Arnold smoking pot, drinking and not giving a F?

[Relentless]

I don't live in Cali so all this crap isn't my problem

but I think chris mason has a very salient point in that Arnold has proven himself to be very capable in a number of pursuits and goals that he has set for himself

not only as a bodybuilder, though his accomplishments in that field are clearly top notch

not only as an actor, though while you may decry his acting ability the absolutely incontrovertible truth is that he has demonstrated the ability to again and again put together a film PRODUCT that people like, enjoy and want more of

but also

what he has done in the name of activism and community service points to a man who is capable of getting things DONE which is by far the most important criteria for a politician, in my estimation... his work with the Special Olympics, his after school programs and his other efforts are simply outstanding

he also has actually addressed the issue that SF is ranting on about:
"How will you address the budget crisis in California?

It's disturbing to realize that after taking a close look at California's budget, it's hard to make any sense out of it. My Economic Recovery Council, comprised of the best and brightest among the state's economic and business leaders, recently drew this conclusion.

California's budget has become a patchwork of special interest give-aways draining precious resources from core programs such as education, public safety and health care. There are also hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - of documented waste, fraud and abuse in state spending.

Our first order of business is to get California's operating deficit - estimated at between $5 billion and $8 billion - under control. Runaway spending and structural deficiencies fueling this operating deficit are putting us deeper and deeper in debt every day. I will ensure that California government lives within its means - something working families manage to do everyday - and reins in spending to close the operating deficit.

I support a constitutional limit on annual spending increases and an unambiguous constitutional requirement that the state pass a balanced budget, so that California never finds itself in this mess again.

I will also restructure our inherited debt, estimated at between $12 and $20 billion - a very wide range that is itself another indicator of how difficult it has become to understand just what is going on in Sacramento. This includes the unprecedented $10.7 billion deficit bond and other borrowing in the current budget.

The bottom line is to make California competitive again so that businesses and entrepreneurs stay here and create jobs - which will bring new revenues to state and local government. I have formed an Economic Recovery Council, and they have already begun work at my direction."

he goes on to discuss his position on taxes:
"What is your position on taxes?

I am firmly opposed to raising taxes. Californians are already overtaxed. California has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, and just about everything a Californian does today is subject to one tax or another. From the moment you get up in the morning until you go to bed at night, the tax collector is there to take a share - at your home, in your car, at the gas station, at the restaurant, and just about everywhere else you go and everything else you do.

It's unfair to accept the notion that hitting taxpayers up for more money is the answer to our state's budget and economic problems. Politicians in Sacramento should find a better way to turn things around – not simply shift the burden of their mistakes onto the backs of taxpayers. "

quotes courtesy joinarnold.com



the bottom line: I too believe in voting in an informed fashion, choosing to place my vote upon consideration, and for the candidate that I believe best represents my interests

but the more I learn about Arnold and his pursuit of this position, the more I think he'd be damned good at the job

[Saturday Fever]

Gyno, I'd be very interested to hear his views on those issues, when they are the matter at hand. This recall isn't about Davis' view on abortion or gun control or immigration. The recall was placed because Davis has ruined the budget and economy in California. Now while I don't mind Arnold or Bustamante or even Gary Coleman from giving their views on abortion or gun control, at this point I would much rather hear how they are going to fix the budget and economy in this state.

Right now, Spetember 2, 2003 the issue that should take the forefrunt in California is how to turn the economy around. Convince me, convince all Californians, that you have the best way to do that. And then let us hear your views on abortion or gun control. Odds are heavily in favor of a few candidates having similar budget ideas but contrasting views on other issues. So let me pick the best 2 budget plans and decide based on other views. Or maybe I feel the budget is the single most important issue and that alone will win my vote.

I haven't picked a candidate that deserves my vote yet. But it will certainly not be any candidate that won't address the biggest issue surrounding the recall election.

Budiak, ugh. And what was Collateral Damage all about?

[Saturday Fever]

A good post, Callahan. But upon a deeper look at his response to the budget question, I still don't find an answer. He says he wants to curb spending. Where? Are you going to cut childcare to avoid cutting education? He wants to restructure the inherited debt. How? With David Blaine and street magic?

He's doing a good job of playing the politician right now. The successful candidate will have a plan with details. When he/she says, "I will curb spending." he/she will also say exactly where they feel it needs to be curbed. Not just that they plan to make cuts in spending.

[Gyno Rhino]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
Gyno, I'd be very interested to hear his views on those issues, when they are the matter at hand. This recall isn't about Davis' view on abortion or gun control or immigration. The recall was placed because Davis has ruined the budget and economy in California. Now while I don't mind Arnold or Bustamante or even Gary Coleman from giving their views on abortion or gun control, at this point I would much rather hear how they are going to fix the budget and economy in this state.

I totally understand that.

But once elected, his policies on the budget WILL NOT be the only things on the agenda.

If Hitler had been able to fix the budget crisis, would you vote for him?

Of course not.

Think of this as a regular election. Because that's what it is. You're electing a governor. Not just a guy to fix the budget problem.

[RoidRage]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
A good post, Callahan. But upon a deeper look at his response to the budget question, I still don't find an answer. He says he wants to curb spending. Where? Are you going to cut childcare to avoid cutting education? He wants to restructure the inherited debt. How? With David Blaine and street magic?

He's doing a good job of playing the politician right now. The successful candidate will have a plan with details. When he/she says, "I will curb spending." he/she will also say exactly where they feel it needs to be curbed. Not just that they plan to make cuts in spending.

curb spending=no new social programs, no new allocation of money. (i.e. what got Cali in this mess)

[Saturday Fever]

I think maybe we'll just agree to disagree on the election point.

My idea is that their views can be expressed, but let's focus on the main problem before getting into smaller side problems.

When I say problem, of course, I mean immediate facing problems. Gun control is a problem, but not as immediately looming as the budget.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by RoidRage


curb spending=no new social programs, no new allocation of money. (i.e. what got Cali in this mess)

Now think about what you just did there and realize. You assumed what Arnold meant. Instead of insisting he say specifically what he means, you're letting yourself assume what he means. And there are no grounds for that assumption because he has not given you any reason to believe that is what he means when he says, "curb spending." Think about it.

[RoidRage]

I just said what curb spending generally means. Think about it. He hasn't given any reason he isn't going to curb spending either. Think about it. What politican in Cali would increase taxes or spending (besides a complete idiot, so Bustamante is out)? Think about it.

[Relentless]

SF:

How many candidates HAVE presented a detailed, specific and practical plan for approaching the budget problem?

Any of 'em?

Given these two statements:

1) "I will do the best job I possibly can when I am fully apprised of the situation"

and

2) "I think I know what the situation is, so here's my plan to deal with the problem as I perceive it."

Which statement is the most credible?

To me, the first statement, delivered by someone with the credibility and accomplishments of someone like Arnold, carries a lot of weight.

The second statement could be made by any schlep with a good idea and some time on their hands.

The REALITY is that to effect change, it will require both a good plan and the ability to execute on that plan. And in most cases, the BEST plan is not required. One of my favourite Patton quotes is, "A good solution applied with vigor NOW is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later."

Arnold clearly has the contacts, the resources, the connections and the force of personality to get things in motion in rapid order.

[Saturday Fever]

I don't argue that he's said he will curb spending. And I believe because of his conviction to education in the past 4 years or more that he will stick to his word. But where is he going to curb spending? Why do we have to settle for such a generic answer? I'd like to hear that he's going to curb spending on welfare, while notcutting a dime from education. I'd like to hear that child care for single working mother's is not going to be impacted, but I'd like to see government personnel audited and I'd like for the useless state employees to be ousted so their salaries can applied towards cutting the deficit. California is notorious for hiring just about anyone and giving them a job as mundane as "chief paper shredder" and paying $35k a year for that.

That was hypothetical, of course, but that's the kind of detail we should demand as voters from our candidates.

[Saturday Fever]

OK, so how long do you let someone do nothing and ride the "I am not fully apprised" quote? Public spending and budgets are not classified information. And you're right, he has world-class people on his team. So what's holding him back from being fully apprised?

[Relentless]

publicly accessible numbers and budgets are not the same as getting your hands dirty in the actual operational numbers and seeing what's happening with the organization

it would be my expectation that a fact-finding/inquiry phase would consume a month or three at the beginning of the new term and findings/recommendations be announced after that time



once again, I would be highly interested to know if anyone else (other than Schwarzenegger) has presented a plan that is up to your standards -- otherwise all of your high expectations of politicians are really just so much pissing in the wind, mate...

[Saturday Fever]

Maybe they are. But am I wrong for expecting my elected leaders to start leading?

To date, only Cruz Bustamante has given any form of detailed plan. Unfortunately I hate his plan, so I won't vote for him. There are 130+ candidates though, I probably won't have made up my mind until the day of the election. Lots of research to be done.

[Relentless]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
Maybe they are. But am I wrong for expecting my elected leaders to start leading?

You're not asking for leadership.
You're asking for management.

Anecdote:
A manager devises the most effective way to go about a task (say, hacking a path through a dense jungle). The manager organizes the work shifts, ensures adequate water for the guys with the machetes, balances the whetstone and bandaids budgets, etc.

A leader is the guy who climbs a tree and then calls down to the manager, "Hey buddy! We're in the wrong goddamned jungle. We need to be over THERE!"

[Saturday Fever]

Then give me management. Give me someone who will lay out his/her ideas. The time for full of **** politicians and false promises to get lost. I don't want candidates who blame their shortcomings on the congress majority or some other stupid excuse. I want someone who handles things. I want Jesse the Body. A guy who speaks his mind and makes it happen despite whatever **** might be thrown at him. If that's management and not leadership, that's what I want.

[RoidRage]

managment would be the delagated authorities in a government. Like the president is a leader, a figure head, but its really his cabinet that gets the job done (as well and congress). So on a smaller, state level scale a govenor is a figure head for the state govn't while all the people the govenor delagates actually get the job done, or his management team.

call, good example.

[Saturday Fever]

So, this is the situation you propose. We elect someone with no views and HOPE his "management team" is on the ball. That's great. If that doesn't shout of voters not caring, I don't know what does.

[chris mason]

Lol at the thought that any politician actually answers a question with a detailed, exacting answer. You guys are beating up Arnold for doing the same thing every politician does.




Listen, this argument is most likely pointless because the guy is getting so much exposure it will be tough for him not to win. I suppose we can review this argument a year or two after he has been in office...

[Saturday Fever]

You're being complacent(sp?). Why are we settling for politicians who don't get specific or who don't answer questions? Every time we elect a president the media plays the same story about "voter disenfranchisement." I say that's bull****. I say it's voter laziness. We accept that the politicians that lie are the only choices. We never raise the bar. We all have gripes about the way things are being run but we never do anything about it.

Lincoln's "advisors" told him that freeing the slaves was a horrible idea. But he took the ball and did it anyways because he knew it was necessary to get the leverage he needed. And the result, albeit a very long process, was that blacks in America were finally treated as human beings. We need leader's who go against the grain. Leaders who aren't just faces for their "advisors." And you don't get there by making excuses for the poor leadership we have today. We get there by wising up, by saying, "Man these guys are ****ing me over." and by finding the candidates who can say specifically, "This is what what I want, and this is how I'll accomplish it."

[Relentless]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
So, this is the situation you propose. We elect someone with no views and HOPE his "management team" is on the ball. That's great. If that doesn't shout of voters not caring, I don't know what does.

he has views, just not views that are (apparently) specific and detailed enough for your tastes

His 'views' are at least as detailed as the majority of other candidates whose platforms I assayed.

SF, no offense dude, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth on this. You want an action-oriented candidate like 'Jesse the Body' but Arnold isn't action-oriented enough?

Did Ventura spec out his entire platform, planned changes and all that crap before being elected? Did he generate a detailed project plan before setting out? Hell no.

He had to get stuck in to understand what was really happening and THEN he started kicking ass. He made some general statements about what his views, opinions and goals were, and then after he got into office and had a chance to settle in and sort things out, in October 1999 (10 months after taking office!!), he released "The Big Plan", which contained his core goals and vision for the state.

[Gyno Rhino]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
You're being complacent(sp?). Why are we settling for politicians who don't get specific or who don't answer questions? Every time we elect a president the media plays the same story about "voter disenfranchisement." I say that's bull****. I say it's voter laziness. We accept that the politicians that lie are the only choices. We never raise the bar. We all have gripes about the way things are being run but we never do anything about it.

BAM. The reason that NONE OF US SHOULD EVER EVER EVER vote Republican or Democrat. You're just feeding the machine, letting it roll on and on.

[gino]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you're one of the stupid, blind voters I've been talking about.

No. I said I'd vote for Arnold before Gary Coleman or you. That makes me a very smart individual, and the nutshell doesn't get any smaller than that.

[Saturday Fever]

So, like I said, you'd vote blindly for a candidate that you don't know anything about, other than that he's been a bodybuilder and a movie star. I suppose there's something I may have missed, but how does that even closely resemble something a smart individual would do?

I suspect you don't know the first thing about Gary Coleman's political views either. And since I'm not on the ballot, nor have I made any of my ideas known in the context that I'm asking for, you don't know anything about me either.

So, back to what I said in the first place, you're voting blindly. Certainly not an attribute of a smart individual.

[Relentless]

Admit it, SF... you don't give a crap about the election, you're just being trollish and looking for kneejerk I-Love-Arnold responses.

[Saturday Fever]

Hah. I care. I just want other people to care. If we don't demand better leadership, the quality of our leadership is going to continue to degrade.