Schwarzenegger Announces : Running for CA Gov.

Howard Stern would be a match for Ahnold

Actually D'art, the dems DO control Hollywood. Arnold is a rare exception. The money and power there is largely consolidated on the left side of Sunset.

Howard Stern? What? Wasn't Arnie on his show recently?

I know he was, I heard it, an over the phone interview.

Oh, jeez, Stern is a Democrat? You guys can have him, cjhsa. He disgusts me.

Re control of Hollywood: It's as accurate to say that as it is to say liberals control the news media. One of the shaggiest myths in the conservative spectrum.

No single group controls either. The agenda for Hollywood and the media (in general) is the same: Making as much money as possible.

I believe Stern is an independent. Not my fave either, but he's funny at times. He lost his edge when he got divorced it seems.

This is the real news.

This -- not the recall result, not the elevation of Arnold -- is the greatest revelation that came out of this election and the New York Times online details it here:



What it tells me is that sexual peccadilloes are not a campaign issue.

Republicans (including a certain one on this forum) to this day cannot understand why Bill Clinton still holds such sway.

And Arnold probably could've skated over the thin ice without Maria's help (though her support was essential to his margin of victory).

What it tells me is that nobody really cares about the escapades of thier candidates--as long as there are certain other strengths to counterbalance them.

truth
I agree with your closing/bottom line, PDiddie.

Is the weight of the barbells Ahnold can lift his strength? I frankly find nothing in his history that spells out leadership. His name was rubber stamped onto the checks issued by "Planet Hollywood" (along with Bruce Willis' and Sylvester Stallone's). Perhaps he isn't the chauvenistic boor he has been painted out to be and Maria is the power behind the throne.

Nobody_ I am sorry if I misled you. I hope that I did not. Judge Posner said nothing about "Charisma".
I would respectfully ask you to re-read my posts.

You ask whether Posner was infallible. Of course, he is not, however, he is a top expert in the field of law.

If you ask me whether I would read Posner to try to get an insight or , for example, Lightwizard, I would choose Posner every time since I am sure that Posner has more expertise on law than Lightwizard who is an expert on light.

But is Posner infalllible?

Of course not.

But, anyway, I go to the source which is USUALLY more correct since it is an expert source instead of a source which involves some one talking off the top of his or her head.

Your example of the PH.D is not incorrect. I have met, and I am sure you have encountered people with degrees who weren't very smart.

Again, all you can go by are the box scores-

Bonds is knows for his home runs.

Jordan for his baskets.

Posner for his legal acumen.

Does Bonds hit a home run every time?

No, of course not but he is one of the best ball players.

Did Jordan make a basket whenever he shot?

Of course not but he was one of the best.

Does Posner explore and discuss every legal argument perfectly?

Of course not but he is one of the best.

Try him out, Nobody. I guarantee you that reading Posner will be a great experience.

Succinct there, lightwizard. I agree. I agree even if in some other situations the person in office is of another party than mine, has other perogatives than mine.

I think using recall for other than malfeasance is extremely dangerous as a precedent.

By the way, Howard Stern ran for Gov of NY and folded when he had to release his financial statement. Anybody have info on Arnold with regards to this?

truth
Italgato, thanks for a very civil and thoughtful response
I agree, Osso. I can't think of many occasions where the impeachment could not do the job of the recall. And it would less likely take its momentum from the will of some millionaire with a grudge. If we elect someone, let them finish their term or impeach them in the formal manner. But the recall in this case sounds too much like mob rule.

With all of this talk about "recalls"< I believe that only 18 of the 50 states have provisions for "recalls", I also believe that I heard that most states require a much higher percentage of signatures to put the recall on the ballot than California needed.

Does anyone have specifics?

truth
Italgato, I don't know about the number of signatures required, but I have heard that in most of those states the grounds for recall are more specific, not wide open as with the popularity contest in California (my home state).

Consider the three words:
Popularity contest
California

Hmmmmmm

JL Nobody- I thought that the question was important enough to do a little research---

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm

I found that there were eighteen states out of fifty with recall provisions- slightly over one third.

They are:

Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Most of the states had higher percentages of signatures required. Nine required 25% of the voters from last election total, Kansas- 40%, Louisian- 33% Idaho- 20% Georgia- 15%. ONLY MONTANA HAD FEWER - 10%

All of these percentages relate to the percentage needed to remove statewide officers. Some states required different percentages to remove Federal Representatives, for example.

It was also clear that some states- Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Washington had SPECIFIC GUIDELINES which outlined the reasons needed to recall...e.g.

Washington State- "Commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfesance while in office".


After reviewing the percentages, and guidlines in place in one third of the states, it seems clear that California's recall will not be easily replicated in the one third of the states which have recall provisions.

The trumpets sounding doom for the other states because of what happened in California must now be muted.

I wasn't aware I was giving any advice or opinion on law (I could on art and contractor laws). As far as political views, it doesn't require being a lawyer or a judge to have a personal opinion about politics. This is an informal forum -- there's no member here I am aware of who is trying to get published. It's also not a classroom so long didactic essays clearly written by amateur writers are not often taken very seriously.

truth
LW, thanks for putting things in perspective. At least he shows he is taking us and the dialog seriously, if onerously so.

So far, it seems, Ahnold is surrounding himself with everything he promised, from Willi Brown to Simon to Ardulin, Florida's budget director. Fiorina, HP's chief, and McEnery, ex major of San Jose. With all these well-known, powerful, people, there's some hope that Ahnold could produce some positive reforms in California.