California recall debate

[NoCalMike 0]

Everybody talks about wanting a colorblind society, but what does that actually mean to you? In other words, how do we know when we have succeeded?

When we can make jokes about one another and not go OMG RACIST/XENOPHOBE...

Also when people know when and when not to do it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My own opinions, Marney-style (again)

 

Gray Davis: Up (all the fighting gave the impression of a circus, which is exactly what he is shooting for)

 

Arnold: Down (Made one-liners that just didn't seem to work coming from him, especially with his anti-smear stance. Occasionally vague.)

 

McClintock: Up (Came across as the one guy who could disagree with the positions coming from the other side of the table while maintaining his composure)

 

Camejo: No Change (Equally as unelectable as McClintock, but decided to show it off. That was what was expected, and that's what happened)

 

Huffington: Way Up (stole all of Bustamante's thunder. I personally wanted to reach through the TV and throttle her for her constant tangents and irrelevant discussions, but it got her recognition and she was right on with her accusations on Arnold's after-school measure, which listed no method of actually paying for those programs)

 

Cruz Bustamante: Way Down (Was ignored on at least one question because of the fighting and sidetracking, was swiped on his indian casino contributions. The other half of the time he was sitting there rolling his eyes while Arnold attacked him or telling Arianna that he agreed with her, and just saying "I think this other candidate is right on" isn't the way to get YOURSELF elected)

[NoCalMike 0]

Cruz was just too passive. Whenever he was criticized he would just concede to it and say, "well I will try to fix what has been done"

 

Huffington went up as far as POLICIES go, but she came off too petty and went off topic too much to gather large support.

 

Arnold went WAY DOWN IMO.....but I have already said why before.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Gray Davis: Up (all the fighting gave the impression of a circus, which is exactly what he is shooting for)

I disagree. Throughout the debate, not one candidate disputed the fact that California had substantial problems (especially financially) that needed to be fixed. Even Cruz admitted that there was too much spending. The whole negative vibe in the debate is enough to suggest that Davis hasn't been doing his job.

[NoCalMike 0]

Gray Davis: Up (all the fighting gave the impression of a circus, which is exactly what he is shooting for)

I disagree. Throughout the debate, not one candidate disputed the fact that California had substantial problems (especially financially) that needed to be fixed. Even Cruz admitted that there was too much spending. The whole negative vibe in the debate is enough to suggest that Davis hasn't been doing his job.

Ye, but the entire panel wants to be govenor. I mean it wouldn't be a good tactic to get up there and praise Davis.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Gray Davis: Up (all the fighting gave the impression of a circus, which is exactly what he is shooting for)

I disagree. Throughout the debate, not one candidate disputed the fact that California had substantial problems (especially financially) that needed to be fixed. Even Cruz admitted that there was too much spending. The whole negative vibe in the debate is enough to suggest that Davis hasn't been doing his job.

Ye, but the entire panel wants to be govenor. I mean it wouldn't be a good tactic to get up there and praise Davis.

Regardless, negative campaigning by candidates doesn't always have to happen, but in the case of Davis, it's in abundance.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I disagree. Throughout the debate, not one candidate disputed the fact that California had substantial problems (especially financially) that needed to be fixed. Even Cruz admitted that there was too much spending. The whole negative vibe in the debate is enough to suggest that Davis hasn't been doing his job.

Keep in mind polls show 40-45% of voters voting against the recall. This debate didn't have to turn off many to put Davis over the edge.

[NoCalMike 0]

No On Prop. 54, folks

 

Prop. 54

 

Prop. 54

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Uh, why, precisely? I'm still trying to figure this one out.

[Internet Warfare 0]

What is up with Prop. 54?

 

This is the first debate I have ever hear and I got to say that I was entertained. It was hilarious. The best part was the "everone knows that's how you treat women, Arnold" by Huffington. Did you hear the crowd response? Wow.

 

Anyway:

Cruz sounded (radio) weak, as did McClintock. Camajo didn't stand out much; he sounded pretty nice and restrained himself. Huffington was funny, but I hate her and she went off topic WAY too much. Arnold came off good, and sounded like he actually knew the issues and replied well. I'm impressed.

 

Over all, 2 thumbs up!

[DARRYLXWF 0]

I disagree. Throughout the debate, not one candidate disputed the fact that California had substantial problems (especially financially) that needed to be fixed. Even Cruz admitted that there was too much spending. The whole negative vibe in the debate is enough to suggest that Davis hasn't been doing his job.

Keep in mind polls show 40-45% of voters voting against the recall. This debate didn't have to turn off many to put Davis over the edge.

Fair enough, it should be interesting to see the polls post-debate.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What is up with Prop. 54?

Bans the state government from collecting racial data. I'm not exactly sure why the left is against it, since Michael Moore and his merry band like to talk about how much urban black people are looked down upon by whites as criminals and no-goods.

 

My main guess is because it would prevent more studies like "Poor communities made up majorily of black/latinos/whatever have worse school/medical/voting booths/whatever and we must spend money to fix that!"

 

Frankly, as a poor white guy, my initial impression is that I ought to vote in favor of this to prevent reverse racism from keeping all the education resources and stuff from leaving my area simply because of the racial makeup of my area.

 

 

If someone who knows more about it wants to chime in, go ahead. I'm listening.

[Firestarter 0]

Check out this CNN article. As you can see from the QuickVote in the sidebar, the results of (so far) approximately 40,000 people's votes agree with my analysis and dispel entirely JotW and NCM's contention that Schwarzenegger performed poorly, or that his bickering with Huffington damaged his image in any way.

 

As for claiming that the debate helped Davis in any way, that's simply incredible. Davis has the lowest ratings of any governor of California in over half a CENTURY. It's unprecedented. If anything's an absolute certainty, it is that Davis will be recalled.

 

Edit: For an MSNBC analysis of the same debate, click here. The Live Vote shows approximately the same numbers and percentages at this time.

Edited September 25, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Jobber of the Week 0]

As you can see from the QuickVote in the sidebar, the results of (so far) approximately 40,000 people's votes agree with my analysis and dispel entirely JotW and NCM's contention that Schwarzenegger performed poorly, or that his bickering with Huffington damaged his image in any way.

Yep. Channel 5 and the Chronicle polls (assuming you discount Camejo, who's activists gave him the #1 spot in the Chron) go the same way, and I kind of trust them more as the CNN web poll allows non-Californians in.

 

As for claiming that the debate helped Davis in any way, that's simply incredible. Davis has the lowest ratings of any governor of California in over half a CENTURY. It's unprecedented. If anything's an absolute certainty, it is that Davis will be recalled.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/...l.ap/index.html

 

Meanwhile, a Los Angeles Times poll released late Thursday found 47 percent of likely voters were inclined to vote against the recall, with 3 percent undecided. Half of all voters said they would support ousting the governor.

 

For numbers a tad more realistic:

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...21/BA209426.DTL

 

With barely two weeks to go until Oct. 7, Republican and Democratic tracking polls show the California recall is still an uphill battle for Gov. Gray Davis -- and a big question mark for everyone else.

 

The polls show that even with Davis winning help from Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and Dianne Feinstein -- and after having held a string of connect-with- the-people town hall meetings -- anywhere from 51 percent to 56 percent of voters are still ready to dump him. Just 41 percent to 44 percent want to give him a second chance.

 

That's an improvement for Davis from over the summer, when support for the recall was at 57 percent -- but it still means he must close a 10-point gap to keep his job.

 

"I've never seen anything like it in my life," said one Democratic pollster who has been tracking voters since the recall got rolling.

 

"It's just sitting there -- 53 percent for recall, 43 opposed -- week after week," the pollster said.

 

An overnight Republican poll taken this past week showed much the same thing, with 51 percent of those polled ready to vote recall and 41 percent saying "no."

 

Again, a 10-point spread.

 

The numbers appear equally static for movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who -- despite appearances last week on Larry King and Oprah -- is still hovering around 30 percent to 32 percent.

 

It's a tougher story for Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. He started out strong, then stumbled after taking $5 million in Indian casino money.

 

The Democratic polls have Bustamante bouncing between 25 percent and 30 percent. The Republican poll has him at 27 percent.

 

The only candidate showing growth at this point is conservative state Sen. Tom McClintock. The Democratic polls have the maverick senator at 21 percent, and the Republican poll at 17 percent.

 

The numbers have reignited the debate about whether having "backup" Bustamante in the race is helping or hurting the Democrats' chances of holding onto the governorship.

 

Davis' pollsters found that with Bustamante in the race, 56 percent of those surveyed said they were ready to recall the governor. Take Bustamante out, and support drops to 48 percent.

 

In other words, said Davis pollster Paul Maslin, "the recall loses because then voters are confronted with a choice of do they want Arnold elected governor or not."

 

"And in that case," Maslin said, "they go back to the safe choice of Davis."

 

Maybe, but then Bustamante's not leaving -- at least not between now and October.

 

Edit: For an MSNBC analysis of the same debate, click here. The Live Vote shows approximately the same numbers and percentages at this time.

 

And again, these polls include people from other states and countries, where the political climate may be different, people might not know about the issues or anything except Arnold's star power and thus have their minds already made up, and they aren't voting anyway.

[Firestarter 0]

And again, these polls include people from other states and countries, where the political climate may be different, people might not know about the issues or anything except Arnold's star power and thus have their minds already made up

I'd agree with you if the votes weren't tallied from articles which dealt specifically with the debate, and if the question itself didn't deal directly with the debate. If it were "Who would be the best governor?" or something similar, then "star power" would play a more significant role. As for the issues, if you Californians have ever been interested in or knowledgeable about those, why in God's name did you not only elect but re-elect Gray Davis?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If it were "Who would be the best governor?" or something similar, then "star power" would play a more significant role. As for the issues, if you Californians have ever been interested in or knowledgeable about those, why in God's name did you not only elect but re-elect Gray Davis?

I hope you aren't going to argue with me when I tell you how much more liberal California is than darn near the rest of the country. With current trends a nationwide poll on these candidates, assuming everyone was known by those taking the poll (and those farther away from Cali probably don't understand the brouhaha about Bustamante's Indian casino ties, Huffington's tax loophole, giving illegals licenses, etc), would probably have the soft Republican Arnold in front, and then Bustamante and McClintock fighting for second depending on where most this polling is going down and the phase of the moon.

 

Most California political debates are not broadcast nationwide. Most do not get stories in Sydney newspapers. Why did this one? Because there's a world-recognized movie star participating in it. If that's the main reason people are watching, then they obviously have higher interest in him and that will reflect in places like non-scientific internet polls.

[Firestarter 0]

I hope you aren't going to argue with me when I tell you how much more liberal California is than darn near the rest of the country.

Of course not.

 

With current trends a nationwide poll on these candidates, assuming everyone was known by those taking the poll (and those farther away from Cali probably don't understand the brouhaha about Bustamante's Indian casino ties, Huffington's tax loophole, giving illegals licenses, etc), would probably have the soft Republican Arnold in front, and then Bustamante and McClintock fighting for second depending on where most this polling is going down and the phase of the moon.

You're correct about the positioning of the three serious candidates, but Bustamante's casino ties have become national news in the wake of the recent court ruling against him, Huffington's tax evasion has been commented on in many nationally syndicated opinion columns and news articles, and the problem of illegal immigrants being granted official documentation has been at or near the forefront of national politics for some time now - we were talking about it at the time of the Beltway sniper shootings, almost a year ago now, and even before that in the wake of 9/11.

 

Most California political debates are not broadcast nationwide. Most do not get stories in Sydney newspapers. Why did this one? Because there's a world-recognized movie star participating in it. If that's the main reason people are watching, then they obviously have higher interest in him and that will reflect in places like non-scientific internet polls.

You're confusing cause and consequence. This debate was going to be broadcast nationally from the very beginning. Schwarzenegger decided to participate because of that. He said so after the decision was taken.

[Lando Griffin 0]

From here on Prop. 54:

 

"Prohibits state and local governments from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. Various exemptions apply. Fiscal Impact: The measure would not result in a significant fiscal impact on state and local governments."

 

So how is that a bad thing?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You're confusing cause and consequence. This debate was going to be broadcast nationally from the very beginning. Schwarzenegger decided to participate because of that. He said so after the decision was taken.

You got me there, but simply stated, the recall thing was, from signature gathering to even after that, not top headline news or a comment of regular debate on a national scale.

 

Everything went from "gee, we've never done this before but let's hope we do it right" to utter chaos after that Tonight Show appearance.

[Firestarter 0]

True, but people are paying attention for whatever reason, and the issues have been gone into fairly well, not only just now, but over time. Of course Schwarzenegger gets a huge boost in the CNN and MSNBC polls from his recognition on a national (and international) level. Of course more people watched the debate because of him. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the same appeal on a state level. Just the opposite, in fact. I still don't see why you think the polls aren't reasonably accurate indicators.

[Firestarter 0]

From here on Prop. 54:

 

"Prohibits state and local governments from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. Various exemptions apply. Fiscal Impact: The measure would not result in a significant fiscal impact on state and local governments."

 

So how is that a bad thing?

One less way for the Democrats to divide us as a nation.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...9/25/MN3041.DTL

 

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger came to what he described as "the Super Bowl of debates" Wednesday by promising surprises. But he found himself either on the sidelines or under attack, giving his supporters comfort but offering no breakthrough to seduce the undecided.

 

Schwarzenegger's most critical goal -- to show a grasp of the details of California public policy -- seemed to fade amid platitudes and personal bickering with his accusers, analysts said after the debate. The "winner" may have been someone who wasn't even on stage.

 

"These people may be contributing to the re-election of Gray Davis," said Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University, "not because of the merits of whether he should be recalled, but because of their collective undesirability."

 

Gerston said the debate "really just continued what a lot of people believe is the circus-like environment of this entire process and in many respects trivialized this important event."

 

It's hard to overstate how important the debate was for Schwarzenegger and for the success of the recall on Oct. 7. Unless voters embrace a viable Republican candidate, Democrats and independents may prove more inclined to reject the recall itself or vote for Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante.

 

Davis is banking on Schwarzenegger's somehow managing to appear less appealing than the status quo. Political analysts said they were disappointed with the tenor of the debate Wednesday and worried that whatever public policy discussion occurred would be ignored because of the infighting.

 

"Other than the issue of where they stand on the propositions, Schwarzenegger didn't give a single policy prescription," said Mark Petracca, political science professor at UC Irvine. "He's good at giving the diagnostic indictment. But the questions at the debate didn't ask what was wrong, they asked what they were going to do about it. When he did give an answer, at best they were sort of glib homilies, like we should cut the budget."

 

 

Although you were right on one thing:

 

But analysts said despite receiving condescending treatment by other panelists, particularly Schwarzenegger, Huffington may also have irritated voters with her repeated attacks. In college, she was president of the Cambridge Union debating society, but on stage in Sacramento she rubbed some analysts the wrong way.

 

HUFFINGTON CALLED IRRITATING

 

"I think Arianna succeeded in irritating everyone in the room," said Barbara O'Connor, political communications professor at California State University Sacramento. "I think she did herself a fair amount of damage."

 

O'Connor said Schwarzenegger had held his own during the debate, hadn't stumbled or failed to live up to expectations. She said he had done a solid job articulating his status as the outsider candidate and that even though "people expected him to fail, he didn't."

 

 

Also, for those who weren't paying attention:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../25/MN24247.DTL

 

Cruz Bustamante

 

Democratic lieutenant governor

 

APPARENT DEBATE STRATEGY: Position himself as a moderate, experienced veteran of government who cares about "working people." Stay out of the nasty back-and-forth between Huffington and Schwarzenegger.

 

BEST MOMENT: Stood up firmly for the rights of illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses and obtain publicly financed health care, saying that they pay taxes, work hard, have earned those benefits and need them to perform many of the jobs California residents don't want.

 

WORST MOMENT: A toss-up - when he didn't respond when Huffington took him to task for accepting money from Indian gaming tribes and when he was interrupted by Huffington or Schwarzenegger, he would mutter in a miffed and condescending tone, "Sure," "Right," "Uh, huh."

 

MOST MEMORABLE LINE: "Equal opportunity doesn't come from tolerance. It comes from acceptance and I want to make sure we accept everyone and embrace our diversity."

 

HUH?: Talking about his work drafting a bill that put $1 billion worth of new textbooks in California schools, he said to Schwarzenegger: "If you go to any school in California and ask them the name of the author of the textbook bill, they will tell you."

 

ON GOVERNMENT, THE BUDGET, TAXES AND THE ECONOMY: "We spent too much. As a government, we spent more than was coming in. There's no rocket science to this. We've done all the easy things, and now it's time to do the tough things. "

 

DEBATE DECORUM: Like McClintock, Bustamante clearly is a veteran of the public arena, and he was smart enough to speak when it was turn - most of the time.

 

PERFORMANCE: Solid. He was sitting on the end, but between the left-wing, anti-corporate rhetoric of Huffington and Camejo and the right-wing anti- government rhetoric of Schwarzenegger and McClintock, Bustamante came off as the man positioned in the middle.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------

Peter Camejo

 

Green Party

 

APPARENT DEBATE STRATEGY: Be happy to be here, hold your own, stay on message in the first major campaign debate to include a Green Party candidate as an equal to the Democrats and Republicans.

 

BEST MOMENT: When, in the midst of an argument over taxes and spending, he said he was the only candidate who has promised to cut taxes - stating he would cut taxes for 60 percent of the state's residents and raise taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent.

 

WORST MOMENT: When he attacked the dominance of European Americans in California and U.S. politics, he might have been addressing an important issue to his Green constituency, but it was likely to slow the inroads he wanted to make among mainstream Democrats, many of whom are European Americans.

 

MOST MEMORABLE LINE: "The wealthy people are not paying their fair share of taxes."

 

HUH?: Began a hurried list of his own priorities, which included cutting taxes on the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy and making sure California is a "leader in renewable sources of energy."

 

ON GOVERNMENT, THE BUDGET, TAXESAND THE ECONOMY: "They want to cut taxes on the wealthiest and raise your taxes. I want to reverse that."

 

DEBATE DECORUM: Tried to stay out of the cross-fire and stay on message. As he put it during another exchange between Schwarzenegger and Huffington, "I'm trying to be respectful to everyone here."

 

PERFORMANCE: Hung with the big parties. This was a significant moment in the long-term growth strategy of the Green Party and Camejo made the most of it, coming across as the most issue-oriented as he detailed several meat-and- potatoes Green Party issues.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------

Arnold Schwarzenegger

 

Republican

 

APPARENT DEBATE STRATEGY: Assert himself as the leading agent of change, be the spokesman for California's business community, and bull ahead with his own comments whenever someone interrupted him.

 

BEST MOMENT: When he was speaking as the voice of frustrated, angry voters who see the state government as incapable of solving the problems plaguing California, and in his closing comments when he asked debate viewers to help him in his cause. "This one is a little bit bigger than I am," he said. "I need your help."

 

WORST MOMENT: Huffington got under his skin and he couldn't resist responding to her with taunting remarks, including: "I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4," and "You need a little more decaf." Also, his determination to keep talking rendered the entire debate incomprehensible several times.

 

MOST MEMORABLE LINE: "You guys all know that in California, we have the three-strikes system and you pulled the wool over the people's eyes twice. This is the third time and on Oct. 7 you are out."

 

HUH?: Apparently trying to accuse Davis of signing the immigrant driver's license bill as a way to pander to Latino voters, Schwarzenegger said, "This is total pre-election bogus." ON GOVERNMENT, THE BUDGET, TAXESAND THE ECONOMY: "They keep spending, spending, spending and when they realize they made a mistake, they go tax, tax,

 

tax. For you guys it's an addiction. You should go to an addiction place."

 

DEBATE DECORUM: (Vis-a-vis Huffington) Seemed determined not to let that woman push him around.

 

PERFORMANCE: He proved adept at offering memorable rhetoric that captured the passion that prompted him to run. But if this was the time when Schwarzenegger was going to show a grasp of details and an understanding of government, he came up short.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------

Tom McClintock

 

Republican senator

 

APPARENT DEBATE STRATEGY: Stick to his conservative ideals, establish himself as the only real tax-cutter and budget-cutter and present himself as someone who understands government and knows how to get the state's fiscal house in order.

 

BEST MOMENT: After reciting a list of key issues where he differs with the other candidates - he has signed a no-tax pledge, he opposes gun control, he's pro-life - McClintock said he was known as a man who kept his word: "I will cut spending and balance this budget without a tax increase. And that's a promise."

 

WORST MOMENT: He came across as reasonable and sensible, rather than the rabid right-winger who's spoiling the election for the Republicans. But, in his closing statement, his own integrity required that he tell voters he's pro- life and anti-gun control, demonstrating a conservatism outside the mainstream.

 

MOST MEMORABLE LINE: When Schwarzenegger said the recall is the political third strike, McClintock said: "It's not three strikes. It's the lemon law. When you have a car that doesn't work, you take it back."

 

HUH?: "That's a pretty profound development in the history of this state, when families looking for a better future, a place to raise their kids . . . and find a better future out in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona desert than they found here in California."

 

ON GOVERNMENT, THE BUDGET, TAXES AND THE ECONOMY: On the vehicle license fee, which was tripled by Gov. Gray Davis, "If the governor can claim the authority to raise if by fiat, by God, I can claim the same authority to lower it right back."

 

DEBATE DECORUM: Wins the good behavior award - didn't interrupt, didn't deride his opponents, stayed on his message.

 

PERFORMANCE: A true believer who speaks with an understated passion. When he says he wants to cut the budget, it's possible to believe he knows just where he'll cut. The political dilemma is that he's outside the mainstream of his own party.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------

Arianna Huffington

 

Independent APPARENT DEBATE STRATEGY: Hector Arnold Schwarzenegger as often as possible,

 

provoking him to say something that might be today's headline, while dealing the occasional glancing blow at Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante as part of the same old politics.

 

BEST MOMENT: Several of them. She's a veteran of the cable talk shows and it shows - she's faster, more glib, more poised than all the other candidates, and she got off some choice zingers at Schwarzenegger that clearly distracted him from his message.

 

WORST MOMENT: When she criticized Schwarzenegger, saying, "Arnold's analysis perfectly fits the Bush administration in Washington." He shot back: "You want to campaign against Bush? Go to New Hampshire," and he won that exchange.

 

MOST MEMORABLE LINE: "This is the way you treat women, we all know that. But not now."

 

HUH?:At some point, she also began talking about fixing someone a "big fat Greek meal." Exactly what she was trying to say is a mystery.

 

ON GOVERNMENT, THE BUDGET, TAXESAND THE ECONOMY: "We have the wrong leadership and the wrong priorities, and those priorities are set by large corporations who use Sacramento like a big ATM machine."

 

DEBATE DECORUM: At so many debates, the rules dictate a series of canned comments designed to avoid offending anyone. Huffington's the one who turned it into a debate - as well as surprising entertainment.

 

PERFORMANCE: She was interesting and outrageous and contentious, but none of it seemed to translate into any coherent political message about what she would do if she were actually elected governor.

[Guest JMA]

As for the issues, if you Californians have ever been interested in or knowledgeable about those, why in God's name did you not only elect but re-elect Gray Davis?

They also elected Ronald Reagan...

 

(runs away)

[Vyce 0]

From here on Prop. 54:

 

"Prohibits state and local governments from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. Various exemptions apply. Fiscal Impact: The measure would not result in a significant fiscal impact on state and local governments."

 

So how is that a bad thing?

One less way for the Democrats to divide us as a nation.

Took the words out of my mouth.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Criticisms aside, I'm still awaiting for NoCalMike to tell me why I should vote no. My mind isn't made up and I still only have a slight grasp on the issue.

 

Arnold's view on the matter is, as usual, too vague to understand.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Quick thoughts

 

Camejo...Who?: Typical illogical communist

Arianna "Check out my sagging tits!": Proved herself useless

Look away from the eyes! McClintock: Very solid but should still back out

Ahnold and-all-uv-dese-tings: Good, didn't harm himself, stayed economically focused

Cruz BustaMECHA: Condescending asshole

 

 

Yes on 54!

[NoCalMike 0]

Ok as far as poll numbers, well it still really depends on voter turnout. Considering how hard it is to get people out there to vote for regular elections, I am not sure how many are actually gonna show up for the recall election.

 

A lot of people I have talked to on all sides have said they can care less since the new governor will pretty much be a lame duck with a new election at the normal time coming up.

[NoCalMike 0]

Criticisms aside, I'm still awaiting for NoCalMike to tell me why I should vote no. My mind isn't made up and I still only have a slight grasp on the issue.

 

Arnold's view on the matter is, as usual, too vague to understand.

Ok I will tell you why. From the description alone it sounds like a good thing. However you have to understand what it is banning. Research. That alone should make you want to vote no. How can BANNING research on ANYTHING be a good thing? It is eliminating knowledge or potential knowledge about a messed up system. To be more specific: Basically what Prop 54 is going to do if passed is, it will get rid of information that tells us where funding for schools is going and not going based on the race of the kids going to the schools. Therefore, if there is a pattern that is developing showing that prodominetly minority schools recieving less funding over rural schools that are mostly caucasian, the whole process of knowing this would be taken away. It is basically a measure to eliminate knowledge of the problem. Like Camejo said, how can the elimination of INFORMATION in ANY WAY be a good thing?

 

This has NOTHING to do with "dividing the nation" don't listen to that rhetorical tripe that means nothing.

 

This is a backdoor policy to eliminate the backwards and nearly racist procedures of how funding is decided on being delivered to certain schools over others......

 

Once again, even if you believe there IS NOT a problem with the distribution of funding, how in the hell could OBTAINING the information be a bad thing?

 

No on Prop 54.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yes on 54!

And your reasoning is?

 

I don't want you and Mike sidetracking this into a 54 arguement (and I'm letting both you and him know in advance), but I might as well get both sides.

 

 

And Mike, Davis is only 10 months into this term. It took Bush 9 months before he got viewed as something more substantial than "harmless idiot", so I don't think the new Gov won't have enough time to get anything done.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

And again, these polls include people from other states and countries, where the political climate may be different, people might not know about the issues or anything except Arnold's star power and thus have their minds already made up

I'd agree with you if the votes weren't tallied from articles which dealt specifically with the debate, and if the question itself didn't deal directly with the debate. If it were "Who would be the best governor?" or something similar, then "star power" would play a more significant role. As for the issues, if you Californians have ever been interested in or knowledgeable about those, why in God's name did you not only elect but re-elect Gray Davis?

Well, when the other side nominates someone as un-electable as Bill Simon, it's not a total surprise. I think Richard Riordan, who would have gotten strong endorsements from both Bush and his friend Ah-nuld, would have beaten Davis in the last election, but I suppose he wasn't conservative enough for the people who run the state republican party.