Home / Seven reasons why you absolutely must vote on Oct. 7

Seven reasons why you absolutely must vote on Oct. 7

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

MoveOn.org has solidified its place as one of the most increasingly influential political groups in the country. They raised $500,000 in about one day to air a TV ad about the recall. So far their phone-banking effort has made 69,348 direct calls to voters.

MoveOn offers…

Seven Reasons Why You Absolutely, Positively MUST Vote on Oct. 7:

1. Your vote matters. If you don’t vote, Schwarzenegger becomes your governor. It’s that simple. A poll conducted Wednesday through Saturday showed support for the recall and Schwarzenegger dropping fast. This election could be decided by a very small number of votes. We can win this, but your vote is absolutely necessary. (The Mercury News)

2. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Pete Wilson sequel. Governor Pete Wilson grew state spending much faster than Gray Davis ever has. Worse, he championed energy deregulation and in 1996 signed the bill that deregulated energy in California. Wilson opened the gates to let his energy pals rob the state blind. And now he and his former team are running Schwarzenegger’s campaign and choosing his policies. Even more troubling: Schwarzenegger seems to be in bed with the same energy interests as Wilson (See #7). We want to see Terminator 4, not Wilson 2. (Horowitz, Conason)

3. We have no idea what Schwarzenegger is going to do with California, and neither does he. He doesn’t have a plan to balance the budget. He hasn’t said what cuts he’ll make or what taxes he’ll raise. California needs a real leader, not someone who plays one in the movies. You may be frustrated with the way things are now — but if Schwarzenegger had a plan to make them better, don’t you think he would have told us about it?

4. He lied about taking money from special interests. The night he announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show he told us, “As you know, I don’t need to take money from anyone. I have plenty of money myself.” He then turned right around and accepted over $10 million not from “special” interests, but rather, as he explained it, “business and individuals, absolutely. They’re powerful interests who control things.” (Saramento Bee, CNN)

5. Arnold Schwarzenegger might belong on the sex offender registry, but not in the governor’s mansion. So far 15 credible women have come forward with stories of being physically assaulted by this man — some only a few years ago. He has not denied some of the stories (in fact, he said “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”). He has tried to chalk his mistakes up to “rowdiness.” But these incidents constitute a string of crimes that would land anyone except a multi-millionaire actor in jail and on the sex offender registry. (Los Angeles Times, Newsday)

6. The Nazi stuff is serious. Who cares how long ago it was that 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.” That’s scary! And now nuns are being roughed up at Schwarzenegger rallies. A film maker who worked closely with Schwarzenegger in the ’70s says he saw him playing “Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his collection at home.” At his 1988 wedding Schwarzenegger toasted a confirmed Nazi war criminal, Kurt Waldheim, saying “My friends don’t want me to mention Kurt’s name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt.” Where there’s smoke, there’s fire! (New York Times, Slate, Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times)

7. Because Schwarzenegger STILL hasn’t explained why he met with Enron’s Kenneth Lay at the height of the energy crisis. Schwarzenegger attended a meeting of top business leaders and Republican politicians on May 17, 2001 that was apparently held to thwart a Davis-Bustamante plan to recover $9 billion from energy companies. He still hasn’t explained why he was there or whether his candidacy for Governor was discussed at that meeting. And he’s refusing to talk to reporters in these last days of the campaign. (San Mateo Times, FTCR)

Please forward this email to your friends, family and coworkers — this race is too close to call, and it’s crucial that every single one of us votes. To look up polling places for yourself or your friends click here:


Make sure all your like minded friends and family vote — work with us to turn out thousands of “unlikely voters” by clicking here:


Powered by

About Brian Flemming

  • Voxxy

    But what about Davis’ assaulting and harassing women who worked for him? Is there to be any consistency or are you just anti-Republican? See http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~1676763,00.html.

  • If Davis did what the writer claims, it only serves to support my antipathy for the current governor. I am no fan of Davis, never was, and you have never seen me post one word in support of him, only in support of those who voted 10 months ago. (For instance, while I did not vote for Gore, I support those who voted for him and saw their votes rendered meaningless by the shitstem.)

    My last boss never hit me or threw things at me, but he was known to fly into profanity-laced, insult-filled rages at me. I know how it feels to be in that situation.

    What will happen tomorrow is for the voters to decide. Right now, 54% are in favor of recalling Davis. While I oppose the recall on principle (I would be for it if these charges against Davis could be proven), I oppose Schwarzenegger’s candidacy even more — his lack of experience, the few ideas he has presented are horrible, his arrogance is visible to all with eyes, and I have seen enough to satisfy me that he has no respect for women. So, no on recall, but if the recall wins, Yes on Bustamante, the number-two person voted in by Californians less than a year ago.

    And if what the writer says about the LA Times is true, that completely destroys any honor the publication has and renders it useless to the readers it is supposed to serve. As a journalist, I am offended when media outlets engage in such immoral partisanship. Covering the allegations against Schwarzenegger was the right thing to do. The paper has the responsibility to treat Davis the same way.

  • Nat,

    The Times has been very public about what their standards are for publication. There’s almost no chance they would hold back a real story on Davis–their own reporters have a history of turning on the Times when the Times makes policy decisions with which the rank-and-file disagrees.

    Those 1997 stories about Davis simply can’t be confirmed. If they could be, they would have been long ago by one of the extremely competitive papers here in the state. Nobody likes Davis, frankly–not even the “liberal” papers.

    The Jill Stewart story fills the same role in the Gropenator controversy as Joe Wilson’s donations to Al Gore fill in the Intimigate controversy.

  • That may be true. You do make a good point about the competition. If there had been fire causing the smoke Jill Stewart smelled, there was enough anti-Davis sentiment prior to his last reelection to send reporters scurrying to tell the story. I hope so, anyway.

    At the same time, what if the story was true? What if Jill Stewart, partisan or no, had truth on her side? That possibility does exist.

  • At the same time, what if the story was true? What if Jill Stewart, partisan or no, had truth on her side? That possibility does exist.

    It does. But so does the possibility that Bill Clinton ordered Vince Foster killed.

    There’s almost always a theoretical possibility of truth to an allegation.

    There’s a story out there about an actual rape committed by A.S. It isn’t corroborated. But people are gossiping about it. And there are those oh-so-convincing details.

    I don’t give it any credence. If it were true, it should rightly send A.S. to prison. But I don’t think the Times (or any other publication) should run the “Arnold Accused of Rape” story. The evidence to support it just doesn’t rise to a high enough standard. It’s the anonymous friend-of-a-friend standard.

    It’s impossible to know if it’s true. And I wouldn’t expect A.S. supporters to have to answer the question, “If it’s true, how do you feel?” If there were more substance to the allegation, however, such a question would be justified.

    If you look at the support for the Gropenator allegations and the Davis Goes Postal allegations, the difference is astonishing. One is a huge pile that a prosecutor could start running with. The other is…not.

  • I know that what you’re saying is right. I can’t help worrying about the woman Davis allegedly abused. There goes my bleeding heart again…

  • The real shame is that we’re recalling a governor because he has the personality of a door stop. Which is fine I guess, except that we’re replacing him with the Same Ol’ Same Ol’ with Arnold.

    I’ve written a few pieces on why on why Arnold’s camapign ranks as one of the biggest dissapointments in politics I can think of. He had a chance to do SOMETHING, but when he gets there he will do nothing.


  • But what ever qualified him to do SOMETHING? He’s a movie star and a bad actor, for heaven’s sake.

  • Natalie (#4), not only does the possibility exist, but I’m a little tired of hearing about the purpotedly-high journalistic standards of the LA Times when the editor of the paper shoots of his mouth with unsubstantiated claims. “John S. Carroll, the editor of the Los Angeles Times, … said the newspaper had collected even more examples but had not printed them because it had not had time to corroborate them. … He said there were other reports of harassment that the newspaper could not track down, that people denied or that came from women who refused to be interviewed or refused to allow the details to be told.” I guess when you can’t print it in your own paper, you give it to another one?

    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?”

    I know, it’s the accent.

  • “The real shame is that we’re recalling a governor because he has the personality of a door stop.”

    That’s simply not true – where have you been the last 5 years?

    The best way to vote tomorrow is to dump both Davis and Schwarzenegger.

  • The writer was doing good but then started losing me with #5 with statements like this: “So far 15 credible women have come forward” — from who’s point of view are these 15 women credible? There are just as many people, actually more people, who refute much of what these women coming forward have said, at least from what I’ve read. Please someone present the scoresheet if the numbers are different than this.

    Sex offender’s registry? Please. Where are the legal charges against Arnold for these alleged actions? Until someone brings forth a legal case and actually convicts him, he won’t be going anywhere near a sex offender’s registry! He obviously has some problem with women, as he has admitted as much, but rape? That is going way too far at this point.

    As for #6 and the Nazi stuff. Does the writer not believe in counseling or penance? He did go through sensitivity training, yes?. Does that not matter at all? Or is it because he said and did some really stupid things in his past something he can never get past? I think what the Nazi’s did was unspeakable, but Arnold wasn’t there for pete’s sake.

    Move on, is right. Move on right past this article and this movement if smear campaigna are what their platform is primarily based upon.

  • “… from who’s point of view are these 15 women credible? There are just as many people, actually more people, who refute much of what these women coming forward have said …”

    Nobody has refuted anything.

    There are some people, even many more people, who say they were not assaulted by Schwarzenegger but that’s irrelevant. They were nowhere near the 15 alleged assaults so nothing they say has any bearing on those incidents.

    Of the 15 alleged incidents, we can even discount the anonymous claimants but we’re still left with more than half of them from identified inidividuals with credible support from others who were told about the incidents at the time they happened.

    So far, it appears that Arnold has denied the anonymous incidents and apologized for the others.

    Is that good enough for government work? I hope not.

  • Nobody has refuted anything.

    Hal this isn’t correct.

    And what makes heresay from these alleged victims friends and family any more credible than those who worked on the set with Arnold and didn’t witness any of these alleged assaults and have stood by him on these claims (Director Ivan Reitzman for example).

    None of this even gets into the stories that at least one of these alleged victims was coached by the Davis camp.

    Also, it might also bear being factual here from a legal perspective, see this article:

    Despite allegations that he groped and verbally harassed women dating from the early 1970s through 2000, the statute of limitations on sexual battery in California – a misdemeanour punishable by a fine or short jail term – is one year.

    One year > 2000, which is the most recent claim, yes?

  • “One year > 2000, which is the most recent claim, yes?”

    The article didn’t say anything about how sexual battery/assault is okay as long as you’re not caught for a year and a day, did it?

    Besides, California can easily have its cake and eat it, too:

    Dump Davis and elect McClintock.

  • Hal, it matters when the alleged activity took place if it’s not enforceable / prosecutable from a legal point of view. It always matters from a right and wrong (“OK” or not) point of view, no matter when it happened.

    Picking flypoop out of pepper.

  • “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.


    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”?


  • 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.”

  • 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.

  • “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.

  • Hal,

    I’m getting the idea you’re partial to McClintock or something.

  • 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 :-).

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

  • “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.

  • debbie


    “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.

  • 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.

  • davebanjo

    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.

  • debbie

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • debbie

    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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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,

  • What people will do in order to be able to “work in this town again”…

  • dc

    Another great victory for the “increasingly influential” moveon.org.

  • Eric Olsen

    pretty funny dc

  • 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.

  • 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.

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