Newest attack unfair to Arnold

[Zuni]

The newest one that said he admired Hitler is a little thin. I do not want Arnold to be Gov. of California, quite frankly because he is not qualified. He is an ACTOR, an ACTION FILM PERSONA, not a public servant or a politician. But this Hitler story strikes me as nonsense. Even if he did say it in 1975, by the 1980s he was an active supporter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He has had a long relationship with this most dedicated anti-Hitler organization and has given them an enormous amount of money.


So while it is fair (and smart) not to put Arnold as the highest executive in California, I think it is unfair to call him a nazi.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. And in the late 80's he invited a Nazi to his wedding

and toasted him when he didn't show.

[Deja Q]

11. Yipes

I thought Arnold had given money toi anti-nazi organizations (read that this morning).

I thought he was just stupid for admiring Hitler because of his ability to get people to cheer for him... :scared:

[Zuni]

16. You mean Kurt waldheim?

Kurt Waldheim was a German Military Intelligence Junior Officer (a Lt). No one has ever come forward and ever accused Waldheim of any misconduct.
I am not even sure he was in the Nazi party itself. I read a book about Simon Wiesenthal, and it says Waldheim lied about what he may have known--but Waldheim was a junior officer who worked on a staff. he was not in a position to order troops around, as he did not have a command position.

[VermontDem2004]

17. Arnold's Nazi Problem

A LITTLE REFRESHER course may be in order. Kurt Waldheim, a widely esteemed former secretary general of the United Nations, was running for president of Austria in March 1986 when it came to light that he had participated in Nazi atrocities during World War II. Waldheim had always maintained that he had served in the Wehrmacht only briefly and that after being wounded early in the war, he had returned to Vienna to attend law school.
In fact, Waldheim had resumed military service after recuperating from his injury and had been an intelligence officer in Germany’s Army Group E when it committed mass murder in the Kozara region of western Bosnia. (Waldheim’s name appears on the Wehrmacht’s “honor list” of those responsible for the atrocity.) In 1944, Waldheim had reviewed and approved a packet of anti-Semitic propaganda leaflets to be dropped behind Russian lines, one of which ended, “enough of the Jewish war, kill the Jews, come over.”
After the war, Waldheim was wanted for war crimes by the War Crimes Commission of the United Nations, the very organization he would later head. None of these revelations prevented Waldheim from winning the Austrian election, but after he became president, the U.S. Justice Department put Waldheim on its watch list denying entry to “any foreign national who assisted or otherwise participated in activities amounting to persecution during World War II.” The international community largely shunned Waldheim, and he didn’t run for re-election. (This information comes from the 1992 book Betrayal: The Untold Story of the Kurt Waldheim Investigation and Cover-Up, by Eli M. Rosenbaum and William Hoffer.)
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/949666.asp?0cv=cb20&cp1=1

[Zuni]

23. Honestly,

I think that Waldheim's guilt has been exaggerated.
He was a staff worker at a desk. His commander was a real thug, a General Alexander Lohr, and his Army Group freqwuently worked with the Ustashe (Croat Fascist Militia) who were even more brutal than the SS.
A lot of people were 'wanted for war crimes' but were not nessecarily war criminals. Alexander Lohr, and many other commanders in the region, no doubt were war criminals.
Actually, It was Tito and the Yugoslav Communists that tried to extradite Waldheim---he was already gaining prominence and the Yugoslavs decided to not only try to charge him, but tio ruin his name.
A lot of the controversy comes out of charges made by Tito.
Waldheim seems to have been a desk jockey who is guilty of guilt by association.

[VermontDem2004]

24. Find

Defend Arnold all you want, if you read the entire article the facts are all there. But his support of him is uncalled for, and if you don't hold him against it, find then. Just don't vote for him is all I care about at this point.

[Zuni]

25. I do not live in Cali

And I would not vote for Arnold simply because he is unqualified to deal with the tremendous problems in the state.
I could care less about groping women or stupid remarks.

[VermontDem2004]

28. I don't know if Arnold groped

women because I wasn't there, but how can you honestly say you don't care about him groping women (if he did)?

[Zuni]

30. It is not my problem

I could care less what actors do in their spare time. I do not want this actor to become Gov, so I could honestly care less.

[VermontDem2004]

32. You don't have problems

with him groping woman without their consent? That makes me sick if you ask me.

[Loyal]

51. It makes me sick too

Nonconsensual groping makes me sick too.

[HEyHEY]

63. Yeha but it isn't true...well actually it is

That's been paraphrased but that's pretty well the gist of what he said

[NicoleM]

74. Wow.

I could care less about groping women or stupid remarks.

That statement is so infuriating that I really don't know how to comment on it, except to ask if you'd mind if he did it to your mother. Do you have a wife or a sister? Would you care if a man groped them without their consent?

[leftofthedial]

66. some Nazis were better than other Nazis

eh?

[democracyindanger]

2. The issue isn't if he's

a Nazi. It's his admiration of Hitler. It's on tape, he said it, so let him explain it.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. he said

that people are weak-minded and need to be controlled by leaders.

[lebkuchen]

4. So he admired Hitler. Nobody's perfect, right?

[Caution]

5. read a bit more about that relationship

arnold basically paid them off when allegations arose that showed his father was in fact a member of the SA. Admiration of Hitler is something relevant in a politician and as for evidence of that being thin, well it was clearly said in an interview apparently. And the excuse "i dont remember saying that" doesnt really hold much water after Iran-Contra.

I am, however, much more concerned about him admitting to being a repeat offender of sexual assault.

[realFedUp]

6. His saying he can't remember any of this stuff

is getting old and thin.

Even if he doesn't remember the exact quote given
to an interviewer, he probably remembers the
gist of what he thought.

I am sure the donations to anything Arnold's
given to are with a political agenda in mind.
He's wanted to run for a long time.

[lebkuchen]

9. I was thinking he had alzheimers.

There's a heck of a lot he can't remember. He's been saying "I can't remember" for weeks.

[1a2b3c]

7. Man

I always like Arnold from his days as Mr. Olympia. I dont care if he is the governer of California or not because i dont like California. Raygun was an actor who also made it to the top for 2 terms so i guess it wouldnt make him unqualified just because he is an actor. So he is a repuke. I dont give a shit. I cant think of many democrats that i dont like and i can think of a few repukes like Arnold and McCain, that i do like.

[CarinKaryn]

12. So what are you doing on this site?

WHy don't you post on JoinArnoldInGroping.com or FlushAWomansHead.org. You're support of that pervert is not welome here!

[Zuni]

14. I am not supporting him

I said I do not want him to be govenor.
I do not think it is fair to call him a Nazi sympathiser either.

[CarinKaryn]

27. I was responding to the GUN GALLERY poster

He likes the Terminator and doesn't understand that IT'S JUST A MOVIE. HE WON'T REALLY SAVE THE WORLD. HE'S AN ACTOR, A FAKE, JUST LIKE YOU'R BELOVED Ray*GUN*

This is real life. And in real life he invites Natzi's to his birthday party, assaults women and dreams of flushing their heads down toliets.

[prolesunited]

18. I'm so surprised that

you would find things in common with Arnold based on some of your previous posts. NOT!

And you don't like California so it's OK and you're thinking Reagan was OK because he served two terms. :wtf:

I don't even know where to begin. California has the fifth largest economy in the world. If someone who doesn't know what they are doing (like Arnold who helped steer Planet Hollywood into bankruptcy but not before plundering it first) runs it into the ground, what do you think that will mean to the U.S. economy?

In addition, California with its ?14? electoral votes will be extremely important to the 2004 election. Don't you think it would be EXTREMELY important to have a Dem in control in order to help deliver those electoral votes.

As we've seen with Jeb in Florida, the governor can do a lot to effect the outcome of an election and that doesn't even take into account black box voting issues.

Just because Reagan served two terms doesn't mean he was a good president. He ran up the federal deficit. He slashed many social service and education programs. Was the figurehead during the Iran-Contra scandal, etc.

I find your opinion to be lacking in any factual basis, short-sighted and extremely shallow.

[VermontDem2004]

20. Strongly agree

with everything you said.

[5thGenDemocrat]

39. Aw. Poor Arnie Schnickelgroper.

I'm sorry -- I meant Schwarzenazi.
John
After what the Rethugs did to Clinton for eight years, I'm perfectly willing to throw all the shit I can at them and see how much of it sticks. That goes for pResident Dopey and the traitor he's covering for, and for Rush Eightball, too.

[ParanoidPat]

8. Quoting the man is now "a little thin"?

:crazy: Using his own words is "unfair"? And we should listen to you because.....:shrug::evilgrin:

[Frodo]

10. It WOULD have been fair....

...a month or two ago.

Nothing is fair the weekend before an election. We just "happened" to find out? Or, frankly, the Bush DWI news a few days before the 2000 election. You think someone didn't know that weeks/months earlier? No. Someone held it until it was as politically potent as possible (and with no time to respond - or if you do it takes you off of your message).

That's dirty politics, plain and simple. And Davis has been known for it. But it can make a differnece in who wins and loses - and that's why it's done. Do we really think the DWI story cost shrub zero votes? No, he may have only lost .5%-1.5% on the revelation, but we would never have been arguing over dimpled chads if we had "played fair".

Yes. The "public has a right to know", but they have a right to know well in advance so they make an informed decision. Not see "Nazi" next to someones name in the paper a day or two before the election. Whoever is behind it (maybe it's McClintoch - who knows?) deserves to lose. My team or not.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frodo]

19. Right.

"Whatever it takes to win".

No, it is Dems like that - and by inference, like you, that are why we lose.

The opposing site has a translation of an Austrian/German magazine published last month (NOT a rumor of a tape provided to a magazine decades ago that nobody can confirm) saying that as a teenager he particpated in a counter-nazi rally attacking a bunch of skinhead-types. Is it true? I have no idea. But, if true, there's no time left before the election to get the word out. So even an untrue smear wins the day. Just listening to Davis spin it and make sure that "voters take it into account" when they vote is disgusting.

More than one woman accused our former president of rape/assault. Would we have been as defensive if she had said it when he was AK's AG the month it happened while she still (in theory) had bruises? No! We would have clobbered him and his days in politics would be over. Making the accusation as a politically opportune time years-decades later is unfair (even if true).

If he was a Nazi/Hitler sympathizer than he should never have been Mr Universe! We should never have watched his movies! He should have been booted off all the "Presidential fitness blah blah panels"! We had "a right" to know this decades ago before we put out money in his pockets!

The mere fact that it comes out now is suspicious to the point of deserving the assumption of untruth.

Winning is never "so important" that it justifies cheating.

[Jim Sagle]

21. Telling the truth about a worthless piece of Nazi filth isn't cheating.

What website is this, anyhow?

[Frodo]

34. Yes, actually. It is. - Link below.

If it wasn't cheating, than Davis or McClintoch (or whoever held it till the end), would have used it a month ago when it could have been debated.

Notice that MSNBC is reporting that the filmaker orginally cited as the source has backtracked from the original quote (after finding "another transcript") that isn't quite as bad (ahnold does not, for instance, say he "admired what he did with it" but that he "did not admire what he did with it." A small change that might tilt perception if it were earlier in the news cycle. But the smear was timed to avoid any effective response - which is why we must assume it's a lie.

Here's the link:

http://de.news.yahoo.com/031003/286/3oc14.html

The "opposing" website is, of course, freeperville. Always pays to know what the other guy is saying. And it can be entertaining as he11.

[TEXASYANKEE]

15. Daily Howler

Bob Somersby will answer your question.
www.dailyhowler.com

Basically it's this -- Arnold entered the race on Aug 6. LA Times just finished a "6 week investigation." It's not like Arnold has been in the race for months and months.

[Frodo]

26. Bzzz. Wrong.

First. It looks like Estrich agrees with me on this, and I'll take that over the editorialist. She's no right-winger. She's Terry McAuliff in a skirt.

Second. Seven weeks is ridiculous. Do you mean to tell me that they just yesterday found out that he may have said this? There isn't any supporting evidence given, so it isn't like they spent seven weeks confirming it and can only come out with it now. Do you mean to tell me that six women came forward indipendantly two days ago? They didn't know about one of them four or five weeks ago? They HAVE to run the story the last full news cycle before the election?

Balloney. I can smell a long-dead fish pretending to be the prize winner whether it was "caught" off our pier or the Republicans'. It still stinks. You know what? Let the voters in California get what they deserve. They'll learn their lesson quickly enough.

[VermontDem2004]

29. It is interesting how Arnold admitted to it

if these stories are bullshit.

[Frodo]

35. Not exactly true.

I never said they wer BS. I said the tactic is unfair . The extra women coming forward to pile on CLinton weren't fair either (and I suspect you agree on that), the timing was just wrong.

He admitted to "bad things" that he did when he was younger. The substance of the accusations was not addressed.

If we had heard one or more of these allegations a month ago? There would have been plenty of time to force him to say exactly what he had done and investigate his truthfullness. Now? He gets a pass on the question because it's too close to the election to expect him to go off message.

Now it's only for the partisans to spin it how they want it to be read.

[VermontDem2004]

41. He apologized directly to the women

he offended, if you don't believe me then show me a quote where he said otherwise.

[Jim Sagle]

31. BS BS BS BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll take the Daily Howler's judgment of what's fair over yours any seven days of the week.

[Frodo]

36. What an incredibly reasoned reponse.

< /sarcasm>

[Cheswick2.0]

42. Frodo , Frodo Frodo

Why are you so upset at the truth coming out about Arnold? The timing upsets you? Sorry, I am not buying it at all.

[Frodo]

46. Because I play it fair. Period.

I couldn't care less who wins this one. I don't have a high opinion of Davis - nor do I think highly of an electorate who boots him out months after electing him. I don't like any of the opportunists (Arnold - big time) jumping into the race, but I don't think very much of Cruz's back-stabbing either.

The amazing thing is a single article comes out accusing someone of somethnig bad and you and those like you { edit - that came across harsher than I intended. Sorry } assume "the truth came out"? Why?

Notice that my argument do not depend in any way on whether the accusation is true or false. He doesn't deserve to be Governor if either one is true... and he doesn't deserve it if they are false.

I've been around long enough to spot "dirty politics" and I'm not naive enough to assume that only the other side plays it.

I'm not even sure it's Davis who's doing it. The recall looks like a lock and the Neo-Cons are hyping that they should switch to McClintoch because Cruz is battered enough that he'll come in third?

Won't you feel a bit stupid if they elect McClintoch over a lie and you end up with a "real conservative" instead of a RINO?

[Cheswick2.0]

77. oh come on now Frodo

Even he admits it is true, are you saying he is lying and he didn't really grope those women? 11 women come forward and they are all liars? If that is what you think, how is that playing fair? Do you have so little respect for women. I think you had better review your attitude.

[dfong63]

43. the truth is always fair, and don't forget it

[Frodo]

48. No. It isn't. The "good guys" don't play that way.

Amazing how the "truth" was never relevant before? How "somebody" kept us from knowing all this while with blissfully gave the guy tens of millions of our dollars to entertain us?

[NicoleM]

75. Nobody kept us from knowing all this.

Ever heard of the Premiere article from a few years back? And his support for Waldheim is well known, has been since at least 1986, when he toasted Waldheim at his own wedding.

The LA Times says that no other campaign gave them this information, and none of the women came to them. They wanted to get the story right and didn't publish it until they were satisfied that it was.

And for the record, I've never given Arnold Schwartzenegger a nickel. I've never paid to see a movie of his, and I don't anticipate doing so in the future.

[Frodo]

76. Not even Total Recall???? I'm shocked!

That's right up there with "It's a Wonderful Life"! How could you miss it? :-)

I tend to agree with you on that one, but I was speaking as a group. "We" have given this guy an awfull lot that we might not have if everyone knew he was a Nazi.

As for Waldheim? Wasn't 1986 well before everyone knew he was a Nazi? Didn't his own people elect him for some high office (flying blind here)? I think it's reasonable to think A.S. knew just as little about him as the rest of the country.

As for the LA Times? Their story is not credible in this regard. They couldn't "get the story right" on one of these women earlier? All nine "just came together" in the last couple days? And at least one woman has said she came forward at the urging of a close Davis associate... it's just that the times failed to identify her as such.

[NicoleM]

78. He knew.

There was a Slate article about it a while back. You can look it up if you're interested.

As far as the women are concerned, it sounds to me like you've made up your mind about them.

[Frodo]

81. Heck no. That's the point.

I have no reason to disbelieve them except for their timing. My inclination on such things has always been to believe the accuser (knowing the average male of the species is driven by different motivations than the average female). That's all changed over the last decade or so with all of the women who "came forward" "courageously" against our former President.

The point is that I can't know one way or the other from 3000 miles away with only an accusation and a denial. But I have to take the timing into account. Were I in CA, I suppose I would just vote "no". I'm not real impressed with Davis, but he was elected just a few months ago, and none of the other candidates strikes me as filing the job any better (and don't go on about Cruz - this would have been less of an issue if he had never gotten in the race - he's intentionally stabbing Davis in the back)

I would be interested in the Slate article if I can find it. What evidence could they have about what he knew and when? And what about the AP stories about A.S. and some other bodybuilders attacking nazi youth? Wouldn't he have been on the other side?

[blondeatlast]

80. I (don't) admire you for your lack of consistency, Frodo.

Citing this post regarding Rush: post #2.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=462489#462523

Always glad to help the consistencially-challenged on the board!

[Frodo]

84. Care to point out how that isn't "consistent"???

The point in both threads is the same. So the challenge to you is to point out the inconsistency.

The intellectually challenged (or politically blinded) judge accusations, not based on evidence, but on who is being accused. And that's illogical. If the charge was that Kennedy was a drug addict (ok poor example given some of his extended family) instead of Rush? 95% of the people here would assume it was a poltically motivated lie and 99% of freepers would assume it was automatically true. Given the reverse situation, everyone here assumes it is true (and a long time coming). Everyone there assumes we will all be made fools of "when the truth comes out".

Notice how I'm safe in either situation? I'm perfectly happy to wait until a news article of a raid on the AIB compound pulling in $2M worth of TylenolIII, or a sucessful prosecution.

I've read tittilating stories that could simply be a drug dealer trying to avoid prison time (or tax liability) by fingering someone else (and, of course, rake in the tabloid payout). If it's true? I can't wait.

The only difference here is the timing. There is nothing in the Rush story that is tainted by anything other than the source. If the story cam out three days before ABC had to decide whether to keep him on the air or go with some Liberal host? Then I might assume it's a lie.

[Kamika]

22. its called fighting them with their own weapons

You think a freeper would post on FR something like

"hey guys i know we dont like Hillary but dont you think its abit unfair calling her hitlary?"


no f*cking way they would, they make up ANYTHING they can, and then some.

Now i dont know about you but im damn tired of always being the reasonable one.. if demonizing, cheating and trashtalking got them the presidency in 2000 maybe we should start fighting back with their own weapons.

[GumboYaYa]

33. I disagree.

Recalling a govenor who has done nothing to merit recall is wrong. Running a contentless govadroid in a short election where there is no time to vet the candidate is wrong.

Having to answer for your prior acts and statements is politics. If Arnie can't take the heat.......

[SOteric]

37. I disagree with characterising this as 'an attack'

The question of whether Arnold Schwartzenegger is or ever has been a sympathiser or admirer of Adolph Hitler is absolutely a valid exploration of his character and fitness to serve in any governing capacity.

It's an attack to go after his personal life. It's an attack to suggest he's a poor parent, or to question his children's behaviours. It's an attack to say that he has tacky taste in clothing, or to mock his speech.

It is not an attack to question his character, or the powerful people he admires and models himself after, or his grasp of governance and economics, or even the details of his intended policies. At least in theory, these are the sorts of things our democratic votes are to be decided upon.

Adolph Hilter was a powerful force in the shape of the world as we know it and he rose from poverty and obscurity. As an individual who has studied and finds interest in military history and strategics, I can admit a morbid fascination with Hitler's tactics and accomplishment. That is a far cry from offering any admiration for the utterly sick and psycopathic methods of his political and war machines.

[Frodo]

38. It's an attack

"It is not an attack to question his character, or the powerful people he admires and models himself after, or his grasp of governance and economics, or even the details of his intended policies. At least in theory, these are the sorts of things our democratic votes are to be decided upon."

Absolutely correct. But it is an attack to do it two working days before an election.

"I can admit a morbid fascination with Hitler's tactics and accomplishment. That is a far cry from offering any admiration for the utterly sick and psycopathic methods of his political and war machines."

Absolutely correct, but back then "admire" may have been ahnolds closet english word to "morbid fascination" especilly when you read the revised quote the author just "found". Do we know for a fact that he was different from you? Is your morbid fascination enough to disqualify you as Governor?


The substance of the "attack" is not what makes it wrong. It's the timing. If Gore accused Bush of eating small children on the day before the election... there would have been no time for a response or for the public to decide that it was false (or true) and to act accordingly. Every response he makes only serves to run one more story about the accusation.

[SOteric]

40. It is not an attack.

I regret to inform you that there is no time limit on asking hard questions regarding the character, the policies or the capabilities of a candidate. Even after the election these things are important aspects of an informed voting population.

There is plenty of time for the Schwarzenegger campaign to respond to the questions. He has time to say, "Yes, I said that, here's what I meant." Or "No, I did not say that, I'm being unfairly characterised." Or even "I don't remember saying any such thing, nor can I fathom a circumstance where I would do so." Which, I believe, is exactly what he's done. Now it is in the hands of the voting body.

Your analogy is highly flawed. To have accused Bush of 'eating babies' would have been highly inflammatory rhetoric aimed as a personal attack. There would be an extraordinary burden of proof on the accuser. But to have said that Bush's "grasp of mathematics is weak and here's why" where a mathematical analysis followed would be absolutely fair. Even the day before the election. Even the day after the election.

As for Arnold's grasp of English, he is surrounded by native speakers of the language, any one of whom can help him find a way to explain and clarify whatever comments he may or may not have made in the past. The ball is in his court, and it's still in fair play.

[Frodo]

44. The question SHOULD come up. BEFORE the last news cycle.

A creditible news organization should fire the reporter who couldn't develop the story in time. Since the story cannot be fleshed out prior to the election it should have been held to avoid affecting it.

"Your analogy is highly flawed. To have accused Bush of 'eating babies' would have been highly inflammatory rhetoric aimed as a personal attack. There would be an extraordinary burden of proof on the accuser. "

So calling someone a Nazi sympathizer (or a Nazi himself, as some here have done) is not "inflammatory rhetoric"? Or a "personal attack"? (I'd sure take it personally) There isn't an "extraordinary burden of proof"? (Which, by the way, has not been met). We have someone who wanted to do a bio on him six years ago claiming that he has a transcript of an interview from decades ago. A transcript, by the way, which keeps changing because he has more than one copy and his transcriptionist had a tough time understanding Arnold. But somehow, the seven-year-old memo trying to get published (he was not - which says something) is the one run after a seven week investigation? And it takes MSNBC a day to have him admit it wasn't exactly accurate?

"As for Arnold's grasp of English, he is surrounded by native speakers of the language..."

You miss my point. He had a very poor grasp of the language back in the 70's when the interview was supposedly given. He may have meant precisely what you mean with "morbid facination". He has basically said (as you pointed out) "I can't imagine saying that - because THIS is how I feel/felt"

The point is that people have a right to vote on the truth. This MAY in fact BE true. But there is no time to confirm it. So there will be some people voting one way when they would have voted the other. What if some people vote YES on recall because they assume it's Davis playing dirty pool when in fact it's McClintoch trying to damage Arnold now that it looks like Cruz is dissintegrating? Is that fair?

[dfong63]

45. well, i'm so sorry theTruth couldn't rearrange its schedule to suit

... your candidate's election requirements.

[Frodo]

47. Amazing how the "truth" never get's it's boots on until

two or three days before an election. Huh?

And amazing how it never comes out about the candidate who is ten points down on election-eve weekend?

Heard anything shocking about Gary Coleman today?

[5thGenDemocrat]

53. Never gets out until two or three days before an election?

Shoot -- the Repukes crucified Clinton for eight years. On less truth, I would think, than what is coming out about the Ubersturmbahnfuhrer-in-waiting.
Fair? I don't care about fair -- politics isn't fair. I want to see Schwarzenazi's kopf stuffed firmly in the schiess. Is it a kick below the belt? Maybe. But too bad for Ahnold.
John
Fair. Shee-it. Californians duly elected a governor less than a year ago. The recall itself isn't fair. Send Arnie a donation if you feel so bad about it.

[Frodo]

55. That's the spirit! To he11 with the facts! I want to WIN!

"Shoot -- the Repukes crucified Clinton for eight years."

Yep. They did. And the fact that it was "less truth" does make it "unfair" as well. The fact that the Lewinsky tapes were'nt held until the weekend before the election? That's the ONLY reason he had a second term. If the tapes/dress/pictures/videos had been released on Thursday before the election? We'd have President Dole finishing up his second term right about now.

"Fair? I don't care about fair -- politics isn't fair."

Then I don't want you on our team. "I don't care about fair" kinda makes my point, don't you think?.

"Californians duly elected a governor less than a year ago. The recall itself isn't fair."

Did California go and change it's Constitution since last week? I thought we specifically put a rule in there that says we can recall people. If the people who voted for him show up and vote "no" he will stay in office. But you know for a fact that quite a few who voted for him wish they had a DIFFERENT DEMOCRAT that they could vote for.


You have failed to take into account that this could easily be a ploy to get the FAR MORE RIGHT-WING CANDIDATE into the office. Is it cheating only if the other side does it? If McClintoch wins and you find out later it was because he leaked this story... will you still think it's fair? Oh, I forgot - (You) don't care about fair"

Edit - "Ploy". It's a "ploy". Not a "plow" :-)

[5thGenDemocrat]

61. I think you protesteth too much

I would further guess that you and I AREN'T on the same team. My suggestion, since you apparently live in California ("we specifically put a rule in there"), is to go right ahead and vote for your boy. Meanwhile, understand that to those of us in the other 49 states, California is on the verge of becoming a punch line to a very, very bad joke. But, hey, what else is new?
Finally, this release of information isn't cheating. Either Schnickelgroper molested women or he didn't. Either Schwartzenazi said he admired Hitler and what Hitler "did with it" or he didn't. When the facts came out is far less important (unimportant, actually) than the fact that they came out.
And it seems to me that the Dems do have a different Democrat to vote for. His name is Cruz Bustamante and, as far as I know, he's never groped women or admired Hitler. Too bad for you that Arnie apparently did.
John
For that matter, I haven't heard any sudden revelations about McClintock. Wonder why that is? Could it be that, in spite of being a conservative, he is neither a Nazi sympathizer nor a molester?

[Frodo]

65. I'm not in California.

"We" in this case was "democrats". That part of the constitution of CA was put into place because of fear that corporations would buy elections for candidates against the overall will of the people (if they knew what was going on). So "we" put in a provision to remove Governors.

"When the facts came out is far less important (unimportant, actually) than the fact that they came out.
"

And that's kinda the point. Isn't it? The "facts" have NOT come out. At this point they are only allegations. He has certainly not admitted to "molesting" anyone. And see how you miss the "truth"? Even the original source says that A.S. never said he admired what hitler "did with it" but rather the exact opposite of that. If this was run a month ago (and the Times' source surely had it a month ago they could have hashed all of this out. I can only assume it comes out now because the leaker thinks it would be defeated if there was time.


As for McClintoch. Here's some "facts" for you:

1) Davis is done. Stick a fork in him. He's playing this up, but there is NOBODY saying "Gee I really wanted Ahhhnold, but since he's dirty I'll just vote 'no'". Davis picks up no "no" votes if Arnold dies a dirty death. How many Arnold supporters do you think there are who would otherwife want Davis to continue?

2) Cruz is dying a horrible political death. He's falling so fast the party has leaked that he might drop out to improve Davis' chances. There is speculation that he could come in third.

3) So who benefits? I just saw Fox interviewing McClintoch and speculating about what needs to occur for him to win. Maybe he just needs more DUers in CA helping to knock down his pro-choice pro-gun-control opponent? The neo-cons are all trying to get those people who were voting for arnold "because he was the only republican who can win" to switch over. Did you see the recent Alan Keyes endorsement?

[5thGenDemocrat]

68. Peace, Frodo

You may be right.
Certainly, I admire your sense of fair play (though I believe it's misguided when applied to politics) and I have no interest in getting into a food fight with anyone tonight (my b'day is tomorrow, and I want to have a good weekend).
I live in Michigan, where we elect politicians and let them finish their terms of office, no matter our personal opinions of them (John "Governor Potatohead" Engler just got term-limited after 12 years). I think that, in the absence of crimes and/or misdemeanors, a pol should be allowed to finish out his or her term. Obviously, the folks in CA view this differently and I will grant you that that is their right (and no one asked me, anyhow). As a Michiganian, my opinion on the matter is both academic and theoretical.
Anyhow, I sincerely hope you (and all DUers) have a good weekend, too.
John
I probably get too involved in problems which don't directly involve me. Let the Californians do what they will -- I live 2000 miles away and, worse come to worst, two hours from Canada.

[Frodo]

69. Peace. 5thGen - And Happy Birthday! eom.

eom.

[SOteric]

56. You seem to be basing your

high emotional argument on the notion that this is about the competition. It's not. It's about governing.

Whether the story is true or not there is not a time limit on it's coming to light. Whether the allegations can be addressed or not, there is no time limit on their being responded to.

If this were about the competion, then like a footrace, a winner would be establish, a trophy awarded and everyone would go home. This isn't about the contest, it's about the ongoing leadership of one of the largest and most influencial states.

Regardless of the allegations, if Schwarzenegger wins the election and is installed as governor, the issue, if unsetteled, will resurface. It will resurface each and every time legislation is introduced which may be interpretted as persecuting a population sub-group. It may even surface over petty issues such as whether a Jewish legislator is treated with less respect than a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant one.

As for whether this is inflammatory rhetoric, or a personal attack. No, I don't think so. I think it's a valid question regarding a candidate's - any candidates character. Saying that Bush eats babies is sufficiently absurd that barring some film footage and affadavits from Mr. Rogers, 3 nuns and the pope himself, most would dismiss it out of hand as foolishness or an out and out character assassination. Which, one hopes, it would be.

There are people alive today who sympathised with the Nazi's. Schwarzenegger is too young to have been a Nazi. He could have been a member of the Hitler Youth, but they were more a group of brainwashed teenagers than a political force. It's not absurd to believe he may have patterned himself in his youth after the role models of strength which he possibly perceived the Austrian Corporal to embody. But I don't know that, and I'm willing to listen to him comment on any such questions. The thing is, it isn't completely out of hand to consider it possible or even probable.

You imply I should defend, explain or act as apologist for those on this board who go over the top in their accusation. But I don't agree with every member of this board any more than I agree with you.

My point is simply that this is valid question for a candidate to govern of one of this country's largest, most powerful states. If he doesn't answer these questions to satisfaction before the election, he will have to do so afterward. Otherwise, his bills need not be passed, is initiatives need not be agreed upon and his governorship need not be continued. (See Gray Davis, State of California, 2003)

This is what I mean by it being about the governance, not the competition.

I do not miss your point. Whatever Arnold did or did not say in his past he is surrounded now with experts in the language and damage control. What matters to your original argument is that he have time to respond and counter the questions. He has the time, he has the strategists, he has a wealth of linguistic experts, and Schwarzenegger himself probably knows whether he's been a Nazi sympathiser in his past or not. It's not the sort of thing people forget.

[Frodo]

58. Good points.

But it's still dirty politics.

Yes, he can "respond". But I have NO IDEA WHO IS LYING here. I can assume that the timing is politically motivated and act against those I assume did it (and vote for A.S. if I was inclined that way) or I can assume that it is true (and vote against him even if I was inclined to vote for him). Either way, my vote is affected by less than all the facts. These are NOT FACTS. They are ACCUSATIONS... bad ones. And there is no possible way to come to a firm conclusion on them before voting.

I don't personally need to know whether they are true since I wasn't voting for him anyway. But SOME votes will be swung by ACCUSATIONS. And if it results in someone whose positions are far closer to the Nazi's? (No, I don't think he's a nazi either) Would the release have still been "fair".


To use your example a little better about answering for it after the election? Isn't that what the recall is for? isn't that why DEMOCRATS put it in the constitution in the first place? Didn't Davis cook the books before the election to make it look like the budget was in much better shape only to find out right AFTER the election that the debt was ENOURMOUS? Isn't that why he has no chance of keeping his job?

Think about the ramifications of playing ti your way. That sword cuts both ways and the other side doesn't have as many "good guys".

[SOteric]

62. I deeply suspect

That much like you, most of those who will participate in the upcoming elections already know for whom they wish to vote. Those supporting Schwarzenegger will dismiss these issues as political dirty pool or irrelevant, - much like Bush's supporters dismiss the issue of WMD.

Those who were not going to vote for Schwarzenegger will simply accept the issues as further evidence that he's not the best choice.

The few who may be teetering on the edge are the key issue. With regard to that, I simply assert the public is more accepting of charming public figures than they should be. When Bill Clinton stood in front of the American people and said he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinski, millions of average men and women all over this country believed him; up to and including his wife. It wasn't until irrefutable evidence came to light that folks felt any sense of betrayal.

Schwartzenegger has had more than a small amount of time to have his face etched in the public eye, - and almost every occassion painted him the good-guy, on the side of right. In essence, it's programming. Much of the US is impressionable and has been programmed to perceive Arnold as the big, fierce, saviour of the underdog. More time in front of the camera, regardless of the questions alleging his lack of character, is likely to do more good to his campaign than harm.

And I still don't agree that it's dirty politics. I think it's valid. It's valid to question his character and it will be ever thus as long as he remains a figure in politics.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about why Davis is being recalled as well. Personally I think a wealthy Republican is trying to buy the office of governorship and that this sets a dangerous precedent.

I'll just finish by directing your attention to this thread in GD and ask you to read post number 11 in detail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=464588#464640



:hi: I'm home sick and I need to get some sleep. Later.

[FlaGranny]

64. It could be two hours before the election -

it would be unfair to voters to NOT release the story. Is it more important to Arnold or more important to thousands of voters who might not want to vote for someone who is a serial groper? Whose interests come first?

[Frodo]

73. Let's make it simple...

If someone were to truly come upon strong evidence of something like this two hours before an election (not planted by an opponent, not someone "coming forward" at the last minute). Say.. you read it in a twenty year old paper while researching something else. Then, yes, you would have to run with it.

But do we truly believe that six women just independantly decided two days ago was when they would come forward (anonymously of course)? And then we just found out about a quote (a terrible mis-quote it turns out) yesterday? Then three more women decide that today is the day to tell their stories (any names today I wonder)?

Not one of these nine women acted in the public's best interest a month ago? a year ago? a decade ago? Did we give all of Clinton's accusers the same assumption of truthfullness? Those who are poltically blind always see accusations against their guy as fabrications and allegations against the opponent as automatically true (regardless of evidence). Whatever is politically the most damaging must be true. What was ever the evidence that Bill had Vince Foster killed? Ahhh, but if he had - his career would be over and the Democratic party would dissintigrate... so significant percentages of "true beleiving" conservatives assumed it was true.

Your post assumes the story is 100% true. I don't think we can know that. Which is why these hit jobs come out so late in a election cycle. Even if untrue (or stretched), they damage the opponent when it's too late for the polling mechanics to swing back to neutral.

Let's look at two possible situations. 1) They are (generally) true. 2) They are generally false.

In situation #1 - if the story were released a month ago everyone would be able to prove that it was true and the candidate would likely drop out. If the story is released today? People won't have time to determine if it's true and some people may vote for him assuming it's a political hit job.

In situation #2 - If the story is realeased a month before the election it would be shown to be false well before people vote. The backlash against his opponents would be severe. BUT if the story is released today? Even if untrue it damages the opponent and nothing comes back on you until after the election.


I have to assume that the information is released at this point by design. It defies immagination that all of this would simply be "discovered" a couple days before an election. Somebody(ies) "held" this until these last few days. I can only assume that they did so because it is more poltically damaging today than it would have been a month or two ago. If the news were 100% true? I can't imagine a situation were today is more damaging than it would have been a month ago. If it's false (or blatantly missleading as with the "admire what he did" comment was), I can't envision a situation where releasing it a month ago would be effective... you have to hold it until the end.

Conclusion? I must act under the assumption that the accusations are substantially false. If true, they had an obligation to run with it a long time ago (frankly, years ago - instead of letting him become so famous).

If he loses? I won't shed a tear (though CA won't be as "interesting" as it might have been), but I won't pretend the game was played by the rules.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

49. Thank you Zuni, 1a2b3c and Frodo

for your different kinds of support
for me and what I didn't do or say.
I do not know about anybody else, but
I will never forget it.

[Frodo]

50. CUTE! How did you do that?

Or have you been going around here with that nic all along?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

52. Thank you again. Isn't Frodo

the name of that brother in Godfather
that did some stuff and then went fishing?

[Frodo]

54. No. At least I don't think so.

Frodo is the lead character from the Lord of the Rings.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

57. Well anyway thanks for the support (snuggle). I can tell

you don't care what people think of you around
here and that makes us too peas in a pot. By the way,
are you a gal (wink) by any chance?

EDIT OUT: (tungue wag)

[prolesunited]

59. Hey there!

I saw Gov. Davis around here not too long ago. He was looking for you. I think he wants to debate you. :hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

60. I'm busy not remembering all sort of things

that I probly did not have done.

[noiretextatique]

67. i love this ONE...but i detest the real one

this one actually has a brain (and knows how to spell the word), but the other is a fucking JOKE!!!!!!!!! talk about 'PC' gone wild...you ahhnold defenders can kiss my native californian ASS :hi:

[ForrestGump]

71. Can we kiss it, anyway, just because?

:D

[ForrestGump]

72. Arnold! Dude!

I totally loved you in The Last Action Hero!

[Fight_n_back]

70. He gave the money

precisely BECAUSE of stories like this.

[blondeatlast]

79. If nothing else, read the newly posted rules on the recall election.

I'm alerting on this post. This is ridiculous.

[Generic Other]

82. If Arnie is fit to be governor, Charles Manson should be allowed to adopt

Roman Polanski should be given an award for his work with youth.

Bill O'Reilly should win a Peabody.

The Supreme Court should be respected.

Rush should be head of the NAACP.

Bush is fit to be president.

NO, IN THUNDER! NO GODDAMN IT!!!

These imbeciles strutting around acting as if they were important will never make me acknowledge such. All I will do is shriek at the top of my lungs!!

The truth banshee's howl penetrates to the bone.
It wails of impotence, small-mindedness, hypocrisy, shame. Let her voice shrivel these inflated men until they dissipate like an ill wind.

[BigMcLargehuge]

83. I'm locking this

Please be aware the rules about posting arnold-defenses had changed.

Discussions about the California Recall Election (Oct 04th 2003)
Democratic Underground does not exist to to provide a platform for our political opponents or their supporters, especially this close to an election. If our members want to listen to Republican spin, they can turn on the television. But they don't expect to see it on this message board.

If you support this ridiculous power-grab against the democratically elected Governor of California, then you should do all of us a favor and keep that particular opinion to yourself.

Even if you swear that you're going to vote against the recall, we still have no interest in hearing how you "admire" our opponents or how you feel "ashamed" about attacks against them.

The moderators have the authority to keep DU free from right-wing spin this close to an election.

Skinner
DU Administrator


Thanks

Big McLargehuge
DU Moderator