PDA

View Full Version : Arnold Bashing Starts


Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 09:38 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95895,00.html

See, that is the problem with politics in this country. The interview was in 1977, and who knows if he was serious? If you have ever seen pumping Iron, you know he was a kidder, and ham back then.

Sheesh, people need to get a clue.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 09:46 AM
Dont be too surprised. The Bustamante busting has started in earnest as well. Seems he was a member of a racist Hispanic group in the '70's. Lots of good choices abound here.:rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Dont be too surprised. The Bustamante busting has started in earnest as well. Seems he was a member of a racist Hispanic group in the '70's. Lots of good choices abound here.:rolleyes:

It is stupid to bring up this stuff. Now, if someone was a member of a racist group, that has to be looked at seriously. However, what is wrong with smoking a little weed and having some great sex? Especially in the 70's. That was the norm was it not ;)

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
It is stupid to bring up this stuff. Now, if someone was a member of a racist group, that has to be looked at seriously. However, what is wrong with smoking a little weed and having some great sex? Especially in the 70's. That was the norm was it not ;)

Nothing wrong with weed and great sex in my book, but I'm not down with the whole mysogeny thing. That definetly needs to be looked at.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 10:51 AM
If you're going to enter politics, you're going to be made to live with your previous statements and actions -- and there's absolutely nothing shocking or wrong with that. What made Swartzenegger an appealing character when he was a professional body-builder and comic-book actor may not play so well when he's running for governor. And this surprises anyone?

What's more, the only reason Swarztenegger is even in this race and being taken seriously as a candidate is on account of the celebrity he gained in his entertainment career. Without it, he'd be nothing more then another political neophyte. So yes, he has to live with what he's said and done in the process of climbing that celebrity ladder. No question.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If you're going to enter politics, you're going to be made to live with your previous statements and actions -- and there's absolutely nothing shocking or wrong with that. What made Swartzenegger an appealing character when he was a professional body-builder and comic-book actor may not play so well when he's running for governor. And this surprises anyone?

What's more, the only reason Swarztenegger is even in this race and being taken seriously as a candidate is on account of the celebrity he gained in his entertainment career. Without it, he'd be nothing more then another political neophyte. So yes, he has to live with what he's said and done in the process of climbing that celebrity ladder. No question.

Except that it isn't a relevant topic. Nor was Gary Hart's private life. And for the record, Arnold has been a very, very successful business man.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Except that it isn't a relevant topic. Nor was Gary Hart's private life. And for the record, Arnold has been a very, very successful business man.

Yes, and he'll be happy to tell you how very very successful he's been if you don't believe it.

I agree up to a point, but it isn't up to just you or I to decide what's relevant in a politician's background. About the only way we know the man is through his entertainment career, and if his track record in that career suggests that he's got some serious ego issues, then that's going to be relevant to many people.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, and he'll be happy to tell you how very very successful he's been if you don't believe it.

I agree up to a point, but it isn't up to just you or I to decide what's relevant in a politician's background. About the only way we know the man is through his entertainment career, and if his track record in that career suggests that he's got some serious ego issues, then that's going to be relevant to many people.

Sure, I agree with you, but why allow the media to constantly bring up issues that are totally meaningless to ones political capacity.

They should focus on the fact that he is only a celebrity. That is what matters. An article from OUI from 77 about his lifestyle then should have no bearing about his life today.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sure, I agree with you, but why allow the media to constantly bring up issues that are totally meaningless to ones political capacity.

They should focus on the fact that he is only a celebrity. That is what matters. An article from OUI from 77 about his lifestyle then should have no bearing about his life today.

How about a membership in Mecha from around that time period? Or membership in the klan way back when? Seems like there are times that you find the past useful to bring up.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sure, I agree with you, but why allow the media to constantly bring up issues that are totally meaningless to ones political capacity.

They should focus on the fact that he is only a celebrity. That is what matters. An article from OUI from 77 about his lifestyle then should have no bearing about his life today.

People can decide for themselves whether it has a bearing.

Incidentally, since I'm in California and you are on the other side of the country, I'd have to say I've been exposed to this more then you've been. My impression is that the man's ego is out of control, and that excessive vanity has at least as much to do with his run for governor as any interest in politics. From his background we know he had almost no prior interest in public policy and could not even be bothered to vote most of the time.

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 02:36 PM
One quick question about Arnold:

Since he is a fiscal conservative (values economic self-government) and a social liberal (values personal self-government), doesn't that make him a Libertarian, and neither a right-conservative nor a left-liberal?

Now, I'm pretty sure that he said he's running under the Republican party because he is a fiscal conservative, and because the libertarian party doesn't command nearly as many party-line voters who don't bother to understand issues)


I'm pretty sure that Fox brought up the Arnold stuff because they didn't want to appear biased for bringing up the Bustamante stuff. All I know is that if I were in California, and of legal voting age... ah hell, I should just stop right there :lol:

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 03:24 PM
posted by bobindashadows
One quick question about Arnold:

Since he is a fiscal conservative (values economic self-government) and a social liberal (values personal self-government), doesn't that make him a Libertarian, and neither a right-conservative nor a left-liberal?

One quick answer: we don't really know. He seems to be trying to run nearly 100% on the basis of star power.

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
One quick answer: we don't really know. He seems to be trying to run nearly 100% on the basis of star power.
No, he's actually had a few, small occasions where he's come out and named the things he supports. Abortion rights, (illegal, probably :roll: ) immigration rights, medicinal marijuana use (I thought that was legal, what's the big deal? Supporting bigger doses?) and I forget the other topic he said he supported, but they were all liberal ideals.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
No, he's actually had a few, small occasions where he's come out and named the things he supports. Abortion rights, (illegal, probably :roll: ) immigration rights, medicinal marijuana use (I thought that was legal, what's the big deal? Supporting bigger doses?) and I forget the other topic he said he supported, but they were all liberal ideals.

He has been a tiny bit more specific in the last couple of days, probably as a result of the last poll which showed him running well behind Bustamonte. Maybe he'll tell us how he plans on running the state the next time he appears on Leno.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 04:46 PM
Just for the record, I've worked with Mecha and it is not a racist group. Some of the folks in it are nationalists, but that is hardly the same. Seems Bustamante's opponents want to use the term "racist" to paint Bustamante as something he isn't.

MrMacMan
Aug 28, 2003, 06:40 PM
I have a question, seriously:

Because arnold said he isn't telling his goals for the state publically, when he wins... doesn't he automatically have no responsibility to the people?

I mean this whole 'vote for me, because you know me' is all good for votes, but he is making no promises, no ideas that he is sharing... nothing...!

:mad:

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
medicinal marijuana use (I thought that was legal, what's the big deal? Supporting bigger doses?)

the issue is that the feds (i.e. ashcroft) are out to shut it down. last year (iirc), a bay-area doctor was arrested for legally -- under CA law -- selling the stuff.

SPG
Aug 31, 2003, 03:51 PM
Back to the question of sex in a candidate's past...there have been a few incidents coming to light that are more recent and are much more troubling. I don't think that Arnold and an orgy of weightlifters is any concern as it's consentual in nature and before he was married...case closed. However the several more recent groping issues are a little more troubling and much more relevant. Grabbing Denise Van Outen's ass and breasts while on her TV show is not consentual. It would get charges filed against you in this country. Fondling a crew member agaisnt her will on the set of a movie is also a crime, even if she didn't press charges. That fact that right off the bat we have at least two confirmed cases shows a pattern and that is troubling.

Backtothemac
Aug 31, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Back to the question of sex in a candidate's past...there have been a few incidents coming to light that are more recent and are much more troubling. I don't think that Arnold and an orgy of weightlifters is any concern as it's consentual in nature and before he was married...case closed. However the several more recent groping issues are a little more troubling and much more relevant. Grabbing Denise Van Outen's ass and breasts while on her TV show is not consentual. It would get charges filed against you in this country. Fondling a crew member agaisnt her will on the set of a movie is also a crime, even if she didn't press charges. That fact that right off the bat we have at least two confirmed cases shows a pattern and that is troubling.

Can you blame him for grabbing her ass ;)

IJ Reilly
Aug 31, 2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by SPG
Back to the question of sex in a candidate's past...there have been a few incidents coming to light that are more recent and are much more troubling. I don't think that Arnold and an orgy of weightlifters is any concern as it's consentual in nature and before he was married...case closed.

That's easy for you to say -- you don't live in California. The man has huge ego issues, and his issue is his huge ego. That was apparent enough before these other incidents came to light. Marital fidelity has nothing to do with concerns about his obviously over-inflated self image, narcissism, and evidence of misogynistic tendencies. And here I thought character was supposed to matter...

IJ Reilly
Aug 31, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Can you blame him for grabbing her ass ;)

Yes.

Sayhey
Aug 31, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Can you blame him for grabbing her ass ;)

While I have to admit that is one cute tush, I learned long ago only boors, idiots and felons think grabbing someone's ass is appropriate without some type of invitation. Not the qualities I'm looking for in a Governor.

Backtothemac
Aug 31, 2003, 09:16 PM
Yea, but have you ever watched her show. She has guests do that to her all the time. She even kissed an old woman on her show one time.

It is like going on the man show, and being offended by the actions of the hosts.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, but have you ever watched her show. She has guests do that to her all the time. She even kissed an old woman on her show one time.

It is like going on the man show, and being offended by the actions of the hosts.

Sorry, no sale. The man has to live with what he's done, and that includes behaving like an over-sexed buffoon on a TV show, even if that's what he was expected to do.

Backtothemac
Sep 1, 2003, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sorry, no sale. The man has to live with what he's done, and that includes behaving like an over-sexed buffoon on a TV show, even if that's what he was expected to do.

So, should he be critized for playing any character in any movie? If he was expected by the host to do those things, then that was what was expected of him.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So, should he be critized for playing any character in any movie? If he was expected by the host to do those things, then that was what was expected of him.

Refusing to appear on a show where one was expected to behave like an over-sexed buffoon would certainly be an option for a person with an actual shred of dignity. It was his choice, and now he has to live with the consequences. I believe this is what conservatives are fond of calling "taking personal responsibility."

simX
Sep 1, 2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
People can decide for themselves whether it has a bearing.

I think this is the most sensible statement. Obviously (given this thread), people have differing opinions on whether they trust Arnold based on his past or not. So, logically, based on their opinion, people should vote how they feel comfortable.

Me? I'm of the opinion that I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. However, given that Arnold was funding the recall shows that he agrees with undermining the political process -- Gray Davis was elected with a plurality; why do 10% of the voters get to whine and say that they want to "take back" the election? (A much more reasonable law would be to require that the recall petition needs to get the same number of signatures as the number of votes for Gray Davis in the actual election.) Strike against Arnold. The other issue is that he has been reluctant to divulge his opinions on the relevant issues, and even being arrogant enough to say that Californians don't care about details. Strike against Arnold.

Whether or not his misogynistic tendencies still exist in his character is a moot issue for me: he's already demonstrated that he's incapable of being a good governor for California. Sorry, no vote from me, Arnie!

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 09:20 AM
Plus he's already bowed out of the first debate. Supposedly his campaign aide is "unhappy with the format." Nice dodge.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/calif.recall/index.html)

Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger won't take part in a debate among the leading California recall candidates scheduled to take place this week, a campaign aide said Sunday.

Rep. David Dreier, Schwarzenegger's campaign co-chairman, said the campaign was talking with broadcasters about another debate forum. But "it won't be this one that's coming up," the Republican congressman said on CNN's "Late Edition."

I wonder when he'll deign to come down off his imperial throne and answer questions like the rest of the field is expected to.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 11:20 AM
And while we're "Arnold bashing," here's another unfair criticism of the big man. Just a few weeks ago, he said he wasn't going to take any special interest money for his campaign. His words were something very much like, "I don't need to, I've got plenty of money of my own."

Now, it turns out he's raised over $1.5 million from some of California's traditionally influential special interests, including construction.

zimv20
Sep 1, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by simX
A much more reasonable law would be to require that the recall petition needs to get the same number of signatures as the number of votes for Gray Davis in the actual election.

how about a majority of the people who actually cast ballots in the previous election?

mischief
Sep 1, 2003, 10:54 PM
He offends the far right for his promiscuity, and he panicks the left by running as a Republican. I'll vote for him just to shake up the politics in this soft and otherwise politically coddled State.

BTW: MECHA's slogan translates as:

" For the Race, Everything. For those not of the Race, nothing." (Associated Press)

I think that would qualify it as a racist organization no?

My interactions with that organization have not done anything to alter that image BTW. Their intentions are quite clearly (pardon the bending of terms) "Brown Supremicist".

Californians have had too many years of comfortable status-quo in Sacramento and it's time for a real shakeup. I don't really like Arnie. But I really can't stand Bustamante. Being that the choice is between a Racist and a Letch... I'm voting for the Letch. He's at least not lying through his teeth about his less desireable characteristics. I want a few years of less tree-hugging hippy crap AND less fiscal stupidity. I want to watch both sets of old boys squirm a bit.

Plus, who cares if he's Governor of California? He can't be president.:D ;) :rolleyes:

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by mischief
He offends the far right for his promiscuity, and he panicks the left by running as a Republican. I'll vote for him just to shake up the politics in this soft and otherwise politically coddled State.

BTW: MECHA's slogan translates as:

" For the Race, Everything. For those not of the Race, nothing." (Associated Press)

I think that would qualify it as a racist organization no?

My interactions with that organization have not done anything to alter that image BTW. Their intentions are quite clearly (pardon the bending of terms) "Brown Supremicist".

Californians have had too many years of comfortable status-quo in Sacramento and it's time for a real shakeup. I don't really like Arnie. But I really can't stand Bustamante. Being that the choice is between a Racist and a Letch... I'm voting for the Letch. He's at least not lying through his teeth about his less desireable characteristics. I want a few years of less tree-hugging hippy crap AND less fiscal stupidity. I want to watch both sets of old boys squirm a bit.

Plus, who cares if he's Governor of California? He can't be president.:D ;) :rolleyes:

MEChA is not a racist organization. Not in the least. For a rebuttal check out this link:
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/racism-mecha.html

I would draw your attention to the following quote:
Fox News and OReilly also mistakenly say that MEChA's motto is "for the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Again, they have gotten wrong; actually the motto of MECHA is La union hace la fuerza (Unity creates power).

There is disinformation campaign going on to spread this charge of racism in order to check Bustamante's chances in the election. It is phony and smacks of the tactics of Karl Rove and former Governor Wilson.

I worked with this organization on college campuses around the time Bustamante was in it and nothing could be further from the truth relative to this slander.

IJ Reilly
Sep 2, 2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by mischief

Plus, who cares if he's Governor of California? He can't be president.

Me, for one. Your rationale for supporting Swartzenegger reminds me of the five most dangerous words in the English language: "We had to do something!"

mischief
Sep 3, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Me, for one. Your rationale for supporting Swartzenegger reminds me of the five most dangerous words in the English language: "We had to do something!"

Not quite. If that where all there was to it I'd vote for Larry Flint. I really enjoy the discomfort caused by Schwartzenegger's campaign. This state is entirely too polarized. For once there's somebody that offends nearly every one of the groups that have had carte blanche for far too long. Though I'm rather disturbed to find out his advisor is Pete Wilson. Wilson was a crook if ever there was one.

Honestly I'd prefer that Davis stay in office. This whole process is an embarassment. In Voting for Schwartzenegger, my attitude is more along the lines of "You wanted anybody else eh? Fine, How about an Extremist-Centrist?". It's more of a "You asked for it!" approach.

Sayhey:

I'm glad you could provide better translation. I'm also glad that your experiences w/ MECHA were better than mine. The group I interacted with here was of the attitude that us Caucasians were an inconvenience that would soon be a minority they could quietly do away with.

Backtothemac
Sep 3, 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by mischief

I'm glad you could provide better translation. I'm also glad that your experiences w/ MECHA were better than mine. The group I interacted with here was of the attitude that us Caucasians were an inconvenience that would soon be a minority they could quietly do away with.

Isn't their motto

"For those in the race, everything, for those outside the race, nothing"

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Isn't their motto

"For those in the race, everything, for those outside the race, nothing"

This was posted above:
Fox News and OReilly also mistakenly say that MEChA's motto is "for the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Again, they have gotten wrong; actually the motto of MECHA is La union hace la fuerza (Unity creates power).

I don't know myself, there seems to be some confusion about the motto and aims of the organization. From my own experience, Mecha has caused alot of trouble and been associated with things I consider to be close to racist if not overtly so in my area. I don't know if this is typical of the larger organization, or is a local chapter going off on its own, but I am concerned about their motives.

Backtothemac
Sep 3, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
This was posted above:


I don't know myself, there seems to be some confusion about the motto and aims of the organization. From my own experience, Mecha has caused alot of trouble and been associated with things I consider to be close to racist if not overtly so in my area. I don't know if this is typical of the larger organization, or is a local chapter going off on its own, but I am concerned about their motives.

Wow. Did not know that. Yea, I had heard on the radio that that was their motto. Disturbing none the less. If a white candidate was even possibly affiliated with a group that had white supremecy attitudes, their political life would be over.

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 06:21 PM
There was a big stink a few years ago when the whole prop 183 (?) thing was going on. The latino students were demonstrating at my old high school (where my sister was going at the time) and the local Mecha chapter got involved. They printed some really awful things about whites and nearly started several race riots at the school. The class president was a Mecha member, and lent his support to the cause, and had to be removed from his office as a result. It was a huge mess that was blown out of proportion by outsiders to the school. Several school days were lost to walkouts and protests that had as their goal "the return of Aztlan to its rightful owners." I don't know how much of this is Nation of Aztlan members and how much was Mecha, but they seemed pretty willing to work with each other at the time.

IJ Reilly
Sep 3, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wow. Did not know that. Yea, I had heard on the radio that that was their motto. Disturbing none the less. If a white candidate was even possibly affiliated with a group that had white supremecy attitudes, their political life would be over.

How long should anyone's political life last if he were confessed hashish smoker and gang-banger?

Sayhey
Sep 3, 2003, 08:26 PM
My experiance with MEChA is decades old. It maybe that things have changed since I worked with them. Were there nationalists in the organization - certainly. To me that is very different than being racist. Racism is the belief that one "race" is superior to another. In MEChA, some of nationalists I dealt with took the idea of Aztlan literally, and they thought the areas of the US taken from Mexico in the war should go back to Mexico. I must stress that these folk were a minority. Most MEChA members I knew viewed Aztlan as the unity of people across borders, as people who had common experiances of oppression from an Anglo majority and an Anglo dominated Northern neighbor. One doesn't have to agree with this analysis to see that it doesn't fall into the idea that white folks or people of any other "race" are inferior.
Bustamante has made it very clear he doesn't support the idea of "giving California back to Mexico" as if even if he did such a thing could be accomplished without the consent of the people of California and the Federal Government. It ain't never going to happen. In debating this is called a "red herring."

I find it disturbing that Fox News and others would just parrot these charges without any attempt to talk to MEChA members or find out anything about the group. They seem to rely on the opponents of Bustamante for their information.

mischief
Sep 4, 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
There was a big stink a few years ago when the whole prop 183 (?) thing was going on. The latino students were demonstrating at my old high school (where my sister was going at the time) and the local Mecha chapter got involved. They printed some really awful things about whites and nearly started several race riots at the school. The class president was a Mecha member, and lent his support to the cause, and had to be removed from his office as a result. It was a huge mess that was blown out of proportion by outsiders to the school. Several school days were lost to walkouts and protests that had as their goal "the return of Aztlan to its rightful owners." I don't know how much of this is Nation of Aztlan members and how much was Mecha, but they seemed pretty willing to work with each other at the time.

Sounds like we had close to exactly the same experience at our respective HS's. Though my experience predates prop 183 (removed affirmative action on the grounds that it was discriminatory and outlawed discrimination of any kind.).

In my case the class prez was a latino elected in our newly-inegrated HS by a concerted effort of MECHA and others to make it seem racist to not elect him. They even brought in a few rather inflamitory pseudo-celebritites to lend some legitimacy to it all. They got all set to put up a mural depicting the Europeans' "invasion" using modernized characters and a thin veneer of "brotherhood" to grease the approval process.

He had known gang-ties and had been suspended for them on several previous occasions. When he was asked about this on the electorate floor his response was essentially "Don't ask me that you racist."

He was impeached in the first two months of his term for having a pistol on campus.

Backtothemac
Sep 4, 2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
How long should anyone's political life last if he were confessed hashish smoker and gang-banger?

Well, it was about, what 25 years ago. So, personally, I think it is irrelevant.

Sayhey
Sep 4, 2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, it was about, what 25 years ago. So, personally, I think it is irrelevant.

I'm not voting for someone other than Arnold, because of his drug and sexual habits in the '70s. For some conservative Republicans this maybe a big issue, but not for me. I did too many stupid things of my own during the same time period. I'm voting against the recall (because I think it is a flawed process) and for Bustamante because many of his political stands are similar to mine (environmental, labor rights, etc.)

Sayhey
Sep 4, 2003, 08:51 PM
We just had an earthquake over in the east bay (nice jolt but seems to be no big damage - 4.something). Now will Arnold put a stop to that? Nooo! What kind of terminator is he anyway with no position on stopping quakes?

Rower_CPU
Sep 4, 2003, 10:41 PM
Davis had a town hall piece on the local news here in SD this evening. Stood up pretty well for himself, and stayed pretty positive.

The only thing he seemed to harp on was that the budget is the work of the state legislature, which includes the Republicans who are so quick to blame him for everything.

Oh yeah, he took a shot a Arnold's math skills, too, after someone mentioned Arnie's claims about how much money CA loses everyday. ;)

IJ Reilly
Sep 4, 2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, it was about, what 25 years ago. So, personally, I think it is irrelevant.

Personally, I think it's for California voters to decide what is relevant.

Sayhey
Sep 4, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Davis had a town hall piece on the local news here in SD this evening. Stood up pretty well for himself, and stayed pretty positive.

The only thing he seemed to harp on was that the budget is the work of the state legislature, which includes the Republicans who are so quick to blame him for everything.

Oh yeah, he took a shot a Arnold's math skills, too, after someone mentioned Arnie's claims about how much money CA loses everyday. ;)

I understand Arnie's going around quoting figures from before the budget was adopted. If this is the best he can do then he had better update his playbook before the one debate he is going to participate in.

mactastic
Sep 5, 2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I understand Arnie's going around quoting figures from before the budget was adopted. If this is the best he can do then he had better update his playbook before the one debate he is going to participate in.

He's got plenty of time to prep since he's got the questions already.

Sayhey
Sep 5, 2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
He's got plenty of time to prep since he's got the questions already.

Yeah, I understood that's the case as well. His handlers want to give him the time to memorize his lines. Unfortunately for him, Arnie's not a very good actor. I'm sure a few of his opponents who have a little experiance thinking on their feet will try and take advantage of that.