Schwarzenegger Aims to Bypass Lawmakers

LA Times ^ | Dec. 7, 2003 | Peter Nicholas and Joe Mathews

[Hoverbug]

It forces both sides to the middle. That's how we end up with Bubbas

This means that the looneys get to speak, but they get nowhere near the levers of power.

Lemme get this straight. You think bubba was "middle" and that the "looneys" have never been near the levers of power, even when Billy and Hiltlery were in the whitehouse????

BWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hb

[Constantine XIII]

Bubba was vile, but he was no Howard Dean! Who else was in the primaries with him in 91-92?

[Hoverbug]

I guess we can agree to disagree that Clintoon was "in the middle."

Al Gore, vice prez with hands on some of those levers, said that the greatest threat to mankind was the internal combustion engine. That pretty much qualifies him as a looney in my book, and he was a heartbeat away from being prez.

I'd say selling secrets to the Chinese, accepting campaign contributions from a communist government, and a host of other things, puts these people outside the "middle" and into the "extreme and looneys" that some think the 2 party system protects us from.

My guess is that some would say Dean, when compared to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others, really isn't that bad.

"Political relativism" rears its ugly head here. If we start defining the Clinton admisitration as "middle" solely because they weren't as bad as others, and we feel all safe and comfy that the 2 party system will automatically protect us, then the battle has already been lost. We no longer define someone on principles and standards, but on relativism. Kind of like grading on a cruve rather than setting percentage standards to define excellence. If the highest score on a test is 35%, then 35% is an "A". We get corraled into voting for the lesser of two evils, and we are doomed.

Is it possible that Howard Dean is the boogeyman used to get even the dems to vote for Bush, so that Hitlary has a shot in '08 when she doesn't have to run against an incumbent popular prez?

If so, the scam is working perfectly, but it's eaiser to spot when the "other side" is using it.

Hb

[jagrmeister]

If you consider borrowing a tax increase, you should write a letter of complaint to Bush for giving us a $500 billion tax increase this year. That was the size of the deficit, for which we borrow money to pay off. (issue bonds). The borrowing is essential and if he pulls of $2 billion in cuts, that would be historic.

[Constantine XIII]

Oh, I'll never defend the loser, not by any means--he should be spending time at Club Fed, that just goes to show how nutty the nuts really are. :p I'm only saying that our system is much more secure in a comparative sense, if not an absolute sense.

[Tamzee]

Sorry, if a given voter pool only identifies itself as 20% conservative AND polls from several sources all show that approximately that amount would vote for a given conservative candidate ... he won't win. The only way he WILL win is if he proposes stances that will appeal to enough of the other 80% out there, but you folks screech like banshees when a candidate does that.

You're going backwards. You educate the PUBLIC first, move the voters toward the right... then we can keep putting forward candidates further and further to the right and help them win.

You said, "Do you believe for a minute that you were the first one to come up with the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils and that it's never been tried before? " No, I don't believe I came up with that one. You laugh at "incrementalism" so explain this to me.... how did America move so far left?

Lastly, you are my enemy if you help put Dean in office.

[Hoverbug]

explain this to me.... how did America move so far left?

By voters continuing to hold their noses and vote not for the guy they wanted, but for the guy who is "less to the left because he can win" over the bigger lefty. Incrementalism by people being manipulated into voting for someone they didn't want, believing they were winning the short term while they lost sight of the long term damage as the ball kept being moved toward the socialist goal post election after election after election, no matter the party in power.

Why on earth would a political party move right if it's members continued to vote for people on the left, if only to get "less of a lefty". The only reason I can think of is if their "less of a lefty" started losing because the voters revolted and refused to be manipulated any longer.

Now a question for you. What caused the Republican Party to move right after Bush I, then Dole, lost to Clinton?

Couple of more. After it moved right, did Republicans start winning? (remember Rather's and Brokaw's faces that night and Jennings saying the voters had thrown a "temper tantrum?") Has the Republican Party remained as conservative as it was since the days of Gingrich, moved more right, or is it moving left again, saying "vote for me, because I'm less left, and if you don't, you'll get the BIG lefty?"

There's nothing new here, except the people who haven't seen this all happening at least once before.

Hb

[Hoverbug]

Our system is the worst there is, except for all the others ;-)

Hb

[Hoverbug]

15 billion bond issue minus a 2 billion cut = 13 billion MORE in money going to the State from our pockets over and above what Davis was collecting. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, or in this case, a tax increase.

Two words: Cut spending.

(BTW, so is Bush's, but there was that matter in Iraq. The drug bill is a disaster though.)

What do you think Arnold's chances are of getting the people to vote for the bond issue? I think he may have problems there.

Hb

[Tamzee]

Why on earth would a political party move right if it's members continued to vote for people on the left

Exactly... the parties adjust to the voters.

You think the country moved left because right-wingers started voted en masse for candidates they didn't like? Funny... I thought it had more to do with the fact that a significant majority of voters increasingly identified themselves as Democrat. Liberal media, universities and the entertainment industry began brainwashing the masses... deliberately, in my mind.

Regarding the slight movement to the right in the late 90's, I think that was a rebound from left centrists who became disgusted by Clinton in the end. Remember, too, Bush Jr won by only the slightest of margins. The country didn't move very much farther right, IMHO. It's beginning to now, though, after 9/11, Fox News, and Bush Jr.'s example of character and leadership.

We need to keep pulling the voter base more and more rightward. How do we even begin to encourage more lefties to vote for the right if they see even the conservatives savaging the GOP President?

[jagrmeister]

I'd love to cut more spending but I know it's not politically achievable. The entire budget is about $90B and half of that is education which Arnold said he would not cut. So can he cut $15B of $45B- not bloodly likely! If he can get $2B, it would be a miracle.

Arnold will have no problem getting the people's assistance on the ballot measure. He won by a landslide (17 pts, despite another Republican running) and can use his force of personality to get almost passed by the people. Timing is another matter. $10.7 B is due sometime next Summer and the earliest this can go to the ballot (if it's done by signatures) is next fall. There will have to be a stop-gap solution.

[Constantine XIII]

Exactly! :p

[Hoverbug]

Exactly... the parties adjust to the voters.

I guess my point is I see the exact opposite happening, again.

Hb

[Hoverbug]

The reason he has to go to the voters is because every dem and pubbie voted against his bond issue. dems because it had a spending cap, pubs because it spent too much. Sounds like the pubs think there's room for more cuts, and Arnold's going the spending route.

We'll see on the bond issue vote. Californians are in a foul mood about more money going to the state.

Hb