The real rap on Arnold: Immature

New York Daily News ^ | 9/30/03 | Richard Cohen

[kattracks]

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger disrespectful toward women? Before I get to my answer, I must first lay out the basics of the indictment.

Count one stems from an interview Schwarzenegger gave in 1977 to Oui, a now-defunct girlie magazine, in which he boasted of a lopsided version of group sex in Gold's Gym - a bunch of men and "a black girl who came out naked."

When first asked about the Oui interview, Schwarzenegger confessed to a wayward youth but implied a dollop of exaggeration to promote bodybuilding. A day later, his memory failed him entirely. "I have no idea what you're talking about," he told a pesky reporter who asked about the Gold's Gym episode. "I'm here to promote my economic agenda."

Count two of the indictment states that in promoting his most recent movie - the classic "Terminator 3" - Schwarzenegger waxed rhapsodic about taking a female Terminator and burying her face in a toilet bowl. "How many times do you get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her face in a toilet bowl?" It is a profoundly interesting question.

The usual women's groups have taken umbrage at these statements and pronounced Schwarzenegger a misogynist. The accusation was given voice during a recent debate by Arianna Huffington, who turned to the overbearing Schwarzenegger and said, "This is the way you treat women, we know that." Arnold parried, saying, "I just realized that I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4'" - a reference, Huffington said, to the toilet bowl scene. A Lincoln-Douglas debate this was not.

Despite these statements, the record on Schwarzenegger is mixed. Over and over he has extolled intelligent women, of which his wife, Maria Shriver, is surely one. And as President Bush can tell you, an irresponsible youth does not inevitably lead to an irresponsible adulthood - unless, of course, you count the Iraq war.

Still, the question about Schwarzenegger is oddly misdirected. The issue is not - or not only - whether he has any respect for women, but whether he has any respect for himself. His changing line on what happened in Gold's Gym leaves him with little wiggle room. Either he did what he said, which is disgusting and unmanly, or he made it up, which is disgusting and unmanly.

Note that I said nothing about the woman, who may or may not exist. My emphasis, instead, is on the man, Schwarzenegger. This is not how one should talk or behave. The same holds for the toilet bowl remark. It is the wit of a smirky kid.

Schwarzenegger and celebrities like him make me yearn for Cary Grant. Whatever he was in private, he conducted himself in public with dignity. There was nothing trashy about him, not in the way he dressed or in the way he behaved. He set an example for boys and men younger than him: This is the way a man appears. Learn from me.

Nowadays, we have the pathetic examples of Ben Affleck, who is often dressed like a homeless person, and his on-and-off-again fiancee, the tawdry Jennifer Lopez. This is a long way from Grant and Audrey Hepburn or Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. As role models, the current stars are a total failure. They are like the mother in the movie "Thirteen," who in dress and behavior is almost indistinguishable from her 13-year-old daughter.

I myself have at times behaved badly. It is all part of growing up, or growing older - I know not. I do know, though, that real men do not boast of or participate in the sort of sex Schwarzenegger once mentioned, nor do they gloat over putting a woman's head into a toilet bowl.

Whether truth or fiction, whether an actual event or a tasteless pander, it suggests a man who may or may not respect women but certainly has little respect for his audience - and not much for himself.

Originally published on September 30, 2003

[kattracks]

Mr. Cohen seems mightily upset by remarks made years ago, by a young man building a career, and a movie star promoting his latest picture.

One must surmise that he was most likely devestated by the ongoing, real life, disgusting, episodes in the life of a former prezident.

A not so young, married man, who not only showed his disrespect for women, including his wife (although in that department, he can't be blamed), but for the people and country he represented.

One wonders if Mr. Cohen thinks that man had any respect for his audience or for himself.

Or doesn't that man's behavior count, because he's a democrat?

[RDangerfield]

When you woke up yesterday morning, you got the headlines and dozens of TV stories about how the election was all over, Ahnold by 15 points, right? Do you like being spun by a dervish? Last night, FOX and others reported on how all the US Media got spun yesterday by Ahnold's spin doctors. Remember the story on every channel about 63 for Recall, 40-25 lead for Ahnold? Bogus, as FOX, MSNBC and CNN finally realized when a local reporter contacted them. He asked them: "Who were counted?" Probable voters says the poll, they replied. "Really, what does that mean?" The reporters had forgotten to ask and they wrote the stories as "likely voters." As it turns out, the probable voters included a large percentage who wanted to vote but didn't register in time. When their votes were factored out, Ahnold's lead was just 34-28 for registered likely voters, and 53 percent favoring recall. It turns out that the state Chamber of Commerce poll later in the day and the internal tracking polls of both Davis and Ahnold were almost the same up or down a point or two. Isn't it fun to get spun? 15 point landslide, lol. Turns out that "someone" was faxing in the early morning hours to editors all over the country, hyping the originally announced results. If McClintock got scared out by a rookie mistake, this will be sick.
--Raoul

[BonnieJ]

No one likes to be deceived, and in this case it could be detrimental to Republicans...thinking their votes aren't needed for the recall, for Arnold Schwarzenegger. But the L.A. Times will have a poll out soon and it will probably have Davis and Bustamonte winning. And that will be the one the media will hype. It will be over soon, what a relief.

[AmericaUnited]

So you say that poll was a fraud. Shhhh! It's the only one that TomBots can point to that says Tom would win if no one else was in the race.

[kattracks]

So the poll that said McClintock could beat Bustamante was wrong?

[Brian Allen]

Richard Cohen, as if futher proof was required, once again demonstrates the awful truth:

That that the universally-mean-spirited, envy-motivated and hatred-and rage-engined lunatic-left-wing fringers', "liberalism," is a psychosis.

How else to explain that he examines the life of an American Man who has only ever undertaken two endeavours -- and has risen to the Absolute top -- on Earth -- and to overwhelming world dominance -- in them both.

And is about to undertake his third career change.

I'd say, if I cared a damn for any one of them, "Every last one of California's universally-mean-spirited, envy-motivated and hatred-and rage-engined lunatic-left-wing fringers had better watch out -- Arnie's comin'!"

[ambrose]

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/
September 29, 2003
USA Today explains poll sample

Jim Norman, the polling editor of USA Today, has just sent me a note trying to answer some of the questions that have been raised about the poll released Sunday. I am reprinting most of it here:

"Gallup initially interviewed 1,007 Californians. Of those, 787 identified themselves as registered voters. Of those, 581 were deemed 'probable voters' based on their answers to two questions: (1) how likely they were to vote; and (2) how interested they were in the election.

"When weighting techniques were applied to the entire sample of 1,007, the 581 probable voters became 509. That's how we wound up with 51%, which represents the percentage of the voting-age population, not of registered voters. (Probable voters represented about 70% of self-identified registered voters -- but we know a lot of these people aren't telling the truth.)

"Voter turnout in California, as a percentage of the total voting-age population, for the last four presidential elections, according to the Census:
2000 46%
1996 48%
1992 53%
1988 52%

"Some further information: When looking at the weighted sample of registered voters, 34% were self-identified Republicans (no leaners) and 38% self-identified Democrats. When leaners (those who initially identified themselves as independents but said they leaned to one party or the other) are included, there were 44% Republicans and 48% Democrats. The 4-point gap closely corresponds to the 7-point gap Gallup found for Californians when they combined all of our 2002 polling.

"One other piece of information: Probable voters in this poll are not entirely comparable to Gallup's likely-voter model because the likely-voter model includes a question on how often people have voted in such elections before, and California hasn't had an election like this before."
Posted by dweintraub at 04:07 PM

[alloysteel]

Somebody, just SOMEBODY, do the arithmetic.

2003 - 1977 = 26

That is 26 YEARS, people. Children have been born, grown to adulthood, and even started to vote in less than that span of time. Yet Arnold cannot, would not, achieve some further degree of maturity himself in that period?

How about the author of this hit piece, hasn't HE done some growing up in 26 years?

OK, bad example. Some people are eternal adolescents. But Arnold is not one of them.

[Brian Allen]

<< OK, bad example. Some people are eternal adolescents. But Arnold is not one of them. >>

Infantilism is but a symptom of a far more grave mental illness.

Of liberalism!

[BohDaThone]

If you read the analysis posted above, or the full analysis at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-09-28-recall-poll.htm

you will see that raoul's understanding is wrong. "probable voters" is a subset of registered voters. They are all registered. What raoul calls "registered likely voters" (showing the closer 34-28 spread for arnold and cruz) is actually the LARGER set of all registereds, whether they are likely to vote or not.

A few benchmarks. The "voting-age population" on California (aliens, unregistered, everybody) is about 22 million. The number of registereds is about 15 million. A heavy vote (more than the 2002 election) would be 10 million. So, the poll sample of 1007 people, 787 registered, and 581 "probable" voters is not way off. In fact, it is probably still too high in the sense that probably less than 500 of their sample will actually vote.

As in most elections and polls, the more certain you are to vote, the more conservative your views ON AVERAGE. Thus, for example, on the question "should illegal aliens get driver's licenses?" all Californians oppose it 60-36, all registered voters 68-27, and "probable voters" 73-22.

Sorry, no "spin" here. The poll may be right or wrong, but it does say what it claims to say.

[ppaul]

The issue is not - or not only - whether he has any respect for women, but whether he has any respect for himself.

[LongsforReagan]

Carey Grant? He was an LSD taking freak! Who cares what this guy thinks?

[G.Mason]

"Count two of the indictment states that in promoting his most recent movie - the classic "Terminator 3" - Schwarzenegger waxed rhapsodic about taking a female Terminator and burying her face in a toilet bowl. "How many times do you get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her face in a toilet bowl?" It is a profoundly interesting question."

Much to do about nothing.

Just a modern version of Mae Clarke as the recipient of Cagney's classic grapefruit-in-the-face in 'The Public Enemy' (1931).

[Mia T]

TERMINATOR-FLUSHING-FEMALE-CYBORG FANTASY AGITATES FEMINISTS
WHILE REAL CLINTONS RAPING REAL WOMEN ESCAPES SCRUTINY

Q ERTY3 _PING!

[MeekOneGOP]

I'd say, if I cared a damn for any one of them, "Every last one of California's universally-mean-spirited, envy-motivated and hatred-and rage-engined lunatic-left-wing fringers had better watch out -- Arnie's comin'!"

That he is !! ...

"Hasta La Vista, Baby !!"
(Click here or on the pics !)

[DustyMoment]

Pundits and leftist "journalists" can knock Arnold all they like, I'm proud of him. Arnold is the living, breathing embodiment of the American Dream. In what other nation can an immigrant, born poor, rise to the stature that Arnold Schwarzenegger has achieved?

I hope he wins the recall and election. What a great cap to a fascinating life and an larger-than-life individual. AS may not be everyone's cup of tea, but you can't deny that, in this race, he represents the best of America.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Or doesn't that man's behavior count, because he's a democrat?

Oh get off your hyperdefensive soap box! The better question for you (R)nold Damage Control Team Members is Or doesn't that man's behavior count, because he's a Republican?

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[DoughtyOne]

It's one thing to have some artistic tallent, it's another to have some political understanding.

Susan Sarandon hasn't approved of a single thing that President Bush has done. She can't stand our military and would just as soon see our form of government replaced by a staunchly more socialist entity.

Arnold Schwarzenegger came from that staunchly more socialist entity. Arnold Schwarzenegger loves our nation. He supports George Bush and our troops.

This is a bit simplistic, but the idea that Schwarzenegger equates to Susan Sarandan flies in the face of any rational thinking. If Sarandan did decide to run for office, she might get two to five percent of the populace to support her. Peter Camejo has proven that point. Schwarzenegger on the other hand appears poised to receive between 30 and 40% of the popular vote.

In thier zeal to trash Schwarzenegger, to hell with the facts, this artist reveals themselves to be totally out of touch with reality.

By posting it, you've evidently decided to publicly out yourself for having the same lack of comprehension on this subject.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Oh this one REEEEEEAAALLY bothered you! Good. You deserve every moment of reflection you have to do in order to desperately rationalize your hypocracy for what you are doing on here. I love it!

If Sarandan did decide to run for office, she might get two to five percent of the populace to support her

That in a nutshell sums up your perspective, and further shows the lurkers what complete and utter hypocrites D1 and other Groupies are. So what you have admitted is that because (R)nold "the body Ventura" Schwarzenegger can win, and you don't think Sarandon can, therefore they have nothing in common. They have everything in common except WHO is supporting them, what camp they represent.

"Only Nixon could go to China."

A wise man once said, "In California, only a Republican Can Raise Taxes."

Your rationalizations have unmasked you as the hypocrite you are so desperate to deny. Tis a pity you can't comprehend how. Hope you figure it out before it comes crashing down on you, if one day you are ever truely honest with yourselves.

[christynsoldier]

wow, D1... truth really hurts and sends you spinning wildly to try and deny the obvious. You could sub Bill Clinton for Arnie's platform (remember the middle class
tax cut?) and with an R behind his name you'd be singing
his praises and suggesting that Broderick's old charges
were past the statute of limitations! Way to go D1, what a complete morphing... so much to be proud of! ;^)

[Robert_Paulson2]

yup