Blogcritics: Comments on Seven reasons why you absolutely must vote on Oct. 7

Comment by Natalie Davis

Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:00:23 EDT

I know, Phillip. It's hard to be funny when one is depressed. I am trying, though.

Comment by Chris

Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:46:59 EDT

That's actually pretty funny, MoveOn gets called back. Trust me, you don't want to start a phone war with anybody, well, anybody with the resources to fight back. Hell, there is a still a buddy of mine who we text message about 45 times a day and as long as he keeps asking us to quit it will continue.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:12:43 EDT

dc, Shut up!

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:27:50 EDT

Natalie, I'm sure you realize that voting is completely anonymous, so the plurality of female voters that voted for Arnold did so without any fear of retribution.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:06:59 EDT

pretty funny dc

Comment by dc

Wed, 8 Oct 2003 04:31:02 EDT

Another great victory for the "increasingly influential" moveon.org.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:14:39 EDT

What people will do in order to be able to "work in this town again"...

Comment by TDavid

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:31:39 EDT

42 percent of women voters: Schwarzenegger appeared to have weathered a storm of charges during the final week of the campaign from 16 women who said he had groped and humiliated them. Despite the accusations, the Republican was the choice of 42 percent of women voters,

Comment by TDavid

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:09:52 EDT

I saw this move on article posted twice in the comments at Wil Wheaton's blog and he even complained about it telling folks his comments section wasn't for moveon spam, lol.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:49:14 EDT

Brian, I am only speaking in terms of that one particular quote.

Comment by debbie

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:39:55 EDT

I don't know much about his relationship with Kurt Waldheim. If he had a personal relationship with the man then I could understand why he might have a different view of him than we would. It's kind of like this: Saddam was a sadistic monster...but his children don't think so. They remember good times and tender moments...which view is true? They both are, it depends on where you stand when you look at the subject. Saddam might have been a loving father to his children, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a sadistic monster, or vice versa. Does that mean that his children aren't supposed to love him? Can they stop loving him? I don't think so.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:08:32 EDT

I am building my audio environment about all this useless chatter from the original soundtrack to "Less Than Zero", particularly LL Cool J's "Goin' Back To Cali" (I don't think so). All this talk about Ah-nold providing a clean sweep, and nobody thinks about the little man. Coleman.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:59:04 EDT

With regard to one particular quote, A.S. is getting what could be called a bum rap--if that were the only evidence of a racism problem. Plenty of non-racists and anti-racists and anti-Nazi folks have made the point that Hitler was a good speaker and a smart man--it's a standard part of talking about Hitler that you acknowledge the sources of his power, which include his personal abilities. However, there is plenty more to go on with regard to A.S.--his professional and personal ties to Waldheim, well after Waldheim's past was known, and his association with U.S. English, for example.

Comment by debbie

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:46:24 EDT

I didn't say that I would vote for him or that I even think that he would make a good governor. But the "smear" tactics and innuendoes are not needed. The only person that laid out a detailed plan to the voters is McClintoch.

Comment by davebanjo

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:28:10 EDT

look, arnold says "some of those things aren't true." I'm sure eventually he'll tell us which ones he's apologizing for, which ones he can't remember, and which ones he didn't do. I think his vast experience as an administrator and visionary, detailed plan for California's future completely override the fact that he treats women like shit.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:10:19 EDT

I agree that Schwarzenegger is probably more of a lunkhead than a Nazi sympathizer. His comment was stupid, IMO, but it does not signify anything more than that. Hey, Hitler did have a way with public speaking and persuasion. The problem -- and naturally, a massive one -- is what he persuaded people to do. Schwarzenegger said nothing about the content of Hitler's orations.

Comment by debbie

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:26:01 EDT

Brian, "Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he wanted to have an experience "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium, and have all those people scream at you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say." " Let's keep things in perspective here, he is an entertainer, like most entertainers they do like the "hero worship" stuff that goes with being an entertainer. That is hardly the same thing as agreeing with the "Nazi" policies and beliefs. As far as the "Kurt" toast at his wedding, does he have a personal relationship with Kurt? Was it a toast to "Kurt's" personal beliefs and polices? It really does make a difference. If he had a personal relationship with Kurt then his comments would make more sense. If there is no personal relationship then "there is a big red flag" being waived here.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:18:03 EDT

"Mickey Kaus is also reporting that they're misquoting Arnold the day before the election, substituting "Not at all" for "No, not all" in response to "So you deny all those allegations about grabbing?""(9) I just had the opportunity to record this Brokaw segment and played it back three times to check who's spinning it: When asked if he denied "all those allegations", Arnold clearly said: "No, not all." The "guilty as charged" plea has it.

Comment by Steve Rhodes

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:13:24 EDT

In 2000, Jodie Evans supported Nader. Quite the Democratic party operative.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:02:22 EDT

Only for this recall. He's the only one running who has a specific list of immediate steps he would take to reduce the deficit and improve the climate for business and for just living here. I'm over-looking his party affiliation as we have a crisis here and the others in the race haven't provided any reasonable approaches to dealing with it (some don't have any approaches of any kind). Voting on party lines makes no rational sense in this specific case (although I could name others :-).

Comment by Brian Flemming

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:44:09 EDT

Hal, I'm getting the idea you're partial to McClintock or something.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:35:34 EDT

"It always matters from a right and wrong ("OK" or not) point of view, no matter when it happened." I'm glad you understood my post. Now if we can get enough like-minded people to vote McClintock into office, we've got it knocked.

Comment by TDavid

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:25:33 EDT

Brian, I agree with one word in your comment: please - rather than zero in on the linked article's use of the word "coached" (not mine, BTW) then why don't you address comment #11 where I went through in more detail where this article is just another in your long diatribe at blogcritics to smear Arnold over his interaction with women at work. Readers can poke more holes in this than swiss cheese if compelled to sit around here and debate and document it. The absurd use of "sex offender registry" to describe where Arnold belongs in this article over alleged activity is the height of the dramatical writing. Save this for the playwriting gig and/or fiction, because at least in that context it has a place.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:20:15 EDT

If Code Pink is in the Davis camp, I think somebody had better tell Code Pink, because those chicks have no idea:

"I'm an independent and I won't be voting for Gray Davis," [Code Pink leader Karen] Pomer said. "This isn't about partisan politics, it's about being offensive to women."

Comment by Brian Flemming

Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:11:05 EDT

"Coached"? "Coached"? From the link:

Brooks acknowledged that she came forward to the Los Angeles Times at the request of Jodie Evans, a member of the Code Pink women's activist group that has engaged in an intense campaign accusing Schwarzenegger of mistreating women, according to Scripps Howard News Service.

"Coached"? By the "Davis camp"? Evans' former ties to someone with former ties to Davis as alleged by Newsmax may be true (a link to a link to a link!), but anyone who has read the stories about Code Pink knows that it a) Is not associated with the Democrats, b) Heaps scorn upon the Democrats, c) Heaps even more scorn upon Davis. To paraphrase Karen Pomer, possibly the most frequently quoted Code Pinker, "I didn't vote for Davis in the last election, and I won't this time either." They're a feminist group. Of course they encouraged women to come forward. They've made no secret of that. "Coached by the Davis camp"? Please.