Let the people vote and motivate them to direct the legislation on what needs to be done. That is his strength, that the people will be behind him.

If you remember, when Reagan took office, there was a democratic congress and house. Inflation was at 18%, interest rates were around 21%, unemployment was at 12%. Reagan took his case to the people of tax cuts and increased defense spending. It worked just liked it was supposed to.In fact JFK proposed the same thing during his presidency, but it never went anywhere. The point is now tax cuts generate MORE revenue for the government than increased taxes, and is now standard tactics against a sluggish economy. The only drawback is spending cuts have to take place in conjunction with the tax cuts. When the revenue increases, then spending can go up again.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2003)

He'll be a bloody disaster. He's ignorant, and arrogant--just yesterday, I saw him on TV making harassment jokes--and his "plans," so far are absurd.

Take the much-ballyhooed car tax. First, how many of you guys knew that this was a tax passed by the previous Republican governor, Pete Wilson? Or that the bill was specifically written so that the tax kicks back in when the economy goes in the dumper? Second, apparently Davis tried all sorts of alternatives--the Legislature wouldn't have them. So third, Arnold's blithely saying that he's going to immediately repeal the car tax, on which last summer's budget compromise was based. He's also going to increase funding for education. How? 

By finding all the waste in State government. Right. And taxing Indian casinos. Right. 

Hate to tell you this, guys, but I've seen the budgets for California community colleges. They've been cut, drastically. And fees raised, drastically. So Arnold's plans are bound to work.

Lest anybody forget, the only reason there IS a recall vote is: a very right-wing, lame duck legislator, Darryl Issa, pumped several million into a statewide campaign. He too started a campaign for gov; when he hit opposition, he gave a press conference in which he dropped out and burst into tears.

Fundamentally, when you see Arnold & wifey on TV these days, what is revealed is one more pair of rich, Orange County republicans--the sorts of charmers who soar up your bumper in their Mercedes SUV/Lexus/Humvee while they're on the phone, flash the lights, give you the finger when you move out of the way, and tearass off, giving you a good view of the flag decals on the back bumper. 

He's another spoiled, rich, fading movie star. He has a very long history of grabbing women's asses--from 1975 to 2000 at least!--he still finds this whole thing funny, he's copped to steroid use when he was a body builder, drug use when he was getting his movie career going, group sex, and this is the guy the "moral" party wants to elect? At least McClintock's supporters have the nerve to bring this up.

He'll be a disaster, and he'll probably get away with it. In a sufficiently-rich country with corporate-controlled media, the ruling class gets away with all sorts of crap anyway. 

Oh well. It's just a pity that Davis is such a boob, and in office at an impossible time.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2003)

I don't think that recalling Gray Davis and replacing him with Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good idea. But, I think it'll happen.

It's a case of people finding a way to vent their frustration over the economy. It's juvenile, in a way, but it may send a message of some sort. I'm not sure what.

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *I don't think that recalling Gray Davis and replacing him with Arnold Schwarzenegger is a good idea. But, I think it'll happen.
> 
> It's a case of people finding a way to vent their frustration over the economy. It's juvenile, in a way, but it may send a message of some sort. I'm not sure what.
> ...



In California just like most states their are two house, modeled after the federal government, all of these shoudl also be recalled, and replaced , it takes more tham just the executive to get into such a state, yet, the nameless congress can always point to their other breathen and say it is their fault. In the executive role their is only the one governer.  

Many things may not be right, yet they are still done.:shrug:


----------



## Ender (Oct 5, 2003)

Some people just don't get it....we are in this predicament because Davis sold out to any group who gave him money. it's that simple. he gave the security guards huge raises, why? because they donated heavily to his campaign. He then took Enron money and allowed them to "consult" during the "energy crisis". he spent for every group that gave him a campaign contribution and we were left holding the bag. he mismanged the budget when revenues declined and lack the leadership to call on the state senate to cut back on spending.

and I find it totally hilarious, all of a sudden these "women's group" are condeming Arnold. HA!..where were they when Clinton molested Kathleen Wiley, Monica, Gennifer, Jones and the list goes on and on. Boy, that silence was deafening. These "groups" lost thier credibility back then as far as I'm concerned. Clinton set the new standard for sexual harassment and Arnold is no where even close..*LOL...too funny.

No, the reason Arnold will do well is because he is an outsider and not "Beholden" to special interest groups.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2003)

First off, I recommed getting acquainted with what these unnamed "women's groups," actually said about Bill Clinton. Unless, of course, it's easier to just assume.

Second off, the explanation of California's probs as simply the result of Grey Davis' corruption is, well, I was going to write, "ludicrous," but let's just say, "less than accurate." Unless, of course, you assume that his tentacles reached out over the entire country--EVERY SINGLE STATE OF WHICH seems to be running a deficit. 

Third off--Arnold an independent, without ties to any special interest groups? What? Have you even looked at the roster of his campaign managers and advisors? But don't take my word for it; I'm getting most of what I'd say from the remarks of Tom McClintock, fer cripes' sake. 

He'll very likely get in, and he'll be a disaster. And once again, the disaster will be glossed over, or blamed on liberals, or on the stupidity of the electorate, or whatever is found convenient. 

Oh well, these things pass.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *Some people just don't get it....we are in this predicament because Davis sold out to any group who gave him money. it's that simple. he gave the security guards huge raises, why? because they donated heavily to his campaign. He then took Enron money and allowed them to "consult" during the "energy crisis". he spent for every group that gave him a campaign contribution and we were left holding the bag. he mismanged the budget when revenues declined and lack the leadership to call on the state senate to cut back on spending.
> 
> and I find it totally hilarious, all of a sudden these "women's group" are condeming Arnold. HA!..where were they when Clinton molested Kathleen Wiley, Monica, Gennifer, Jones and the list goes on and on. Boy, that silence was deafening. These "groups" lost thier credibility back then as far as I'm concerned. Clinton set the new standard for sexual harassment and Arnold is no where even close..*LOL...too funny.
> ...



Ender,

I thought I did get it. In most states the Senate has the power and or authority to stop the spending themselves. They have the capabilities to challenge the governer and his spending, yes the governer has the power to spend, yet the system was designed with checks and balances.

As to Arnold, and the women and Clinton and the women, you are right that new standards are in vogue right now, yet, to get a change you have to start somewhere.

And as to the Beholden, I do not know his interests, yet I would want to see his investments, before I would comment.

Regards
:asian:


PS: OOPS it looks like Robert replied before me :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *Some people just don't get it....we are in this predicament because Davis sold out to any group who gave him money. it's that simple. *



However guilty he may be, of anything from incompetence to fraud--does it stand to reason that it's smart to take him out now, rather than at the next election? Revenge is sweet, perhaps, but will it improve things?

Would it be grossly unfair of me to compare this sledgehammer approach to using assassination as a political tool? Taking out Gray Davis will be satisfying to many, and may even be fair, but will it improve things? I shed no tears for Gov. Davis, but is this--objectively and unemotionally--good for california?

I think people will perceive things as being better but doubt that the numbers will back them up.



> *
> and I find it totally hilarious, all of a sudden these "women's group" are condeming Arnold.*



The timing is suspect but he does seem to grant that they are not off-target.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *He'll very likely get in, and he'll be a disaster. And once again, the disaster will be glossed over, or blamed on liberals, or on the stupidity of the electorate, or whatever is found convenient. *



Even if he performs disastrously as the governor, we must remember that--as ahs been pointed out--there is the legislature too. His ability to _cause_ disastrous effects is limited, even if he does perform _disastrously_ for himself. The system of checks and balances mutes both his highs and his lows.

I don't think he'll be _that_ bad, but I don't think he'll be an improvement over the current governor. Still, one can accomplish a lot with charisma--and sometimes hsaking things up helps. State reps. and senators can be recalled too, and if Gov. Schwarzenegger threatens to use his charm to rile up the populace against them--who knows?

But i think you hit it squarely on the head when you point out that most states have these problems...and there are oh-so-many reasons to expect California to have it even worse than the average state.



> *Oh well, these things pass. *



Yes. How long will the new governor's term be (assuming that Gov. Davis is indeed recalled)?


----------



## pknox (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Yes. How long will the new governor's term be (assuming that Gov. Davis is indeed recalled)? *



Very good question -- does the winner simply fill out Davis' term, or does the clock start over again?


----------



## Ender (Oct 5, 2003)

In california we have what is called the line item veto with respect to the budget. That means the Governor can veto any item on the budget. Not like the US budget, where the President has to accept the whole budget or nothing. So ultimately in calif, the buck literally stops at the Govenors mansion. He makes the final decision on the budget, on any singular item on the budget. He knew there would be deficits, yet did nothing to cut spending.

and as far as the "womens groups" are concerned. These groups attacked the victims instead of Clinton. Rememer how they were called "trailer trash" and "opportunity seeking" women. Yet these groups said ABSOLUTELY nothing against President Clinton. therefore, they have NO credibility whatsoever. no assumption there. just facts.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *He'll be a bloody disaster. He's ignorant, and arrogant--just yesterday, I saw him on TV making harassment jokes--and his "plans," so far are absurd.
> 
> Take the much-ballyhooed car tax. First, how many of you guys knew that this was a tax passed by the previous Republican governor, Pete Wilson? Or that the bill was specifically written so that the tax kicks back in when the economy goes in the dumper? Second, apparently Davis tried all sorts of alternatives--the Legislature wouldn't have them. So third, Arnold's blithely saying that he's going to immediately repeal the car tax, on which last summer's budget compromise was based. He's also going to increase funding for education. How?
> ...


Robert,
I, for one, see that the republicans are willing to sacrifice all those values they've been bantering about since the Clinton administration. They are showing that they are just as willing as anybody to ignore drastic character flaws. Perhaps he will spearhead womens rights to show that we got him all wrong. He may even repeal those pesky laws that state women can't go around toppless in public. Anyways its your problem there Mr. California guy. Enjoy your pay cut. At least the weather is nice.
Sean


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2003)

I think the Line Item Veto is a great idea. I'd like to see Pres. Bush able to stop some of the booty from flowing into W. Virginia, for example. Yes, it takes a weapon away from the Legislature--but they're out of control with pork barrel legislation. You can't pass anything without putting a new building on some college campus in W. Virginia (or wherever).

I'm pretty sure that the new gov. will simply fill out Gov. Davis' term.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2003)

Interesting that so far, nobody's pointed to where anything I've said has been inaccurate. But then, that's pretty much what I'd expected.


----------



## Ender (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Interesting that so far, nobody's pointed to where anything I've said has been inaccurate. But then, that's pretty much what I'd expected. *



well you really haven't posted anything substantial...shrug.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *In california we have what is called the line item veto with respect to the budget. That means the Governor can veto any item on the budget. Not like the US budget, where the President has to accept the whole budget or nothing. So ultimately in calif, the buck literally stops at the Govenors mansion. He makes the final decision on the budget, on any singular item on the budget. He knew there would be deficits, yet did nothing to cut spending.
> 
> and as far as the "womens groups" are concerned. These groups attacked the victims instead of Clinton. Rememer how they were called "trailer trash" and "opportunity seeking" women. Yet these groups said ABSOLUTELY nothing against President Clinton. therefore, they have NO credibility whatsoever. no assumption there. just facts. *



So, The Congress does not have the authority to pass a bill with two thirds vote? To overrule the teh excutive branch? I agree the line item veto gives the executive branch the option of cutting an item. Does it allow you to cut it less than 100% or is it all or nothing?

Maybe the womens groups in your state did this amd some of them nationally, yet I also know others that attack the president's stance and character, yet it was not on the national news as it was as excitign and rating grabbing for the liberal medai  Sorry for the last comment there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2003)

Yep. "Liberal," pretty much translates as "middle class," so of course there'll be relatively little on the news of anything that the middle class finds genuinely disconcerting.

As for the claim that I haven't posted anything substantial, well, I'm not the guy who wants the gov out on the ground that his record's a failure which can be laid at his door.

Interesting, too, that this, "record," is not an issue when it comes to Arnie...for whom we have no record of public service whatsoever, and whose on-the-record stuff is pretty appalling.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Interesting that so far, nobody's pointed to where anything I've said has been inaccurate. But then, that's pretty much what I'd expected. *


.
Ok you did say that having your hands at your side is not a point of origin but that is a little off topic. Politicly I agree with you; I wasn't pointing out any thing you said wrong about Arnold,  I was just making fun of you for living in california.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 6, 2003)

Sure, fine, whatever. After all, making fun of people is a lot more important than actual discussion. Ask Arnie.


----------



## Ender (Oct 6, 2003)

Actually the public is 50-50 liberal/conservative....check out the last Presidential election...*G


----------



## Ender (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *So, The Congress does not have the authority to pass a bill with two thirds vote? To overrule the teh excutive branch? I agree the line item veto gives the executive branch the option of cutting an item. Does it allow you to cut it less than 100% or is it all or nothing?
> 
> Maybe the womens groups in your state did this amd some of them nationally, yet I also know others that attack the president's stance and character, yet it was not on the national news as it was as excitign and rating grabbing for the liberal medai  Sorry for the last comment there. *



the legislation must pass the budget here in calif with a 2/3 vote  then the governor can use his line item veto. The legislation can override his veto with another 2/3 vote. right now in calif, the Democrats hold a 52/48% lead in the house and sentate. an override for any issue is highly unlikely.

And no, there was no outcry on behalf of paula jones, gennifer flowers, kathleen wiley etc. nothing excepts attacks calling them "bimbo's" etc. at least not here in calif.


----------



## Andi (Oct 6, 2003)

When's the vote? Coming up soon?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2003)

Tomorrow, isn't it?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Tomorrow, isn't it? *



yup.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *the legislation must pass the budget here in calif with a 2/3 vote  then the governor can use his line item veto. The legislation can override his veto with another 2/3 vote. right now in calif, the Democrats hold a 52/48% lead in the house and sentate. an override for any issue is highly unlikely.
> 
> And no, there was no outcry on behalf of paula jones, gennifer flowers, kathleen wiley etc. nothing excepts attacks calling them "bimbo's" etc. at least not here in calif. *



So, it is ok to ignore the responsibility of the legislation, to deal with this. Therfore, they tried once, and it was wrong, and now the excutor gets hung out to dry because it already has passed a 2/3 vote to get to him. Hmm sounds to me like a very paper tiger line item veto. 

Is the line item veto, a deletion only? or can the Governer change teh spending from $100,000 to $50,000?

Now, I do not care if the governer stays or not, I am only trying to understand the situation and why it is only the fault of one person.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2003)

Well, they elected him.

Latest tidbit: apparently Arnie personally financed his campaign, but is being paid back from as-yet-unnamed sources. Asked who they were, he apparently replied: "We do that after the election."


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Well, they elected him.
> 
> Latest tidbit: apparently Arnie personally financed his campaign, but is being paid back from as-yet-unnamed sources. Asked who they were, he apparently replied: "We do that after the election." *



Nice. Considering that I am about as cynical as you sound regarding politics, I really hope that this doesn't mean what I think it means, and that he actually works to put the State back together, and that he isn't going to sit in special interests pockets.

As untrusting as I am, we will have to see what happends.


----------



## Ender (Oct 8, 2003)

Grey Davis...you have been terminated.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 12, 2003)

When does he actually take office?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *When does he actually take office? *



Mid-November...not sure the exact date.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2003)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...lo_latimes/governordropsplanforgropinginquiry

The Gov. has decided against investigating himself! All those Doonesbury jokes for nothing.


----------



## GaryM (Dec 15, 2003)

Here's my prediction. Arnold will be incrediably successful and bring Calif. out of its' economic chrises. He will do this by scapegoating the illeagle aliens and denying them access to services. There will be other less obvious but actually more important reasons for the miraculous turnaround, not the least being windfall profits from a dramatic increase in oil tax revenues, but the illeagle aliens will be the emotional rallying point. Same tactics as Hitler. As California is doing it's economic miracle the economy of the U.S. and therefore the rest of the world will be tanking bigtime.  So now Arnold comes in with the promise to fix everything. The Euros have a very strong right wing 'blame everything on the immigrants' minority so the same tatics will work.  Now the Euros would never accept an American to be in charge, especially with the widespread anti-american sentiment present at this time over the Iraq situation. But hey, Arnold isn't really an American now is he? And americans would never accept a european as our leader, but hey, Arnold is a hummvee drivin' good-ol'-boy. Coincidentally Orrin Hatch, Utah's ultra conservative republican senator is trying to get the law changed to allow a nonnative born american to be able to be president. Remember, California is the world's third largest economy. So guess who I'm saying Arnold is.  Oh excuse me, it's time for my medication now.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 17, 2003)

Well, 'parently the Gov. has indeed reached a compromise with the legislature. They're going to float a 15 bil. bond issue (though S&P lowered the state's rating last week) to handle this year's deficit, do nothing about next year's, and float a referendum (oh joy) that will, among other things, prohibit floating bonds to deal with further debt.

Uh....


----------

