Arianna (Opportunist): Interview with SJ Mercury News -

[Dookus]

The other day, there was a thread here in which I was attacked for calling Arianna Huffington an "opportunistic whore". Here's evidence I was right.

Furthermore, a few of supporters maintained that she was AGAINST the recall, which is patently untrue.

This appears in today's San Jose Mercury News:

Q: Why are you running?

A: This particular election is very unlike any other election. I could run as an independent. I didn't have to be involved in a primary. The unprecedented media attention given to the race means that you can get your message out without having millions and millions of dollars.

Ok... here we go. She's running because she couldn't win a REAL election.


Q. What is the case for removing Gray Davis from office?

A: I'm personally voting for the recall I wrote a column in which I actually criticized the recall process as an illegitimate right-wing power grab. But I ended the column by saying despite the parentage of the recall, it gives us an unprecedented opportunity to take on a broken system.

Given how entrenched the status quo is, I'll take any opportunity I can get.

Again... an admitted opportunist, AND states that even though she believes the recall is "illegitimate", she will still vote for it in order to gain her own advantage. Opportunistic whore.

read the whole interview: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/6775669.htm

[AP]

1. This also confirms the point I was trying to make. Half the stuff

she says make sense, and the second half totally contradicts the good points she made in the first half, which, like waves 180 degrees out of sync, cancel each other out and leave you with nothing.

The logic of her campaing totally collapses in upon itself. Her meta-message is "I don't make sense when you look at the big picutre of me."

[Clete]

16. Those two paragraphs completely size her up.

There is nothing more to say. :thumbsup:

[chadm]

2. All it proves is she's strategic

or "opportunistic" depending upon which side of the fence you're on.

[Dookus]

29. I think:

The violation of her principle that the recall is illegitimate, she's being opportunistic, not merely strategic. From Merriam-Webster:


Opportunistic:
Main Entry: op·por·tu·nis·tic
Pronunciation: -tü-'nis-tik, -tyü-
Function: adjective
Date: 1892
: taking advantage of opportunities as they arise: as a : exploiting opportunities with little regard to principle or consequences <a politician considered opportunistic>

Strategic:
Main Entry: stra·te·gic
Pronunciation: str&-'tE-jik
Function: adjective
Date: 1825
1 : of, relating to, or marked by strategy <a strategic retreat>
2 a : necessary to or important in the initiation, conduct, or completion of a strategic plan b : required for the conduct of war and not available in adequate quantities domestically <strategic materials> c : of great importance within an integrated whole or to a planned effect <emphasized strategic points>
3 : designed or trained to strike an enemy at the sources of his military, economic, or political power <a strategic bomber

[Paragon]

3. This confirms my point that...

...anyone who uses the word "whore" in their arguments should be ignored.

[Dookus]

4. please put me on ignore if that's the best you can do....

by whore, in this case, I mean somebody who violates his/her own principles for his/her own advantage, i.e., a sell-out.

Arianna has said that

a) the recall is illegitimate
b) she will vote for the recall to help herself become governor

Opportunistic whore. Whore. WHORE. W-H-O-R-E!

I look forward to being ignored.

[Paragon]

10. Who's she selling out?

She's not a Democrat.

[Dookus]

12. She's selling out her principles.

whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)
n.
A prostitute.
A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

The third definition is the one I apply to her. She's violating her principle (that the recall is illegitimate and a right-wing takeover attempt) for her personal gain (a chance to be governor.)

I don't see what being a Democrat or not has to do with it.

[Paragon]

13. She considers it the state's "personal gain"

...in addition to hers. You don't see much.

[Dookus]

15. OK...

then she's an opportunistic whore with a heart of gold.

(sigh)

[Paragon]

17. Beats being a misogynistic partisan

:nopity:

[Dookus]

18. Well....

I provided a dictionary definition that defends my use of the word whore.

Can you provide a definition of "misogynist" that defends YOUR use of it against me?

I also called Camejo an opportunistic whore.

Have you never used the term "media-whore"?

"Whore" has multiple meanings. I've been very clear about which one I'm applying to Arianna.

[Paragon]

19. I'm sorry, you're right

Why would anyone suspect you of misogyny when you use the word "whore"? You're an innocent, and that was the best word you could find to describe the only viable woman candidate in the race. What intelligence! What an extensive vocabulary!

[Dookus]

20. Actually...

I DO have an extensive vocabulary.

I also cited a dictionary definition for my choice of word that is gender-neutral. Here are some more:

Definitions of "whore":

From American Heritage Dictionary:
3. To compromise one's principles for personal gain.

From Merrian-Webster:
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person

From Encarta:
3. an offensive term for somebody who is regarded as willingly setting aside principles or personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives ( insult )

I stand by my use of the word. Will you apologize for calling me a misogynist?

On edit:

I know that when sarcasm is the only reply you can muster, your position is indefensible.

[Paragon]

21. I'll just bet you use THIS definition of this word, too

nigger

2.Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: “Gun owners are the new niggers... of society” (John Aquilino).


Hey - if African-Americans object to the use of that word, they're just not up on their dictionary definitions, now are they? :eyes:

[Dookus]

22. No, I don't use that word.

Why would you presume I do?

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of the alternative meanings of the word "whore". However, I have repeatedly cited dictionaries showing you that I was using a sense of the word that is gender-neutral, yet you still respond with sarcasm and insults.

You don't have to agree with my assessment of Arianna, but you ought to have the intellectual honesty to admit that calling me misogynistic over it is unfair and uncalled for.

And why must you keep insulting me? I've been polite.

[Paragon]

25. My point was...

Use of the word "whore" is about as gender-neutral as the word "nigger" is race-neutral. The idea is to AVOID miscommunication and offensive rhetoric.

I'm under the possible delusion that democrats, liberals, and progressives don't need to lower themselves to right-wing-style insults and divisiveness to get their point across. My points:

1. If Arianna were a (big D) Democrat, then yes - she would be a sellout. She's not - she's running as an independant.
2. The use of the word "whore" is potentially offensive to women, no matter how you justify it.

OK?

[Dookus]

26. Well we can just disagree....

without the need to insult others and without having to call each other names. Will you apologize for calling me a misogynist?

And will you aver that you have NEVER used the term media-whore, either online or in your personal speech?

I don't see the distinction you're making regarding Arianna's political party affiliation. Using the definition I provided of a whore being one who violates his/her general principles for personal gain, I have shown that:

a) Arianna believes the recall is illegitimate. That's her word.
b) She intends to vote for it so she can become Governor.

So... in other words, she will violate her own general principle for personal gain. To wit... a whore.

[AP]

14. It's not just a chance to be governor she's working towards.

Her wealth depends on media attention. When she says this is a chance to get her ideas out, a big component of that is, this is my chance to raise my media profile so that I can sell books and syndicate my column, etc., and make as much money as Michael Moore.

[Room101]

87. Dookus- you are on my ignore list

:)

[Dookus]

88. umm....

ok. I don't know how I'll sleep, but I'll try.

on edit:

I just saw the smiley face. So I don't know what to think.

[Dookus]

5. From Dictionary.com

whore Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)
n.
1) A prostitute.
2 A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3) A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.


Definition #3. Read it.

[mitchtv]

6. bwhahahahahah - puta

doesn't know what she's talking about.
Hey Arianna , time to apologize for your part in Michael's rotten compaign against Dianne. California's waiting!

[Dookus]

7. Hey Mitch....

yer right.

Wanna re-post my dictionary.com definition so that those who are so quick on the ignore button can read what the word means? Thanks!

[mitchtv]

9. PUTA (esp.)- whore

needs only translation. Refer to dictionary . com for definition of whore.

[w4rma]

8. I'm disappointed in Arianna

She should know that recalling Davis actually further entrenches the status quo by helping the right-wing expand their status quo to California and by wasting Democratic resources fighting her message that supports the recall.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. How does it do that

It isn't like Arnold represents the hard right, and Davis certainly isn't a defender of the left. He never has been.

[w4rma]

56. Arnold represents the corporatist right

Davis won't veto the bills that stop corporate corruption like Arnold will. Also, Davis will fix the voting problems in CA. Arnold will fight *for* voting problems every step of the way.

However little Arnold seems to know about politics. He will govern as a puppet for Karl Rove.

[AP]

11. How AH has influenced the campaign thus far:

she attacked Cruz aboutt he transfer of the Indian Tribe money to his recall campaign money. After she criticized him, he have all that money to the No on 54 campaign. At the last debate (moderated by black and latino media -- no, McClintock and Schwarzenegger couldn't make it), Cruz surprised her by saying that he'd done it and asked her to endorse it.

AH was taken be surprise, but, thinking quickly on her feat, she said he should give it back to the people who gave it to him and let them give it to 54. His reply was that they had given it to him to use according to his best judgment, and using it to fight 54 was his best judgment.

So, who won? Well, when Camejo had a chance to comment, he criticized AH for not endorsing Cruz's action, made some comment about how hard it is to raise money and fight for these important causes, and commended Cruz.

It was a fascinating exchange. One thing is perhaps certain though, No on 54 got 2 or 3 million bucks they wouldn't have gotten if AH hadn't been involved in the campaign. Whether AH gets political mileage out of this is debatable, but I think, at least within the confines of this debate, Camejo sort of deflated any gain she might have had by endorsing Cruz's actions.

[Nederland]

23. Disagree

If there is one bright spot in this whole recall madness it is the fact that it has allowed opinions that get stifled by the two party monopoly to be heard. Diversity and lots of choices are good things Dookus, and I'm surprised to see you suggest they aren't.

[Dookus]

24. Where

have I ever suggested they're not good things?

I've never suggested stifling Arianna's voice.

I DO, however, suggest that this recall is an outgrageous assault on democracy, and that those who support it for their own political or personal gain are opportunistic whores.

If Arianna believes the recall is illegitimate, but still plans to vote yes for it so she can become Governor, she is compromising her principles for her personal gain.

Arianna can speak out all she wants - I never suggested otherwise.

[Nederland]

27. So

If Arianna said that she thought the recall was legitimate you wouldn't have a problem with her?

[Dookus]

28. No...

I wonder why everybody must argue by stating what OTHER people believe.

If Arianna thought the recall was legitimate, I would disagree with her vehemently, but I wouldn't consider her to be violating her own principles.

But she DOES think it's illegitimate. She's also made no secret of her opportunism in this circumstance.

The point of this thread was to respond to one a couple days ago where many of her supporters stated she was AGAINST the recall, and that she wasn't being opportunistic.

The interview I quoted from today's Mercury News puts the lie to both of those assertions.

[Nederland]

42. Response

I wonder why everybody must argue by stating what OTHER people believe.


Apparently its because you can't read. I did not state what you believed, I asked a question.

[Dookus]

45. I read just fine,

thanks.

Phrasing a question like this:

So, you would have no problem if a bird shit on your head?

implies "I take what you're saying to mean "You don't care if a bird shits on your head."

It's not a stretch. It's a form of rhetoric used to re-state what you believe the other person believes and force them to defend it. I'm sure there's a name for it in debate, but I don't know what it is.

Anyway, it's a distraction from the real point of our disagreement. I believe that we should honor fair elections, even when the result is contrary to my own desires. I think, in the long run, that is the safest way to guarantee our democracy.

[Emboldened Chimp]

30. I disagree with the whore/opportunist line

In fact, I think calling her a whore covers up the fact that you don't have much of an argument.

Arianna has been out there fighting against corporate and political corruption for years. She writes extensively about the malfeasance of Big Business and isn't shy in letting people know that it stinks and has to stop. The opportunity she sees is to bring that message to a larger group of people. Is that such a bad thing? I think not. In fact, it could do a great deal of good making more people aware of how putrid our political system has become.

You need to read between the lines, Dookus, and see that she's not doing this for personal ambition or power (i.e. Arnie-boy), but to make more people aware about just how fucked things are in our political process. Is this opportunistic? Perhaps, but she has good reason.

If you want to call anyone a whore, Arnie would be a much better candidate for such invective.

[Dookus]

31. Then I recommend you read the whole thread....

along with the dictionary definitions of "whore" I provided.

Yes, she's been speaking out against this corruption for years. A couple. Before that she felt there was nothing wrong with using her husbands vast fortune to elect him to the Senate as a Republican.

Furthermore, I think she is absoluteley doing this for her own personal ambition. Does she really believe that of all the progressives in the state who have spent a lifetime in public service, SHE is the one best-suited to serve as governor? Why not endorse a REAL life-time progressive and get her message out that way?

Finally, since she has no realistic chance of winning, I feel she's using this to pump up her own pundit career.

I really am baffled by her political support. Look.. I LIKE her as a talking head. She's bright and funny. But she spent most of her public career as a Gingrich conservative. Then she writes a few columns against SUV's and for campaign finance reform and suddenly she's received as a progressive just to the left of Jesus. I don't buy it.

And Arnie is many things, but he's NOT violating his own principles by running in this race, as Arianna proved she's doing in today's article.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Davis isn't a progressive and neither is Bustumante

I suppose you consider Zell Miller a progressive.

[Dookus]

37. Again...

I'll point out that saying what OTHER people think is usually a lame form of argument.

No, I don't consider Zell Miller a progressive. Is there anything I've written that would give you such an idea? I don't think so.

I do not believe in overturning valid elections, EVEN if it means a candidate more to my liking could win.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. What? The election in two years could overturn

the valid one that happened two years ago. What is the difference. The recall election is constitutional and just as valid as the one two years from now and two years ago.

[Emboldened Chimp]

43. I did read the whole thread

and your use of the word 'whore' is not excused by providing us with a dictionary definition. The implications of its use are enough.

I don't deny that Arianna was a Gingrich puke or that she didn't help pursue hubby's ambitions (he didn't succeed, as you seem to indicate.) But I happen to believe she made the conversion from puke to progressive. Her actions speak for themselves, most notably her SUV commercials, columns, etc. Yeah, her conversion is recent, but so what? Better late than never, I say. Her former puke affiliation will dog her for years to come, which is why she works as hard as she does getting a progressive message out there.

Now, as for the recall: I don't see it as a violation of principles. You lambaste her for running based on personal ambition. What about Arnie? Mary Carey? Gary Coleman? Are they not running for personal ambition? What makes them better than Arianna? Better still, what makes them immune from your invective? Arnie is most definitely out for his own power, but Arianna, who has a positive message--one that many here on this board support to one degree or another--is the one to be skewered? Arnie takes his orders from Rove and Kenny Boy Lay, but it is Arianna who is deserving of your criticism? What principles does Arnie stand on? What about Porno Mary? Can you name one? I can't. But I know what Arianna stands for, and she wants a platform to get her message out there; and it's one that is needed to be heard so desperately in these bleak times. Why not let her run?

Nobody is perfect. Nobody is going to be 100% upright (even Ghandi had his moments.) So why get all hot and bothered by this? Surely there is someone more worthy of your rage?

[Dookus]

73. oh...

believe me, I have enough rage to spare for this. But to be honest, it's not rage.... just irritation.

Arnold, Gary Coleman, Mary Cary and most of the other candidates are NOT running for Governor while saying that the recall itself is illegitimate. Arianna is.

My point is that there are people here to say she's not being opportunistic. I think the article above puts the lie to that. I also believe that a person who believes the recall itself is illegitimate and then participates in it is violating her own principles for personal advancement. Hence, a whore, according to the definition(s) provided above.

And I'm "hot and bothered" because I think the recall is pure bullshit, orchestrated and financed by right-wingers who HATE the fact that they lost an election and can't get over it. I think legitimate elections OUGHT to mean something in this country.

[cally]

71. Ariana has been writing about....For Years?????

Not a chance. Ariana has change her political arguments very recently. She did not oppose the Chimp in the selection and has only recently raised questions about the regime. I remember vividly what she said and did to Feinstein to support her then husband. She needs much more credibility and history to trust her IMO.

[mitchtv]

78. thank you again Cally

BTW" Where's the apology Arianna"? I do kinda like her and would recommend, that she run for congress. Maybe against Rohrbacher, Bono or Drier. they are pukes and need replacing. I would love it if she bought a place in PSP and run against mary bono. I think she is vulnerable , as she has just said she will vote for the anti gay constitutional amendment. In the end however she has done and said too much to run as an independent. I want a liberal, not a republican who is a maverick,, and running as an indy.

[Room101]

89. Cally- She has criticized Bush more than any candidate

:)

[Classical_Liberal]

32. The real elections are rigged to prevent me from voting for her

This is a real election by the way. You just don't like it that the feild is opened to real liberals so I don't have to vote for conservative Davis vs a knuckdragging republican.

[Dookus]

33. Sorry, I don't understand.

If she ran in the Democratic, or Green, or whatever primary, what on Earth prevents you from voting for her?

If she won that nomination, what on Earth prevents you from voting for her in the general election?

And this recall is NOT a real election. It's a free-for-all. Furthermore, to even APPROACH the appearance of a real election, Davis would be on the second part of the ballot.

On edit:

Also, you have absolutely NO idea what I like or don't like, especially when it comes to having liberals on the ballot. I usually vote for the most liberal candidate in every primary election. I've done so for 25 years.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. The Party system

The Democrats would kill her campaign in the primary because she won't WHORE for dlc business contributers like Davis does.

[Dookus]

38. Or...

maybe she wouldn't get enough votes to win.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. She won't get enough votes because that is where business

launches jihads and character assasination against the candidates they don't like. The current two party system isn't fair either. It sucks basically. We get a Conservative vs a knuckledragger instead of a liberal vs a moderate which is the real political spectrum of California. Davis by preserving the two party juggernaught is helping insure knuckle draggers like McClintock are the only alternatives. He is helping the knuckledraggers have legitimacy they shouldn't have. I would rather Arianna be respectable opinion than the knuckledraggers.

[Dookus]

41. well..

Your assertion was that you would not have a chance to vote for her, somehow implying that your voter rights were being infringed.

If she ran, you could vote for her. She may not win. So what? I vote for lots of people who don't win. I don't blame the DLC or big business for that - I blame the voters.

Yes, special interests attack candidates they don't like - on BOTH sides of the political spectrum!

Gray Davis, whether you or I like him, was elected fairly, and has not done anything to warrant being removed from office.

If Arianna DID win the recall election, and then a conservative group tried to recall HER, would you defend them? I'm going to guess not.

This is not about who I like or don't like as Governor. It's about a) a right wing cabal financing this illegitimate recall and b) the opportunistic whores who take advantage of that illegitimate recall to advance themselves.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. The recall is not illegitimate just because you say so

or because it is financed by the rightwing. If it doesn't matter whether you win, why is she so bad for spoiling the candidacy of Dino Davis?

Davis is unpopular and if you are unpopular you lose elections. I doubt Arianna would be as unpopular as Davis and if she were I wouldn't bitch about a conservative group removing her.

[Dookus]

46. First...

I use the word "illegitimate" because that's the word ARIANNA used.

Yes, if you're unpopular, you lose elections. But this is NOT an election. We just had a real election last November. Davis won.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. She shouldn't have called it illegitmate because that is just

Davis spin. However she still is better than Davis by miles and yards. If that inconsistancy is the only thing you have on her it only proves how shallow your Davis's campaign is. Davis supporters should just come out and say he has nothing better to offer instead of nitpicking. Davis has a loser orafice than she does.

[Dookus]

48. What am I nitpicking?

I've been very very clear in what I believe, and have stated it repeatedly. You just don't like it.

If it is merely Davis spin that the recall is illegitimate, then Arianna fell for it hook, line and sinker. She wrote a column calling it illegitimate. Are you saying I can't use her OWN words to describe her beliefs? She repeated the assertion again in today's article.

I'm a Davis supporter only so far as I will vote no on the recall, because I think it's a bullshit assault on a valid election by disgruntled right-wingers.

If by "loser orafice" you mean "looser orifice", then you're sexualizing the use of the word "whore" in a way that I very clearly, and demonstrably, did not.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. So, I am not going to vote for the spinner because his

opponant bought the spin. To suggest such a thing is an obvious sign of nitpicking. Why doesn't Davis run on issues?

[Dookus]

54. I still see no nit-picking.

I see you trying to pick a fight because I insulted your candidate.

This thread is NOT about Davis. It's not about the recall, per se. It's about supporting the assertion that Arianna Huffington is being an opportunistic whore. I have defended that assertion. All you can do is change the subject to something else.

And Davis ran on issues last year, when he won the election.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. Well just because you started it by narrowing the disgussion does`

n't mean i must behave. I don't think buying Davis's silly spin is whoring. I also think calling her a whore invites flames. What do you expect?

[AP]

49. Yes, the real election system is rigged because it doesn't

allow people with the support of 12% of the voters to take power.

Right.

[Dookus]

50. Exactly...

in order to even give the appearance of a pretense of a fake election, Davis would appear on the 2nd part of the ballot. He does not. Thus, 49% of the people can vote to support Davis, and he can still be replaced by somebody with a far smaller percentage.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. Yes it does, since most have stopped voting

. Davis wasn't elected by most of the people in California. Most of have no horse in a battle between a Conservative and a Knuckledragger. The recall is a real election. If Davis supporters don't like it. Tough.

[Dookus]

53. well...

I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people who signed the recall petition, and the vast majority of people who will vote YES on it, are not doing so because they feel Davis is too conservative.

You support candidates who have little chance of winning either a primary or a general election. That does NOT mean that the whole system is unfair or rigged. It means you're in the minority when it comes to your political views.

I could say, "If you don't like it, tough.", but that would be rude. :)

[Classical_Liberal]

57. Until we have public financing of campaigns

that entire statement is balony. The system is definately rigged to favor corporate whores. It's a rich people system. The guy who gets the most corporate money almost always wins. If they don't win it means my political views don't earn corporate contributions.

[Dookus]

58. ok...

there's something we agree on. I believe in full public financing of campaigns.

However, my entire previous statement is not baloney. Unions, environmental groups, and other traditionally "leftist" organizations also give to candidates, and get results by doing so. My argument is that people who get the most votes win elections contrary to your assertion that Davis' election is somehow illegitimate since many Californians didn't vote at all.

So while I agree that the problem of money on politics is one that needs to be addressed, I don't think it's the reason why people like Arianna don't hold office. I think the reason is that they don't represent the political views of a majority of voters.

[Classical_Liberal]

60. The unions and the environmental groups are getting very

little for their money. Particularly with Davis, they only get someone who is a little less right wing. Yet Davis has signed alot of antiworker legislation and caved to the logging industry on old growth forests.

[Dookus]

64. again...

this isn't really a thread about Davis's policies. You and I would surely agree on many issues.

However, I do feel that supporting the recall is aligning yourself with the right-wing cabal that wants to overturn a legitimate election.

If you live anywhere near Santa Cruz, PM me and we'll go out for a drink and discuss it.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. So then my supporting the next election in 2 yrs would

be supporting the right wing cabal that wants to overturn the legitimate election. Who cares. All elections against incombants are illegitimate then. People should just be elected for life.

[Dookus]

55. And....

Davis was elected by the majority of people who cast votes. That's the way we do it here. The argument that because a lot of people don't vote, no election is valid is bs. He who gets the most votes wins (Florida excepted).

[Classical_Liberal]

59. Well I think most didn't vote, because they didn't have a dog in

the fight. I don't care whether that is the way we do it here, I don't want them to do it that way here anymore. We also did Jim Crow in this counrty too, and that was just as dumb. I want the system changed to allow noncorporate views to compete more fairly, just as you would probably like to change the monstrocity that created Florida. I would like to change that too. I think the electoral monstrocity created the parties and the selection of W.

[Dookus]

61. good...

again, we agree. I want to change the system, too, so that minority views are better-heard, and that they might even have a chance to win. I'm in favor of proportional representation. I'm in favor of public financing of campaigns. I'm in favor of instant runoff elections.

But none of this means I think recalling a legitimately-elected governor for partisan political reasons is a good idea. Just like I didn't think trying to remove Clinton for political reasons was a good idea.

Call me a nut for consistency, but I think elections oughtta count for something.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. With Davis it counts for nothing

since those things will never happen. Davis benefits from a system in which only a knuckledragger is his opponant and he will ofcoarse want to keep it that way. Furthermore all elections that throw someone out of office are done for partisan reasons. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Dookus]

65. ok...

first, I think those things CAN happen if we run electable candidates who can implement some of those changes. it won't happen overnight, but we can work towards it. John McCain, the conservative, supports real campaign finance reform. it's not a left/right issue.

I know you hate Davis. You've made it very clear. But he was elected governor TWICE and I think respecting legitimate elections are a good idea.

And again, you can't honestly compare the recall to a normal election. This was a BOUGHT attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the last gubernatorial election. Just like the impeachment was a bought attempt to overturn Clinton's election. There is EVERYTHING wrong with that.

If you don't think so, just wait until all the REAL progressives are recalled by the right-wingers. Even though you hate Davis, I urge you to consider the bigger picture here.

[Classical_Liberal]

67. Respecting legitimate elections is a good idea

which is why you should stop bitching about the legitimate and constitutional recall and give good reasons to vote for Davis other than Arianna bought his stupid spin. I think this recall is more likely to result in someone who has nothing invested in the present dynamic.

There aren't many real progressives to be recalled and to the extent that they are it will only succeed if they are unpopular like Davis.

[Dookus]

68. oh well...

I tried being civil.

I even offered to take you out for a drink.

I tried to point out where we agree and delineate the small area where we disagree.

But all you can do is insult me.

So blow me.

[Classical_Liberal]

69. You call Arianna a whore and that is what you call civility

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. If we all stop responding to him, he won't have any ammunition

Just a thought.

[Dookus]

74. no...

my ammunition is my ideas and my beliefs. NSMA, I know you object to the term 'whore' in this context. I have provided multiple citations to show the word can be used in a gender-neutral, non-sexual way. And I've been very clear that that is the context in which I use it.

If you prefer, I will assert that:

Arianna Huffington is an opportunistic person who violates her own principles for her own personal advantage.

It's just quicker to type "whore".

I still love ya anyway.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. Just to clarify, I don't object to the term mediawhore

I object to where the conversation will be taken when one uses WHORE and a WOMAN in the same sentence.... a place it is NOT taken when one uses WHORE and a MAN.

[Dookus]

77. fair enough....

in the days-old thread that instigated this one, I referred to both Arianna and Camejo as opportunistic whores.

Look... I never use the word "cunt". I rarely use the word "bitch". I'm gonna stand by "whore" as somebody who sells out his principles because I think it's a valuable term. It expresses the meaning of selling-out and maintains the added benefit of being an insulting term.

Joe Lieberman is a whore for the insurance industry.
Dick Cheney is a whore for the military industrial complex.
Paul Gigot is a whore for big business.

I think all of these sentences are both valid and non-sexist.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. No problema

at least you are kind enough to explain yourself rather than acting as though language does not matter.

[Dookus]

84. oh...

believe you me, language matters. As I've said a few times here, I majored in Linguistics. I'm also a student of rhetoric and debate. I know how language matters.

And I very purposely chose the term "opportunistic whore", and I did so without intending ANY gender meaning to it.

[Dookus]

86. and not to be sexist...

but it's "problemo". Masculine. :)

On the hood of your car.

[mitchtv]

80. can't take him out to drink- not a Californian

hahahahahaha

[Dookus]

81. who is not a californian?

[mitchtv]

82. CL is not

a californian . I think i answered the right post , but if not I knowyou are Dookus but the other guy who hates Davis didn't know how the ballot worked until recently

[Dookus]

85. I don't know....

his/her profile doesn't list a geographic location.

But if Classic Liberal is NOT a Californian, then I'll just giggle to myself.

[Dookus]

94. So, CL....

what's the answer? Are you a Californian?

If not.....

the MAIN reason you can't vote for Arianna is your state residency, NOT the DLC.

[AP]

72. The system may discourage participation because...

when you don't have proportional representation, you're always going to move towards a system which creates parties which represent the interests of about 50% of the popularion. If you want more participation, the democratic way to get it is through a proportional representation system.

Without proportional representation, you get low turnout because when you get down to the final two, there are lots of people who don't see the need to go vote, and that's fine, I guess.

But to ask for more candidates but not proportional representation, you create situations like LA senate 02 race, Ventura's MN vicotry and the CA recall -- you get a situation where money and Republican strategizing sometimes results in a person winning who doesn't reflect the politics of a majority of the citizens.

The down side of not having proportional representation is that you don't get as many ideas out there.

I think the best situation is when you have two parties compete for top executive postions and statewide seats, but have proportional reprentation and/or that other system where you rank your choices for legislatures.

[Dookus]

75. The real answer...

We'll NEVER get the changes that we really need if keep doing things that elect Republicans. We need to make Democratic ideals SO attractive that we maintain majorities in all branches of goverment. THEN we'll finally have enough open-minded people to effect some change.

Before I get jumped on - I'll admit that the Democrats are only probably 10% better than the Repubs on these issues. But they're still better.

Voting for Nader, Huffington, Camejo, Kucinich (go ahead, flame me) and other sure-loss progressive candidates HINDERS the actual progressive cause, because it often ensures the election of the candidate representing the ideology most opposed to yours.

[AP]

91. exactly.

the whole political system is intentionally designed to promote change in increments, which is probably a pretty good thing. In the UK, if have a majority in Parliament, you control two branches of gov't and you can change things dramatically, which sucks for the poor when Tories are in charge.

Voting for the third party candidate strategically is fine, if you want to send messages. But politics isn't about sending messages. It's about making changes, and, therefore, an unstrategic vote for the third party candidate when you want change is just about the stupidest waste of a vote there is.

So, if you hate incremental change, hate the game, but don't hate the player.

[Dookus]

92. AP....

right. Idealogical purity may help you sleep at night, but it also ensures your nightmares will come true.

[mitchtv]

79. hahaha cause you don't live in California??????????????????

and didn't know til ystdy that davis was not on part 2 of the ballot????

[FDRrocks]

90. Every politician is an opportunist.

In fact, most humans are.

I also believe this election is rigged. The black box voting is no longer a conspiracy, but an elephant in the room. Sadly, the ACLU might be tipping the scales for the Republican party.

[Dookus]

93. I agree...

most politicians are opportunists... perhaps all of them.

I was arguing against the assertion that Arianna was NOT an opportunist.


And while I worry about the problem of BBV, I don't think it's yet been established that organized voting fraud via BBV is a reality. But I'm definitely open to the idea that it is. I'm skeptical about the Georgia results.

However, that doesn't mean I'm ready to believe that every ballot is suspect. Ya know, sometimes Republicans really DO get more votes.

But usually not in California.