3
   

Schwarzenegger Announces : Running for CA Gov.

 
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2003 06:21 am
Curiouser and curiouser...
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2003 06:26 am
For anyone too young to be familiar with George Schultz.....


http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/BIOS/shultz.html
HOOVER INSTITUTION


George P. Shultz

George P. Shultz is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was sworn in on July 16, 1982, as the sixtieth U.S. secretary of state and served until January 20, 1989. In January 1989, he rejoined Stanford University as the Jack Steele Parker Professor of International Economics at the Graduate School of Business and a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution.

He is a member of the board of directors of Bechtel Group, Fremont Group, Gilead Sciences, Unext.com, and Charles Schwab & Co. He is also chairman of the International Council of J. P. Morgan Chase and on the advisory committee of Infrastructureworld.

He was awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, on January 19, 1989. He also received the Seoul Peace Prize (1992), the Eisenhower Medal for Leadership and Service (2001), and the Reagan Distinguished American Award (2002).

His publications include Economic Policy Beyond the Headlines(2d edition), cowritten with Kenneth Dam (University of Chicago Press, 1998), and his best-selling memoir, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1993).

He recently authored the monograph Economics in Action: Ideas, Institutions, Policies (Hoover Essays in Public Policy, 1995).

He also authored Economic Policy Beyond the Headlines (1978); Workers and Wages in the Urban Labor Market (1970); Guidelines, Informal Controls, and the Market Place (1966); Management Organization and the Computer (1960); and Labor Problems: Cases and Readings (1953).

From 1981 until his appointment as U.S. secretary of state, Shultz was chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board.

He became secretary of the Treasury in May 1972, serving until May 1974. During that period he also served as chairman of the Council on Economic Policy. As chairman of the East-West Trade Policy Committee, Shultz traveled to Moscow in 1973 and negotiated a series of trade protocols with the Soviet Union. He also represented the United States at the Tokyo meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

In 1974, he left government service to become president and director of Bechtel Group, where he remained until 1982. While at Bechtel, he maintained his close ties with the academic world by joining the faculty of Stanford University on a part-time basis.

Shultz served in the administration of President Richard Nixon as secretary of labor for eighteen months, from 1969 to June 1970, at which time he was appointed director of the Office of Management and Budget.

From 1968 to 1969, he was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford.

In 1957, Shultz was appointed professor of industrial relations at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He was named dean of the Graduate School of Business in 1962.

He taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1948 to 1957, taking a year's leave of absence in 1955 to serve as senior staff economist on the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower.

Shultz holds honorary degrees from the universities of Columbia, Notre Dame, Loyola, Pennsylvania, Rochester, Princeton, Carnegie-Mellon, City University of New York, Yeshiva, Northwestern, Technion, Tel Aviv, Weizmann Institute of Science, Baruch College of New York, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tbilisi State University in the Republic of Georgia, and Keio University in Tokyo.

Shultz graduated from Princeton University in 1942, receiving a B.A. degree in economics. That year he joined the U.S. Marine Corps and served through 1945. In 1949, Shultz earned a Ph.D. degree in industrial economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

(2002)


Quote:

0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2003 08:10 am
Although I can often agree with Arianna's opinions, she should have done a self-evaluation, much like many of us have had to do on our jobs (writing our own evaluation for a manager!) Political positions are jobs, plain and simple. All this "I want to serve the public" is empty rhetoric. Politicians nearly always want to serve themselves, beginning with as much power as they can accumulate. George Schultz is also on board to devise a state economic recovery. It's the administration of these economic ideas that will either work or not work.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2003 11:25 am
Ann Coulter, Darrell Issa, and a horse walk into a bar.

The bartender looks at them and asks:

"Soooooooo, why the long face?" Smile
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2003 05:14 pm
Guess we better start looking closer at Bustamante. Anyone have any info on the guy?



http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA8MGE2GJD.html

Poll Shows Tight, Two-Candidate Race With Plenty of Uncertainty in Calif. Recall
By Steve Lawrence Associated Press Writer
Published: Aug 16, 2003




SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California's lieutenant governor is in a tight race with actor Arnold Schwarzenegger as the leading candidates to succeed Gray Davis if voters decide to oust the Democratic governor, according to a poll released Saturday.
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante had the support of 25 percent of the 448 likely voters questioned by the Field Research Corp. Schwarzenegger had 22 percent. With the poll's margin of error of 5 percentage points, the two are essentially running even.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2003 05:31 pm
From my favorite LA Times columnist -- who tells it like it is:

Quote:
Reject the Recall, California
Republicans are running it as a shell game to distract from their misdeeds - don't play along.

August 12, 2003 -

"Take him, he's yours."

That was my initial response to the California recall, aimed at a conservative Democratic governor who often has betrayed the state's large progressive base of voters - the same folks who held their noses to elect and then reelect him.

But now I don't buy it. However you feel about Gray Davis, the fact is, this recall has become a shell game, led and paid for by Republicans, that conveniently distracts from the alarming failures and frauds of the White House. That includes the Bush administration's blind eye to the energy sting that robbed the California government of a good chunk of its past budget surplus....


...How dare Arnold Schwarzenegger or any Republican now ignore the well-documented gaming of the California energy market by Bush's Texas cronies, many of whom landed high posts in his administration? Was Davis responsible for manufacturing spikes in energy prices that nearly bankrupted the state? Of course not - but he took the political hit when the lights went out. It's a safe bet that Schwarzenegger and the other Republicans running will offer not a word of criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous meetings with top energy executives that excluded consumer representatives. The minutes of those meetings are still secret, yet we know that the policy that emerged benefited the con artists who caused California's energy crisis in the first place.

Nor will the Republicans who bought this recall delve into the role of the Bush-dominated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That's the agency that failed in its obligation to bring the energy pirates to heel and force them to properly compensate California for creating artificial shortages...


...Davis failed in paying too much to get the lights back on, but I dare any of the Republican candidates for his job to step forward and tell us that they would not have bailed out PG&E and Southern California Edison. They will not because they have no real solutions to the energy problems or any other problems the state faces. Certainly they will not curtail the heavy influences of the prison guards and other law enforcement unions that are milking the state budget and that form Davis' most reliable base of support. Clearly Davis' fundraising is obscenely obsessive, but it's minor compared with Bush's nonstop money machine...


...Suddenly the Republicans care not a whit about those social values they have been prattling about, or anything else but defeating a prominent Democrat. They brook no opposition, even from a conservative Democrat; their goal is a one-party system.

If you think politics is all a joke anyway, then vote for whichever opportunist makes you laugh the most. But if you think that meaningful representative democracy requires the scrutiny of the serious primary and election process that Davis has twice weathered, then for a small "d" democrat, a "no" vote on the recall is an obligation...

http://www.robertscheer.com/
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2003 05:45 pm
Quote:
...Suddenly the Republicans care not a whit about those social values they have been prattling about, or anything else but defeating a prominent Democrat. They brook no opposition, even from a conservative Democrat; their goal is a one-party system.


We Democrates are guilty of the same charge in regard to Bush. We don't care how or who does it, as long as they defeat Bush in the next election. That's my main objection to the campaigning, or lack thereof, going on in the Democratic party. No one is talking about what they'll do for us the day after they are sworn into office. All they have to say for themselves is that they are not Bush.

The difference is that we don't have such an easy recall method of retribution on the national level. If we did, I don't doubt for a minute that Democrats would not be putting it to use right now.

California is suffering the consequences of very badly written recall laws. It is too bad this painful and costly lesson will not translate to improvement in the writing of laws passed by the State.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2003 06:34 pm
Scheer nailed it but you're observation is also politically wise. However, we just can't expect our politicians to be wise -- they haven't the structure nor the fortitude. Your Churchill quote just about says it all.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 10:29 am
Hollywood's take on all this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/17/MN87207.DTL

Don't entirely agree with Butrflynet. Think it's way more complex than that...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2003 05:56 am
Looks like because of the punch card ballots that the election will have to comply with the national upgrade to electronic touch screen or other voting machine and the election will be in March. Does this change things or not?
0 Replies
 
Mapleleaf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 06:23 am
For those of you who live in California, what do you hear in the streets, restuarants, service workers, etc.?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 06:53 am
The more I hear about the process of the recall and what is required to "elect" a new governor, the less legal it sounds. Sure this will become a judical issue?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 08:27 am
The few interviews with the common voter have just revealed their confusion. Ahhnold's first million dollar TV ad is a cookie cutter PR effort which exploits his obvious rapor with the camera, but without any real substance. Davis' address on TV is designed to stir up the Democratic base and the perception that this is a power play by the Republicans that would shame even Machiavelli in its obviousness. It's Ronnie all over again -- sell and image but keep the agenda as vague as possible. Worked for Ronnie! This is a three ring circus with basically the same show going on in each ring.
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 01:35 pm
Press Conferance with Arnold beginning momentarily.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 01:45 pm
The judge's decision on delaying the election until Spring is also due today. The ACLU has a point but I don't belive it has the weight to defer the election. The precedent was perhaps initiated for elections ending up in court by the last Florida debacle.
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 01:50 pm
I agree.

What time is the decision expected to be announced?
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 01:56 pm
Judge just decided October's the month. And Arnold's news conference - good lord!
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 01:56 pm
Just in:

ACLU loses.
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 08:50 pm
Theres a bunch of fruits and nuts in California...I'm voting for the stripper!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 11:27 am
SIMON'S OUT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3062362,00.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 09:15:21