Jihad on Puke Politics
I hereby declare jihad on puke politics. If you are as disgusted as I am with the sleazy last-minute “new” stories by ABC and Daily Monopoly, I’d urge you to join me. Here’s what you can do (the list is not exhaustive and will be updated as I see fit):
- If you subscribe to the L.A. Times, cancel your subscription immediately, and make sure you talk to a live human being to tell them why.
- On Tuesday, vote for the recall, even if you were previously opposed to it. The measure is going to pass with or without your vote, so you’re really not voting on whether or not Davis should be recalled. What you will be voting on is how big the margin will be. If the recall passes by a margin that is narrower than expected, this will send the message that puke politics works, and should be repeated in close races in the future. If it passes by the expected margin, it will send a message that puke politics is a waste of time, which merely reflects badly on the puker. But if the recall passes by a larger than expected margin, this will send the message that puke politics can backfire.
- Regardless of how you feel about the candidates now, force yourself on Tuesday to vote for whoever you were planning on voting for as of last Wednesday. You haven’t learned anything substantive about the candidates over the last couple of days, and you are very unlikely to over the next four. Trust the older, wiser October 1 version of yourself.
- In the future, innoculate yourself against late hits by registering as a permanent absentee, and mailing in your ballot at least one full week before every scheduled election. Two weeks is better, as this will leave you some extra time to digest any earlier hits that may or may not pan out.
October 3rd, 2003 at 11:15 am
That is why I voted Touchscreen on Wednesday.
October 3rd, 2003 at 2:08 pm
I’m sorry that these revelations were so obviously politically timed, but that doesn’t change the fact that Ah-nold is a steroid-pumped sleaze. The accounts of his ‘fun’ with women are pretty nasty. This is who you want to run California? Ugh.
October 3rd, 2003 at 2:20 pm
Calling an unproven allegation a “fact” does not make it so. If the “revelations” were credible, the Times should have run them weeks ago. I am not going to vote against someone just because the National Enquirer, the Los Angeles Times or the Weekly World News tries to smear them - especially when there are credible stories of much worse behavior by the sitting governor he stands to replace.
October 3rd, 2003 at 3:34 pm
Shame on you
1- Ah-nold, de facto, admits all by apologizing…these are no longer allegations.
2- the argument that ‘the other guy is worse’ is weak and just holds no water.
time to blog on this myself….. see me later!
October 3rd, 2003 at 4:08 pm
Wrong again, on both counts.
1. Arnold admitted to “behaving badly,” while also maintaining that many of the “facts” to which you refer are not true.
2. Ignoring the fact that the other guy is worse is not principled, it’s just dumb. “Re-Elect Nobody” makes a nice tongue-in-cheek campaign slogan, but it’s not reality. Reality is that for better or for worse, one of these men will be governor next Wednesday (actually a bit later than that, but that’s another issue). The only real issue is which one.
October 3rd, 2003 at 4:15 pm
Ah-nold’s a sleaze
Of course the LA Times article citing incidents of Ah-nold’s ‘indiscretions’ was politically timed. Of course it was a smear tactic. Of course they sought out the ‘victims’ and no charges were ever brought. Even so, reading the accounts of…
October 3rd, 2003 at 6:41 pm
I’m so tired of “anonymous sources”.
“They” can say anything “they” want, without any regard for the truth.
If Arnold loses this, I think he’s got pretty solid grounds to go after the LA Times on libel charges, seeking damages equal to every penny he’s spent on the campaign. The LA Times would have to either bring their “anonymous sources” forward, or eat it. So much for their claim that the “anonymous sources” are afraid of being black-balled in Hollywood.
In fact, I would have to say that that is pretty clear evidence of at least one lie involved in this story. Even if everything they’ve said is true, they lied to the “anonymous sources” when they said they would protect their anonymity.
October 3rd, 2003 at 6:49 pm
I am concerned that Arnold will go out of his way to appease the Feminazi hags as a result of this last minute bomb.
That said, I am actually beginning to waver a bit and am thinking of flipping from McClintock to Arnold just as one big giant “fuck you” to the LA Times, Bob Mulholland, and the entire California Democratic Party.
October 4th, 2003 at 10:20 am
Xrlq:
Its times like this that I regret already having cancelled the Times for their crappy delivery service.
So when exactly IS the Times going to publish the story they axed five years ago about Davis’s physical abuse of the female members of his staff?
October 4th, 2003 at 11:05 am
We Got a Lot of Nice Links-ah!
A-haw haw haw haw! Let me say up front that you should browse around on any of these blogs if…
October 5th, 2003 at 8:41 am
This morning’s LA Times (Calblog husband swears we need it for the sports) said 1000 people have canceled their subscriptions over the article.