womanfish said:
Well Arnold is selling out on the Gay Marriage issue to get the more Conservative vote.
Nonetheless if Californian Republicans are smart they will vote for Ueberoth, who is the most qualified of the Conservatives running.
Governor Schwarzenegger
- Thread starter Headache in a Suitcase
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well Arnold is selling out on the Gay Marriage issue to get the more Conservative vote.
Nonetheless if Californian Republicans are smart they will vote for Ueberoth, who is the most qualified of the Conservatives running.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I agree with nbcrusader, it's going to get ugly, and any of the candidates that swear they won't bend to special interests haven't been around politics much and haven't been handed a fat check yet.
I can't find one person I can trust in the CA campaign. Bustemante seems to have the most solid ideas and solutions, but I just don't trust him, the others are way to vague to think about putting trust in...
I can't find one person I can trust in the CA campaign. Bustemante seems to have the most solid ideas and solutions, but I just don't trust him, the others are way to vague to think about putting trust in...
Last edited:
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
nbcrusader said:
I'm not saying they all have to believe a certain way, but they don't even bat an eye or criticize him on this. We all know that Arnold could, and probably should, have a 'D' next to his name instead of an 'R'. If he was running as a Democrat, do you think the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh would be supporting him even if all his beliefs and issues and ideas were the same?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Is this the article?
State GOP Sought Donations From Enron
Politics: Requests brought in $50,000 during probe of the energy firm.
By VIRGINIA ELLIS and CARL INGRAM
Times Staff Writers
April 29, 2002
SACRAMENTO -- Republican legislative leaders solicited tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Enron Corp. even as the state government was investigating the company and other producers suspected of price gouging and market manipulation during last year's energy crisis, according to internal Enron documents.
As state investigators probed Enron's business dealings, Sen. Jim Brulte and Assemblyman Dave Cox, the two GOP floor leaders, appealed to the company for contributions and were rewarded with checks, said the confidential company records obtained by The Times.
"Enron gave $50K to the Rep party at Brulte and Cox's request," wrote Enron's Sacramento lobbyist in an October 2001 memo. State records disclose that the funds arrived in August as lawmakers were wrapping up their energy legislation.
Brulte, of Rancho Cucamonga, denied Friday that he solicited money from Enron on the party's behalf. A spokesman for Cox, of Fair Oaks, defended the assemblyman's appeal for contributions as nothing out of the ordinary. Neither the contributions nor the solicitation of them is a violation of campaign-finance law.
Although the party reported the contributions as required by law, the documents detail a relationship between Republican leaders and the now-failed energy giant that neither the company nor the state GOP has ever publicly acknowledged. Indeed, during this spring's primary campaign, the Republican candidates for governor all criticized Gov. Gray Davis for accepting nearly $120,000 from Enron.
A memo to managers at Enron's landmark skyscraper headquarters in Houston said the donations given at Cox and Brulte's request would entitle company executives to a place at the table of an Oct. 29 luncheon that the generator industry planned for the two Californians.
"Expect Brulte and Cox to push us for another 75K," the internal Enron memo warned.
Enron executives in Texas were urged to attend because the political picture in California was changing rapidly. GOP gubernatorial contender Richard Riordan, the former mayor of Los Angeles, appeared to be on the rise in opinion polls while Democrat Davis was in trouble over his management of the energy crisis.
"Given where Davis' numbers have gone recently, Riordan's imminent announcement and potential, and the fact that the R's [Republicans in the Legislature] have played it about as well as could be expected under the circumstances . . . this could be a useful gathering," said the memo by Jeff Dasovich, an Enron government relations executive.
Dasovich said the only Republican to speak out against the energy producers during the energy crunch was Sen. Bill Morrow of Oceanside. "We may want to bring [that] up with Brulte," he advised Enron colleagues.
The unpublicized private luncheon would have the added advantage of occurring far from Sacramento, he said. "And it doesn't require crossing the border into California, to boot."
Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) has alleged that Enron influenced GOP lawmakers, but they have denied it.
Enron, now in bankruptcy but once so powerful that its influence reached around the globe, played a pivotal role in California's calamitous 1996 decision to deregulate its energy market. The company's aggressive campaign to assert itself as a leader in the deregulated environment last year brought accusations from consumer advocates, Davis and other Democrats that Enron and others had "gamed" the newly deregulated market and gouged Californians with astronomical prices.
By soliciting contributions for their party rather than their own campaigns, legislators and other officeholders are able to obtain donations from unpopular interests without ever having to disclose their role in raising the money.
Karen Denne, an Enron corporate spokeswoman, said Saturday that she was unfamiliar with specifics of the $50,000 contribution and internal memos but she knew the company was being solicited for contributions as the Legislature and Davis wound up action on energy crisis bills.
She said she believed the appeals for funds by Brulte and Cox were no more "aggressive than those of other members of the Senate and Assembly."
A Republican Party spokesman confirmed that Cox and Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside) traveled to Houston for the lunch. Brulte did not attend because of illness.
The affair was hosted by R. Steven Letbetter, chairman of Reliant Energy, another Texas-based producer, and was aimed at giving industry executives a political update on California. Enron officials, who by then were coping with the financial collapse of their company, did not attend.
"The event in Houston was not a fund-raiser per se," said GOP spokesman Rob Stutzman, "[but] we want to be clear that the hope was that the companies would contribute money."
He defended the decision to seek donations from energy companies, then a highly unpopular industry, saying that if any violated laws during the power crisis, state and federal investigators would take the appropriate action.
"Until the laws are changed, generators are still part of the solution to keeping our lights on," Stutzman said. "We think it would be foolish to treat them as pariahs."
Brulte said in an interview Friday that he never solicited contributions specifically from Enron. He said it was a party aide who approached the company for donations.
He said it was part of his duties as a party leader to raise money for the GOP. He and Cox regularly appear at fund-raising events staged by the party and have so far raised about $3 million, Brulte said.
Cox was reported unavailable for comment on this story. His spokesman, Peter DeMarco, said he was unaware of the details of the timing of the Enron contribution, but defended Cox's role.
"The generators are doing business in California. Part of the world of the leaders is to go and secure funds for their candidates," DeMarco said. He denied as "mischaracterization" the notion that Cox pressured Enron for donations.
At their state convention in February, Republicans assailed Davis for accepting $119,500 in Enron contributions over the last five years. They demanded that he return it. Davis refused, saying that he took his last contribution of $10,000 from Enron in May 2000, a few months before the power crisis began.
Asked at the time about the $50,000 donation to the California GOP, Party Chairman Shawn Steel said he would strongly recommend that the money be returned. "I don't think we should keep their money at all," he told reporters.
The party has never returned the money.
"To do so requires an action by the board of directors of the party and the board has not taken such action at this time and I do not believe intends to at this time," spokesman Stutzman said Friday.
One consumer advocate who lobbied during the energy crisis, Douglas Heller, recalled that Republican lawmakers pushed for legislation embraced by energy producers, including relaxing environmental regulations to encourage more power plant construction, a move Davis later agreed to.
Heller said he believed at the time it was a political mistake for the Republicans not to put more distance between themselves and the energy producers.
"They pointed fingers at Davis while continuing to present Enron's policy argument as their own," said Heller, who represented the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "The Republicans were given a free ticket to escape culpability for the deregulation debacle because it fell on Davis' watch and he bumbled his way through it. They refused, however, to stand with consumers and fight the energy companies."
In testimony to Congress earlier this month, Dunn, who heads a committee investigating alleged price gouging, said confidential records from Enron's governmental affairs department suggested a "very close" relationship between the company and unnamed leaders of the Legislature.
"On the one hand, California's legislative leaders appealed directly to Enron for contributions and on the other received explicit instruction about specific legislation," Dunn testified.
He refused to elaborate Saturday, citing confidentiality restrictions. But he said the legislative leaders he had in mind were "primarily from the Republican side of the aisle. I'm not aware of any Democrats that made such an appeal to Enron."
Dunn refused to discuss his allegation that Enron issued orders to lawmakers on bills. He said he hopes to reach agreement with Enron soon on resolving confidentiality conflicts and intends to publicly disclose evidence to substantiate his allegation.
nbcrusader said:
State GOP Sought Donations From Enron
Politics: Requests brought in $50,000 during probe of the energy firm.
By VIRGINIA ELLIS and CARL INGRAM
Times Staff Writers
April 29, 2002
SACRAMENTO -- Republican legislative leaders solicited tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Enron Corp. even as the state government was investigating the company and other producers suspected of price gouging and market manipulation during last year's energy crisis, according to internal Enron documents.
As state investigators probed Enron's business dealings, Sen. Jim Brulte and Assemblyman Dave Cox, the two GOP floor leaders, appealed to the company for contributions and were rewarded with checks, said the confidential company records obtained by The Times.
"Enron gave $50K to the Rep party at Brulte and Cox's request," wrote Enron's Sacramento lobbyist in an October 2001 memo. State records disclose that the funds arrived in August as lawmakers were wrapping up their energy legislation.
Brulte, of Rancho Cucamonga, denied Friday that he solicited money from Enron on the party's behalf. A spokesman for Cox, of Fair Oaks, defended the assemblyman's appeal for contributions as nothing out of the ordinary. Neither the contributions nor the solicitation of them is a violation of campaign-finance law.
Although the party reported the contributions as required by law, the documents detail a relationship between Republican leaders and the now-failed energy giant that neither the company nor the state GOP has ever publicly acknowledged. Indeed, during this spring's primary campaign, the Republican candidates for governor all criticized Gov. Gray Davis for accepting nearly $120,000 from Enron.
A memo to managers at Enron's landmark skyscraper headquarters in Houston said the donations given at Cox and Brulte's request would entitle company executives to a place at the table of an Oct. 29 luncheon that the generator industry planned for the two Californians.
"Expect Brulte and Cox to push us for another 75K," the internal Enron memo warned.
Enron executives in Texas were urged to attend because the political picture in California was changing rapidly. GOP gubernatorial contender Richard Riordan, the former mayor of Los Angeles, appeared to be on the rise in opinion polls while Democrat Davis was in trouble over his management of the energy crisis.
"Given where Davis' numbers have gone recently, Riordan's imminent announcement and potential, and the fact that the R's [Republicans in the Legislature] have played it about as well as could be expected under the circumstances . . . this could be a useful gathering," said the memo by Jeff Dasovich, an Enron government relations executive.
Dasovich said the only Republican to speak out against the energy producers during the energy crunch was Sen. Bill Morrow of Oceanside. "We may want to bring [that] up with Brulte," he advised Enron colleagues.
The unpublicized private luncheon would have the added advantage of occurring far from Sacramento, he said. "And it doesn't require crossing the border into California, to boot."
Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) has alleged that Enron influenced GOP lawmakers, but they have denied it.
Enron, now in bankruptcy but once so powerful that its influence reached around the globe, played a pivotal role in California's calamitous 1996 decision to deregulate its energy market. The company's aggressive campaign to assert itself as a leader in the deregulated environment last year brought accusations from consumer advocates, Davis and other Democrats that Enron and others had "gamed" the newly deregulated market and gouged Californians with astronomical prices.
By soliciting contributions for their party rather than their own campaigns, legislators and other officeholders are able to obtain donations from unpopular interests without ever having to disclose their role in raising the money.
Karen Denne, an Enron corporate spokeswoman, said Saturday that she was unfamiliar with specifics of the $50,000 contribution and internal memos but she knew the company was being solicited for contributions as the Legislature and Davis wound up action on energy crisis bills.
She said she believed the appeals for funds by Brulte and Cox were no more "aggressive than those of other members of the Senate and Assembly."
A Republican Party spokesman confirmed that Cox and Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside) traveled to Houston for the lunch. Brulte did not attend because of illness.
The affair was hosted by R. Steven Letbetter, chairman of Reliant Energy, another Texas-based producer, and was aimed at giving industry executives a political update on California. Enron officials, who by then were coping with the financial collapse of their company, did not attend.
"The event in Houston was not a fund-raiser per se," said GOP spokesman Rob Stutzman, "[but] we want to be clear that the hope was that the companies would contribute money."
He defended the decision to seek donations from energy companies, then a highly unpopular industry, saying that if any violated laws during the power crisis, state and federal investigators would take the appropriate action.
"Until the laws are changed, generators are still part of the solution to keeping our lights on," Stutzman said. "We think it would be foolish to treat them as pariahs."
Brulte said in an interview Friday that he never solicited contributions specifically from Enron. He said it was a party aide who approached the company for donations.
He said it was part of his duties as a party leader to raise money for the GOP. He and Cox regularly appear at fund-raising events staged by the party and have so far raised about $3 million, Brulte said.
Cox was reported unavailable for comment on this story. His spokesman, Peter DeMarco, said he was unaware of the details of the timing of the Enron contribution, but defended Cox's role.
"The generators are doing business in California. Part of the world of the leaders is to go and secure funds for their candidates," DeMarco said. He denied as "mischaracterization" the notion that Cox pressured Enron for donations.
At their state convention in February, Republicans assailed Davis for accepting $119,500 in Enron contributions over the last five years. They demanded that he return it. Davis refused, saying that he took his last contribution of $10,000 from Enron in May 2000, a few months before the power crisis began.
Asked at the time about the $50,000 donation to the California GOP, Party Chairman Shawn Steel said he would strongly recommend that the money be returned. "I don't think we should keep their money at all," he told reporters.
The party has never returned the money.
"To do so requires an action by the board of directors of the party and the board has not taken such action at this time and I do not believe intends to at this time," spokesman Stutzman said Friday.
One consumer advocate who lobbied during the energy crisis, Douglas Heller, recalled that Republican lawmakers pushed for legislation embraced by energy producers, including relaxing environmental regulations to encourage more power plant construction, a move Davis later agreed to.
Heller said he believed at the time it was a political mistake for the Republicans not to put more distance between themselves and the energy producers.
"They pointed fingers at Davis while continuing to present Enron's policy argument as their own," said Heller, who represented the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "The Republicans were given a free ticket to escape culpability for the deregulation debacle because it fell on Davis' watch and he bumbled his way through it. They refused, however, to stand with consumers and fight the energy companies."
In testimony to Congress earlier this month, Dunn, who heads a committee investigating alleged price gouging, said confidential records from Enron's governmental affairs department suggested a "very close" relationship between the company and unnamed leaders of the Legislature.
"On the one hand, California's legislative leaders appealed directly to Enron for contributions and on the other received explicit instruction about specific legislation," Dunn testified.
He refused to elaborate Saturday, citing confidentiality restrictions. But he said the legislative leaders he had in mind were "primarily from the Republican side of the aisle. I'm not aware of any Democrats that made such an appeal to Enron."
Dunn refused to discuss his allegation that Enron issued orders to lawmakers on bills. He said he hopes to reach agreement with Enron soon on resolving confidentiality conflicts and intends to publicly disclose evidence to substantiate his allegation.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Seems like Arnold is everyone's target.
Davis said you shouldn't vote for someone who couldn't pronounce "California".
I am surprised Davis would make ethnic accents an issue.
Davis said you shouldn't vote for someone who couldn't pronounce "California".
I am surprised Davis would make ethnic accents an issue.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Come on nbc
put on your Karl Rove thinking cap.
Ariana is Arnold's best friend in this race, she will only peel away votes from Bustyertaxes. If Conejo and the Green Party gets any serious votes Arnold has it in the bag.
Politics is not about principles, just ask Gil Fergeson.
Rove knows it is about winning, he said they factored in Nader voters in 2000.
put on your Karl Rove thinking cap.
Ariana is Arnold's best friend in this race, she will only peel away votes from Bustyertaxes. If Conejo and the Green Party gets any serious votes Arnold has it in the bag.
Politics is not about principles, just ask Gil Fergeson.
Rove knows it is about winning, he said they factored in Nader voters in 2000.
To go slightly off topic.
I hate the Republican Party(well modern Republican Party) and everything they stand for. However I have always had an inkling of respect for Karl Rove. He get's his men elected, no matter how many children he has to eat alive in the process. He is the brains behind the White House, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
The Democrats will have a tough time knocking out Bush in 04, unless they pull out a meaner, tougher, more stubborn sumbitch than Rove........James Carville.
However even if Bush win's re-election, there is always the real chance of The Democrats reclaiming The Senate and The House, which in most respects is a stronger victory than taking the Presidency(unless they pulled off taking all three)
I hate the Republican Party(well modern Republican Party) and everything they stand for. However I have always had an inkling of respect for Karl Rove. He get's his men elected, no matter how many children he has to eat alive in the process. He is the brains behind the White House, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
The Democrats will have a tough time knocking out Bush in 04, unless they pull out a meaner, tougher, more stubborn sumbitch than Rove........James Carville.
However even if Bush win's re-election, there is always the real chance of The Democrats reclaiming The Senate and The House, which in most respects is a stronger victory than taking the Presidency(unless they pulled off taking all three)
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
i know i'm dregging up a semi-buried thread but i've been reading more and more about Arnold and becoming incredibly UNIMPRESSED with his character. I haven't read this whole thread but my scan of it tells me posts are focusing mainly on his relation with Enron. Well I'm talking about his treatment of women.
From Entertainment Weekly (quoted by Scheer):
What do every day people make of a person who makes these statements like this? Wanting to push a woman's head in the toilet? And what about the "who-knows-what group" reference he makes, as if the only people who don't like to see such violence against women are in some sort of feminists (i'm assuming) group?
What about the moment cited in this article:
From Entertainment Weekly (quoted by Scheer):
What do every day people make of a person who makes these statements like this? Wanting to push a woman's head in the toilet? And what about the "who-knows-what group" reference he makes, as if the only people who don't like to see such violence against women are in some sort of feminists (i'm assuming) group?
What about the moment cited in this article:
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I agree w/ you Olive-but those are all lies, right? 
And Maria doesn't care, so it doesn't matter..
Didn't he also say in the "debate" that he wanted to reenact that T 3 scene w/ Arianna Huffington? Now I agree, she's annoying, but how many times can a guy "joke" about this stuff before it's really not a joke anymore?
I'm just glad I don't live in CA, even though my Gov is a dolt
My impression of Arnold is that he has gotten far in life by being phony
And Maria doesn't care, so it doesn't matter..
Didn't he also say in the "debate" that he wanted to reenact that T 3 scene w/ Arianna Huffington? Now I agree, she's annoying
, but how many times can a guy "joke" about this stuff before it's really not a joke anymore?I'm just glad I don't live in CA, even though my Gov is a dolt
My impression of Arnold is that he has gotten far in life by being phony
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Davis' democratic operatives said they would bring up these quotes before Arnold entered the race. With internal democratic polls showing Arnold leading Bustamante, it is time to start flinging the mud. And this after 8 years of "character shouldn't matter". [/partisian rant]
Some of the quotes are disturbing. The snippet is taken out of a larger interview, so we lose context. The alleged "nipple tweaking" incident has been disputed.
As for the comment to Huffington, she struck out with a cheap shot, then claims to be a victim by Arnolds "T4" reply.
Is this really a concern about his character (where someone would approach Arnold and tell him he needs and offers help), or an expedient way to damage character?
Some of the quotes are disturbing. The snippet is taken out of a larger interview, so we lose context. The alleged "nipple tweaking" incident has been disputed.
As for the comment to Huffington, she struck out with a cheap shot, then claims to be a victim by Arnolds "T4" reply.
Is this really a concern about his character (where someone would approach Arnold and tell him he needs and offers help), or an expedient way to damage character?
BAW
The Flower
nbcrusader said:
Exactly.
Huffington was rude and turned every question into some sort of personal attack against Arnold. It seemed more like a personal vendetta than a real interest in debating the issues.
And his comment to her was something along the lines of "I think I have the perfect part for you in T4." I didn't find it offensive or threatening at all considering she had just accused him of mistreating women because he interupted her. What kind of comment is that anyway? Is she saying she deserves to be treated differently because she's a woman but its okay for HER to be rude and interupt?
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
In the news they said that Arnold is leading! He will be thenext governor 
!!!
GO ARNIE... ROCK tHE CASBAH
!!!GO ARNIE... ROCK tHE CASBAH
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
nbcrusader said:
Just b/c Clinton did something wrong (although I think the wrongness was to his wife) doesn't mean we can allow others to do it wrong like "two wrongs make a right."
As far as I personally am concerned, there's a difference between being misogynistic and considering women below you- like thinking it's OK to treat women with such disrespect and crudeness- and have oral sex with a woman who is consenting. YES, cheating on your wife is wrong. But it's not my business. A man in political power who doesn't respect women, YES that is my business, as a woman, a women-lover, and a US citizen. I don't want him passing laws that will control me when it's obvious from those testimonies he doesn't understand or respect women.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
A Deplorable October Surprise
By Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich, a professor of law and political science at USC, is the author of "Sex and Power" (Riverside Press, 2001). She was national campaign manager for Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis.
October 3, 2003
So this is the October surprise? The Los Angeles Times headline that Arnold Schwarzenegger groped and humiliated women?
None of the six women interviewed by The Times filed legal charges. Four of the six were quoted anonymously. Of the two who were named, one, a British television hostess, had told her story to Premiere magazine years ago, and it has been widely known and largely ignored. The other recounts an alleged incident of fondling at Gold's Gym nearly 30 years ago.
The anonymous incidents occurred on movie sets and consist of touching a woman's breast in the elevator, whispering vulgarities and pulling a woman onto his lap. Though emphasizing that not everything in the stories was accurate, the candidate responded Thursday with an apology: "Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful, but now I recognize that I offended people." And he pledged to treat women with respect if elected.
As a professor of sex discrimination law for two decades and an expert on sexual harassment, I certainly don't condone the unwanted touching of women that was apparently involved here. But these acts do not appear to constitute any crime, such as rape or sodomy or even assault or battery. As for civil law, sexual harassment requires more than a single case of unwelcome touching; there must be either a threat or promise of sex in exchange for a job benefit or demotion, or the hostile environment must be severe and pervasive.
But none of these women, as The Times emphasizes, ever came forward to complain. The newspaper went looking for them, and then waited until five days before the election to tell the fragments of the story.
What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.
Facing these charges, a candidate has two choices. If he denies them, the story keeps building and overshadows everything else he does. Schwarzenegger's bold apology is a gamble to make the story go away. It may or may not work.
But here's my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics. Is this the worst they could come up with? Ho-hum. After what we've been through?
To his credit, Schwarzenegger apologized for "behaving badly." So should the Los Angeles Times.
By Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich, a professor of law and political science at USC, is the author of "Sex and Power" (Riverside Press, 2001). She was national campaign manager for Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis.
October 3, 2003
So this is the October surprise? The Los Angeles Times headline that Arnold Schwarzenegger groped and humiliated women?
None of the six women interviewed by The Times filed legal charges. Four of the six were quoted anonymously. Of the two who were named, one, a British television hostess, had told her story to Premiere magazine years ago, and it has been widely known and largely ignored. The other recounts an alleged incident of fondling at Gold's Gym nearly 30 years ago.
The anonymous incidents occurred on movie sets and consist of touching a woman's breast in the elevator, whispering vulgarities and pulling a woman onto his lap. Though emphasizing that not everything in the stories was accurate, the candidate responded Thursday with an apology: "Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right which I thought then was playful, but now I recognize that I offended people." And he pledged to treat women with respect if elected.
As a professor of sex discrimination law for two decades and an expert on sexual harassment, I certainly don't condone the unwanted touching of women that was apparently involved here. But these acts do not appear to constitute any crime, such as rape or sodomy or even assault or battery. As for civil law, sexual harassment requires more than a single case of unwelcome touching; there must be either a threat or promise of sex in exchange for a job benefit or demotion, or the hostile environment must be severe and pervasive.
But none of these women, as The Times emphasizes, ever came forward to complain. The newspaper went looking for them, and then waited until five days before the election to tell the fragments of the story.
What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.
Facing these charges, a candidate has two choices. If he denies them, the story keeps building and overshadows everything else he does. Schwarzenegger's bold apology is a gamble to make the story go away. It may or may not work.
But here's my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics. Is this the worst they could come up with? Ho-hum. After what we've been through?
To his credit, Schwarzenegger apologized for "behaving badly." So should the Los Angeles Times.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I like Susan.
Here is a great example of the difference between Republicans and Democrats IMO. Democrats such as Susan, Alan Colmes, and myself will admit when such obviously partisan, low-down media mud slinging happens and say it's ridiculous and wrong.
If this had been a late breaking mud slinging on a Democrat about womanizing or sexual impropriety? Oh my God, the Republican's would be eating it up with a spoon and outraged at both the candidate and anyone who would think of defending him/her.
Here is a great example of the difference between Republicans and Democrats IMO. Democrats such as Susan, Alan Colmes, and myself will admit when such obviously partisan, low-down media mud slinging happens and say it's ridiculous and wrong.
If this had been a late breaking mud slinging on a Democrat about womanizing or sexual impropriety? Oh my God, the Republican's would be eating it up with a spoon and outraged at both the candidate and anyone who would think of defending him/her.
JessicaAnn
ONE love, blood, life
The only reason Arnold is apologizing is because someone had the guts to make him face his obviously inappropriate behavior. If no one had ever mentioned the incidents he would have never apologized.
These incidents happend about 30 years ago. It was a different time back and that the consequences of reporting a superior were far more sever than just keeping quiet. If you were a woman and sexually harassed you just shut up and took it.
These women perhaps didn't have a choice about speaking up when these incidents originally occured. Bravo to them for calling Arnold out for his behavior.
These incidents happend about 30 years ago. It was a different time back and that the consequences of reporting a superior were far more sever than just keeping quiet. If you were a woman and sexually harassed you just shut up and took it.
These women perhaps didn't have a choice about speaking up when these incidents originally occured. Bravo to them for calling Arnold out for his behavior.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
womanfish said:
Are you kidding me? Democratic operatives have been planning this for months. Before Arnold even announced he was running, a top Democratic strategist blatantly said these stories would be published to discredit Arnold ("shopping them around the tabloids" was the phrase I recall).
I posted the Estrich article because, considering her party affiliation and her focus in teaching, I found her comments well above the fray. (She also teaches at a very fine institution)
Don't stoop back down with such a cheap generalization of Republicans based on what you think "they would have done".
I think its Rubbish that Democrats and Womens groups are coming out now to attack Arnold on his alleged "sex actions" from decades ago. Where the hell were all these Womens groups when several women came out to say that Bill Clinton Raped them? These Women groups care more about their pet political issues than whether any of these women were actually harmed. They'll use them when their politically useful, ignore them when their politically not. For the political party to do that is one thing, for Womens group that should be concerned strictly with the health of women, this is not understandable.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Not that it matters, but I just wanted to say that my disdain for men who harass, grope, rape, or otherwise degrade women has NOTHING to do w/ party affiliation or politics.
It disgusts me no matter who does it, and I don't agree w/ it being used solely for political purposes.
Of course it's entirely possible that Arnold has regret for what he has done, realizes how wrong it was, and hopefully has changed his attitudes towards women. People can change, sometimes.
It disgusts me no matter who does it, and I don't agree w/ it being used solely for political purposes.
Of course it's entirely possible that Arnold has regret for what he has done, realizes how wrong it was, and hopefully has changed his attitudes towards women. People can change, sometimes.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
What about this? 
Schwarzenegger Denies Admiring Hitler
Thu Oct 2
By Jill Serjeant
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced on Thursday to deny comments he made 25 years ago that he admired Adolf Hitler and wished he too could enjoy a stadium full of screaming fans.
The Austrian-born actor, who is the leading candidate in California's gubernatorial recall race, was quoted as making the comments in a 1975 transcript of an interview while filming the documentary "Pumping Iron" that made him famous.
ABC News, which broadcast the remarks on Thursday, said they were contained in an unpublished book proposal with quotes from what it calls a "verbatim transcript" of the interview.
Asked about his heroes, the young Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying; "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."
The actor was quoted as saying he wished he could experience being .."like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium and have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."
Asked by ABC News to comment on the old remarks, Schwarzenegger said: "I cannot remember any of these. All I can tell you is that I despise everything Hitler stood for. I despise everything the Nazis stood for ... everything the Third Reich stood for."
Schwarzenegger Denies Admiring Hitler
Thu Oct 2
By Jill Serjeant
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced on Thursday to deny comments he made 25 years ago that he admired Adolf Hitler and wished he too could enjoy a stadium full of screaming fans.
The Austrian-born actor, who is the leading candidate in California's gubernatorial recall race, was quoted as making the comments in a 1975 transcript of an interview while filming the documentary "Pumping Iron" that made him famous.
ABC News, which broadcast the remarks on Thursday, said they were contained in an unpublished book proposal with quotes from what it calls a "verbatim transcript" of the interview.
Asked about his heroes, the young Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying; "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."
The actor was quoted as saying he wished he could experience being .."like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium and have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."
Asked by ABC News to comment on the old remarks, Schwarzenegger said: "I cannot remember any of these. All I can tell you is that I despise everything Hitler stood for. I despise everything the Nazis stood for ... everything the Third Reich stood for."
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
The NY Times has already called this report into question, including the accuracy of the transcripts.
Democrats warned Davis not to pull this crap. It looks like his operatives went ahead per their standard operating procedures.
Democrats warned Davis not to pull this crap. It looks like his operatives went ahead per their standard operating procedures.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
MrsSpringsteen said:
Too bad more woman's political groups cannot act like you. They are outraged by the actions of Schwarzenegger and Packwood while they turn a blind eye to (and actually support) Clinton. I am glad you, MrsSpringsteen, can see past the party affiliation.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
nbcrusader said:
Any proof that Davis was the one to release this or approve this? Nope. In fact he came out and directly said that no Democrat running in the race was responsible for providing any information about the sexual allegations or this. Seems like an asshole move from people who don't like Schwarzenneger at the Times (which I don't agree with timing-wise).
You automatically defend Arnold and make baseless statements against Davis. I'm glad your party lines are very clearly drawn.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
The statement regarding the release of information is not baseless. A top Davis advisor spoke to the media threatening to release this type of information well before the recall was even certified - essentially a warning to Arnold not to get into the race.
I do not condone Arnolds actions with women. The Hitler comments are taken out of context at best. They already tried to stick the Nazi tag on Arnold regarding his father.
There is too much partisian barfing in this forum already - I try and avoid the simplistic "well [fill in your favorite Democrat here] Clinton did this..." type of responses.
I do not condone Arnolds actions with women. The Hitler comments are taken out of context at best. They already tried to stick the Nazi tag on Arnold regarding his father.
There is too much partisian barfing in this forum already - I try and avoid the simplistic "well [fill in your favorite Democrat here] Clinton did this..." type of responses.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
true crusader,
I know the Hitler thing came up a long time ago, so I don't really see this as a surprise.
The sexist stuff makes me wonder a bit about the way he truly is in his private life, but still it's dirty to spring this stuff 5 days before the election.
I know the Hitler thing came up a long time ago, so I don't really see this as a surprise.
The sexist stuff makes me wonder a bit about the way he truly is in his private life, but still it's dirty to spring this stuff 5 days before the election.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
womanfish,
You make this a great place for debate. I truly appreciate your posts.
Thank you,
NBC
You make this a great place for debate. I truly appreciate your posts.
Thank you,
NBC
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
thanks NBC - right back at ya. Even though I know I'm pretty liberal, try to keep an independent open mind. You'd be surprised that I find Bill O'Reilly fairly reasonable about 25% of the time. Anyway, it's always fun to see everyone's view in here and to learn and to look at things in different ways. Damn if it weren't for you and dread and few others, it would be no fun and I'd be hopelessly lost in my liberalness.
I still want to know how Melon consistently comes up with those interesting articles from all places and dates.
I still want to know how Melon consistently comes up with those interesting articles from all places and dates.
Similar threads
