Why are conservatives supporting Ahnold?

[Cain]

Frank Rich in today's NYT writes:

Quote:

[Shwarzenegger's] ideology, though, is way to the left of his party, despite all the lip service he pays to being a fiscal conservative. (Howard Dean is a fiscal conservative, too.) Mr. Schwarzenegger is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-green. He has said that the Clinton impeachment made him "ashamed" to call himself a Republican.

It is hilarious to watch conservatives — the same conservatives who often decry phony Hollywood liberals and their followers — betray their own inviolate principles to bask in Arnold's hulking movie-star aura so that they might possibly gain a nominal Republican victory in the bargain. Even the 1977 Oui magazine interview in which Mr. Schwarzenegger bragged about participating in orgies — not to mention his repeated admissions of drug use — can't frighten them away.

Arnold may have ducked questions about affirmative action, but that hasn't stopped Fox's star-struck Sean Hannity from gushing that he's "as forthright as any politician I've ever interviewed in my life." As for the Oui confessional, Bill O'Reilly said: "So what? He's a new guy." Rush Limbaugh at first questioned Mr. Schwarzenegger's conservative bona fides, but of late has been hedging, praising Arnold for "the charisma, the star power, the stage presence . . . the likability, the personality" and saying that he never meant to imply that he "is not worthy." No less a religious conservative than Pat Robertson came out for La-La-Land's pro-gay, pro-choice Republican as well: "I'm a body-builder. . . . So I think the weight lifters of the world need to unite."

Ann Coulter has a term for conservatives who wimp out like this — "girly boys." But she's gone all girly herself over Arnold, telling Larry King that "I'm impressed enough that he's in Hollywood, he's married to a Kennedy and he still calls himself a Republican — that's good enough for me." Perhaps. Her friend, Bill Maher, has taken a somewhat darker view of these unlikely political conversions. "If his father wasn't a Nazi," he has said of Arnold, "he wouldn't have any credibility with conservatives at all."

The article, titled "Top Gun versus Total Recall" compares the Hollywood images of Bush and Ahnold and is worth reading. Maher's quip aside, I'm curious as to how conservatives, ordinarily uncompromising in their rhetoric, can fully support this guy. The Daily Howler has excerpts and commentary from Arnold's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091203.shtml

I think it has to do with blind party loyalty and an obession with winning. Republicans stole the election in the 2000, they're gerrymandering six years early in Austin, and now they're trying to snatch California by any means neccesary (which translates into supporting the Terminator's candidacy).

Paul Krugman in an article in the NYT Magazine titled "Tax Cut Con" says the Republican party has been captivated by the single issue of lower taxes. Shwarzenegger resolutely opposes raising taxes of course.

[Sundog]

Well, that and the fact that the national party has an immense amount of political capital tied up in this coup-attempt-disguised-as-a-recall. They'd vote for a yellow dog if they thought it would get them the governorship. Savor the irony.

Is it time to coin the phrase "Yellow-dog Republicans"? They seem to be the ones who'll support any warm body on their side of the aisle these days.

[DaChew]

I don't know any conservatives who "fully support this guy." Every conservative that I've talked to has basically said that the choice is between a racist, Bustamante, and someone who calls himself a Republican but is only sort of one. Davis is going to be recalled (in spite of today's decision by the 9th.) and the actual Republican doesn't have a chance.

As for the 2000 election, it's over. There is no evidence to support the claim that Republicans stole anything. Also, this recall is fully within the law of the constitution of California. Don't like it? Change it. There are mechanisms to change the law available to those outraged by the huge number of signatures on the recall petition.

[Clancie]

I haven't seen Arnold's supporters offer any list of reasons why he would be a good governor for California or why he deserves to win.

My guess is most supporters are hoping he'll be a figurehead like Reagan and that others around him who are more conservative will be able to put through the Republican agenda for the state, piggybacking on Arnold's charisma.

[nightwind]

He is a Republican. The conservatives are not going to be real concerned about what his stances are on issues of abortion, guns, etc.

It's just like with Bush. It would not matter if he led us into World War III, or attacked Switzerland, or legalized heroin for youth. Some people will vote for him because he is a Republican!

He is the front runner for the Republicans and the only chance they have of getting a Republican governor. Do you really think these conservatives would back a democrat? Ha! They just really have no choice. If they were against him, they would demonize him for all his womanizing, his stance on abortion, guns, etc. But you can see what is happening.

Conservatives it seems to me though have always been the biggest bunch of hypocrites that exist. They will say whatever they need to at the time.

I think Arnold probably might not be a bad choice, although I believe he will have a tough time winning.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie
I haven't seen Arnold's supporters offer any list of reasons why he would be a good governor for California or why he deserves to win.

My guess is most supporters are hoping he'll be a figurehead like Reagan and that others around him who are more conservative will be able to put through the Republican agenda for the state, piggybacking on Arnold's charisma.

His early affiliation with Warren Buffet would run counter to that; you will recall Buffet stating a few weeks ago that property taxes should be increased. This was Buffet's opinion, not Arnold's, but indicates that he may not surround himself with ultra-conservatives like Dubya did.

[Clancie]

Quote:

Posted by Arctic Penguin

His early affiliation with Warren Buffet would run counter to that; you will recall Buffet stating a few weeks ago that property taxes should be increased. This was Buffet's opinion, not Arnold's, but indicates that he may not surround himself with ultra-conservatives like Dubya did.

Think so? To me, that seemed a total embarrassment to Arnold that really underscored his lack of familiarity with economics (important to California with a $38 billion deficit) and with Buffet--at least as any thing other than a famous investor, and possibly a personal friend.

He tried to get some cache from associating himself with Buffet. But as soon as Buffet spoke on policy the Schwartzenegger campaign couldn't distance themselves from him any faster.

So I think, like everything else I've seen from him, Buffet was just brought on as a prop in an ongoing "show"--but this time real life got in the way and the "show" backfired on him.

I still haven't seen him deliver any speech with a single clear statement addressing any of California's problems and how he plans to solve them.

[corplinx]

New York mayor put it best "there isnt a democrat or republican way to pick up garbage" when asked about not being an ideological conservative.

In other words, if Arnold keeps spending in line and the trains running on time, he is already two steps ahead of Davis.

[Clancie]

Arnold was on Oprah with Maria. Did anyone see it? I saw some clips on CNN.

So...he can't give a genuine press conference or make the Republican county rounds in the state, but at least he had time for "Oprah". (Polls show he has a problem with the gender gap).

Anyway, he was there, cute as a puppy. In fact, he mentioned it himself, saying about running for governor (paraphrased, but close): "It's a lot of fun. I have something new to look forward to every day. I feel just like a puppy and I'm having such a great time." (There's not an emoticon for my response to this....this will have to do ).

When asked by the gushy and supportive Oprah about the "Oui" article, he said (paraphrased) "Those were things I said when we were trying to get people interested in Pumping Iron. I said all kinds of things back then. I even said that pumping was better than coming." Whereupon Maria cutely covered his mouth with her hand and said, laughing, "Oh, my mother's watching."



Like he's never talked like that before. The whole thing seemed so incredibly contrived.

And I'm still waiting for his ideas and his plan about how to help California.

[peptoabysmal]

Shwarzenegger is more likely to win the election that McClintock. I personally think McClintock would be a better man, but he's too conservative. California just isn't ready for a conservative Republican.

If the recall goes through, and I believe it will, that leaves you with two real choices Bustamante, a man who can't even manage his own financial affairs and has questionable dealings with Indian gaming, the latino underworld, and on and on. Shwarzenegger definately can't do any worse that Davis, I don't think anyone could be that bad, except maybe Bustamante (who is owned by the same interests as Davis). They call Bustamante Davis' "mini me" around these parts.

Arnold was a millionaire before he became a movie star. He is really the only hope for California Republicans right now. The Republican party in California keeps making this mistake of putting forth a candidate who is just to conservative to win in California. This is a liberal "yellow dog" Democrat state.

My own family is part of these "yellow dog" Democrats. The other day, at a family gathering I was almost exiled from the family for saying I was going to vote for Arnold. I have just had enough of the Democrat's bungling in California (and the nation) - enough is enough.

[Crossbow]

Are conservatives supporting Arnold S.?

I recall how he stumped for Ronald Reagan, George Bush (the elder), donated serious money to Republicans, etc. but I have not seen many come out in support of him.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow
Are conservatives supporting Arnold S.?

I recall how he stumped for Ronald Reagan, George Bush (the elder), donated serious money to Republicans, etc. but I have not seen many come out in support of him.

There is one radio talk show host, Mark Williams, who is saying to vote for Arnold, for similar reasons to what I mention. The rest of them are saying McClintock is the better choice.

It's simple math, if the Republican vote is split between Ahnold and McClintock, Bustamante will win (providing the recall goes through).

California just isn't ready for a conservative like McClintock. This is the mistake Republicans in California keep making, putting forth a very conservative candidate in a state dominated by liberal Democrats.

[Tricky]

Just saw this on the "Community" forum.

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie
Not sure where to post this, but "Community" seemed better than the other choices...Politics, Movies, or Humor.....
Schwartzenegger on "Larry King Live" tonight

[Luke T.]

It is a choice of the lesser of two evils. What Conservatives I have heard express an opinion have said things along the lines of "I'd rather see McClintock elected but he doesn't have a chance, so Arnold is the only way to go."

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is a choice of the lesser of two evils. What Conservatives I have heard express an opinion have said things along the lines of "I'd rather see McClintock elected but he doesn't have a chance, so Arnold is the only way to go."

Or they could vote NO on the recall because it was a stupid idea that created a circus of lame candidates, and wait until a real candidate shows up for the scheduled election!

Nah, that won't happen.


The problem with McClintock's electability is the fact that a lot of his support comes from the relious folk, who won't come out for Arnie if he's pro-choice.

So if McClintock drops out, those votes don't automatically go to Arnold. Some of those folks just won't go to the polls.



BTW, I wanted Riordan in the last election, and I wanted Uberroth as the best candidate for the recall. Well, that was until Uberroth gave the lamest possible answer during the debate as to how he'd fix the budget.

But I still think this recall is lame lame lame. What a joke.

[SRW]

The Conservatives don't make up a large part of the republican party, the majority are more middle of the road. Given the choice of anyone or Davis anyone looks pretty good.

I'd call Davis a weasel but why insult such a fine animal. If the voters in California had known that the budget deficit was 34 billion before the election then Davis would have been kicked out.

Davis said he did not know how big the deficit was prior to the election, which makes him the most incompetent governor we have ever had. Or as I believe he did know which makes him and incompetent and dishonest.

Davis should have done the honorable thing and resigned when it was evident that this recall was going to happen. He is responsible for much of the mess California is in and should step down.

[American]

I was completely against him in principle.... until I heard, "TALK TO THA HAND!" I love that!

[Pyrrho]

Why shouldn't they support Arnold? If he wins the election, they'll be able to boss him any way they want. The man has no political experience; he seems to think that all he has to do is to hire the right people to do the job. That ain't how politics works in this country. Doesn't matter how left of center he is. If he wants anything done, he's going to have to "pay the piper".

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon

The problem with McClintock's electability is the fact that a lot of his support comes from the relious folk, who won't come out for Arnie if he's pro-choice.

So if McClintock drops out, those votes don't automatically go to Arnold. Some of those folks just won't go to the polls.

Which makes Bustamecha (I coined that, feel free to use it) much more likely to win.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


Which makes Bustamecha (I coined that, feel free to use it) much more likely to win.

Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Why shouldn't they support Arnold? If he wins the election, they'll be able to boss him any way they want. The man has no political experience; he seems to think that all he has to do is to hire the right people to do the job. That ain't how politics works in this country. Doesn't matter how left of center he is. If he wants anything done, he's going to have to "pay the piper".

I just don't buy the political experience argument anymore. There are some very experienced politicians making a very fine mess of things.

I think Arnold will have the celebrity clout to be able to bring together the divided state legislature in a way that any of the other candidates could not. It is going to take a bi-partisan effort to get California out of the hole that Davis dug it into.

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first.

So I see. Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it.
Mecha as in the movie A.I.?

[Kodiak]

Because he is to the right of the rest of the left-coasters running.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sundog
Well, that and the fact that the national party has an immense amount of political capital tied up in this coup-attempt-disguised-as-a-recall.

Who ever said liberals love constitutional government??

"The will of the people be damned if it lawfully deposes an incompetent liberal Democrat", right guys?

No wonder the dems have an ass for a mascot...

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


Dang! I just did a Google search, and "Bustamecha" is all over the place! Guess it was too obvious a coin for me to be the first.

Is that all the opposition can do to insult democratic candidates?

"Gore is a robot."
"Davis is a robot."
"Bustamante is a robot"


You know, someone should really wack the republican robot who writes this stuff, as his speech synthisizer is stuck.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it.
Mecha as in the movie A.I.?

The word Mecha existed long before that crummy movie.

(Think: Japan)

[SRW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon



Is that all the opposition can do to insult democratic candidates?

"Gore is a robot."
"Davis is a robot."
"Bustamante is a robot"


You know, someone should really wack the republican robot who writes this stuff, as his speech synthisizer is stuck.

Well that is rich the republicans insulting the democrats. All I have heard for the democratic side is how bad the republicans are. I have not heard anyone defending Davis. Even Finstien cannot bring her self to say that Davis has done a good job. All she says is the republicans are tring to steal the election. Never mind that it's being done according to law and is entirely proper.

My favorite one is blaming Bush for the California energy chrisis. Davis was in charge and was supposed to be looking out for my interests. He blew it. It does not matter who Enroned him he was not doing his job.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


Who ever said liberals love constitutional government??

"The will of the people be damned if it lawfully deposes an incompetent liberal Democrat", right guys?

Yes, the will of the 897,158 people required by the law to recall the Governor. To be safe, Issa & crew got 300,000 or so extras.

So yes, the will of about 15% of the voters has been served. We'll see what the majority has to say on election day.


And yes, we whine about this.

Just like the right is whining and wailing about the 9th Circuit's ruling.

Who said the Right loves constitutional government?




Oh yeah, nobody.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by SRW

He blew it. It does not matter who Enroned him he was not doing his job.

Yeah, amazing how he made weekly appeals to the FERC to investigate allegations of price fixing, and impose caps and weekly they turned down the State of California's request. Finally, a year later, the FERC DID apply a cap, and the price-gouging subsided.


Here's an article from the Washington Post:


Davis Lacked Legal Ability to Solve Energy Crisis

Quote:

When power shortages began in the summer of 2000 and wholesale power prices tripled, Davis
immediately accused generators of gouging electricity customers. State regulators cited indications of
price manipulation and deliberate withholding of power supplies by generators. In response, the
governor demanded that FERC impose price ceilings on generators' prices.

His pleas went unanswered for more than a year.



.....It took another year before Davis could say "I told you so" about the energy companies. The
disclosure of Enron Corp.'s "Death Star" memos in May 2001 exposed strategies that Enron and
others used to manipulate power prices and reap profits from the crisis. "The price gouging abounded,"
FERC Commissioner William L. Massey concluded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Aug23.html

[SRW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon



Yeah, amazing how he made weekly appeals to the FERC to investigate allegations of price fixing, and impose caps and weekly they turned down the State of California's request. Finally, a year later, the FERC DID apply a cap, and the price-gouging subsided.


Here's an article from the Washington Post:


Davis Lacked Legal Ability to Solve Energy Crisis




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Aug23.html

From the article you posted

______________________________

But Davis was the state's leader with the ultimate political responsibility for handling the crisis.

______________________________



Davis did not lead he reacted and reacted poorly.

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon


Yes, the will of the 897,158 people required by the law to recall the Governor. To be safe, Issa & crew got 300,000 or so extras.

So yes, the will of about 15% of the voters has been served. We'll see what the majority has to say on election day.

And yes, we whine about this.

Just like the right is whining and wailing about the 9th Circuit's ruling.

No, the will of the State of California as represented by its legislature and voting citizenry when they added the recall stipulation to the California Constitution.

The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Courts ruling to block the recall. The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by SRW



From the article you posted

______________________________

But Davis was the state's leader with the ultimate political responsibility for handling the crisis.

______________________________

Quoted out of context. And that's not a representative quote the way you're using it.

You completely skewed the meaning of the quote above. That quote when put in context doesn't say he was to blame for the crisis, but rather he IS BEING blamed for the crisis.


In fact, the REAL meaning of the quote when read in context is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you make it to be.

Do you really have to be that intellectually dishonest to make your point?


The article states that David did EVERYTHING he was legally empowered to do. It says there was no way for him to have averted the crisis. It further says that he was right all along about price gouging, and that the FERC finally did what he was pleading with them to do, and THAT'S what stopped the crisis.

But your point of view is what, exactly? That he's a demmycrat, and when a demmycrat is in power during the crisis, he's out?

Oh, and if so, why didn't the voters think so in the general election?

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


The right isn't "whining" about the 9th Circuit Courts ruling to block the recall.

BZZZTT... Let's at least be honest in the terms here. The 9th Circuit isn't blocking the recall, they're postponing the election. You're a better arguer than that.

Quote:

The rule of law simply contradicts the 9th Circuits ruling as will be shown when either a specially convened judicial board or the US Supreme Court overrules them.

And how would you have decided this, in light of Common Cause v. Jones? Don't you see the coming train wreck when the margin of error on punch cards is likely to be larger than the margin of victory?

Isn't it very very very likely that whoever loses this election will seek to have it decertified exactly BECAUSE of Common Cause v. Jones?

How do you get around the equal protection arguments in this case? How is this not a violation of Equal Protection as decided in Bush v. Gore?

What, it's a violation of equal protection when a Republican stands to lose a recount, but not when a simple postponement would ensure that the standards adjudicated in Common Cause v. Jones are met?

[SRW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon


Quoted out of context. And that's not a representative quote the way you're using it.

You completely skewed the meaning of the quote above. That quote when put in context doesn't say he was to blame for the crisis, but rather he IS BEING blamed for the crisis.


In fact, the REAL meaning of the quote when read in context is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you make it to be.

Do you really have to be that intellectually dishonest to make your point?


The article states that David did EVERYTHING he was legally empowered to do. It says there was no way for him to have averted the crisis. It further says that he was right all along about price gouging, and that the FERC finally did what he was pleading with them to do, and THAT'S what stopped the crisis.

But your point of view is what, exactly? That he's a demmycrat, and when a demmycrat is in power during the crisis, he's out?

Oh, and if so, why didn't the voters think so in the general election?

Yes it said he did what he could could legally do but the bottom line is he was politically responsible. He is a Governor of this state
or does the buck always stop some where else when a democrat is in power. If instead of his ineffectual pleading with the FERC, why didn't he go to the person who appointed them?

So like I said find someone else to blame or criticize the republicans but still no reasons why Davis should be Governor

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by SRW
If instead of his ineffectual pleading with the FERC, why didn't he go to the person who appointed them?

You mean Clinton? He wasn't in office!


But when Bush appointed a new head, HE installed the cap.


(See, I can be forthright when Bush does something good.)

[Kodiak]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon
BZZZTT... Let's at least be honest in the terms here. The 9th Circuit isn't blocking the recall, they're postponing the election. You're a better arguer than that.

And how would you have decided this, in light of Common Cause v. Jones? Don't you see the coming train wreck when the margin of error on punch cards is likely to be larger than the margin of victory?

Isn't it very very very likely that whoever loses this election will seek to have it decertified exactly BECAUSE of Common Cause v. Jones?

How do you get around the equal protection arguments in this case? How is this not a violation of Equal Protection as decided in Bush v. Gore?

What, it's a violation of equal protection when a Republican stands to lose a recount, but not when a simple postponement would ensure that the standards adjudicated in Common Cause v. Jones are met?

Sure, fine. "Postponing the election" - in violation of state law.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 13. Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.

SEC. 14. (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to file signed petitions.

(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by
electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the
office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
(c) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of
the signatures certified to that office.

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall election.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

SEC. 16. The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and
certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall
election.

SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is
initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the
Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively.

SEC. 18. A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by
the State for the officer's recall election expenses legally and
personally incurred. Another recall may not be initiated against the officer until six months after the election.

SEC. 19. The Legislature shall provide for recall of local
officers. This section does not affect counties and cities whose
charters provide for recall.

California has had since the 2000 election to change the voting methods of those districts still using punch cards, but obviously didn't consider it a problem.

[SRW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon


You mean Clinton? He wasn't in office!


But when Bush appointed a new head, HE installed the cap.


(See, I can be forthright when Bush does something good.)

Clinton was in office in the summer of 2000, and no I do not blame Clinton for this mess.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sure, fine. "Postponing the election" - in violation of state law.

And the 9th Circuit ruled that holding it in October would be in violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection.

That trumps the ol California state law any day of the week!

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by SRW


Clinton was in office in the summer of 2000, and no I do not blame Clinton for this mess.

So what would you have done in summer 2000, were you Governor? What steps would you have taken?

Blame Clinton? Yell and scream louder to the FERC?

Now we can see in hindsight that Davis was right, and the market WAS being manipulated, but how much evidence did he have of that in Summer 2000?

What would you have done differently? Don't say "be a better leader". Give us actual things you would have done, and remember, you have to find a way to do it within the scope of the powers of the Office of the Governor.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
California has had since the 2000 election to change the voting methods of those districts still using punch cards, but obviously didn't consider it a problem.

What do you mean? Yes, it was considered a problem. That problem was addressed in Common Cause v. Jones. They were required to retire their machines by next March.


http://www.commoncause.org/states/ca...punchcard.html

Quote:

The ruling was made February 12, 2002 in Los Angeles by United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Common Cause vs. Jones. This is the first post-Bush v. Gore ruling to require that obsolete voting systems be retired in time for
the 2004 election.

Subsequent to that ruling, Californians passed the Voting Modernaization Bond Act of 2002, which allocated $200 million to upgrade voting systems, and established a Voting Modernization Board to carry out this task.


You say Californians obviously didn't consider this a problem. I can't see how you can say that. I think the facts show that we DID consider it a problem.




The counties involved couldn't throw out old voting machines and buy new ones in absense of an election. The budgets for these changes are allocated to line up with the presidential primaries in 2004. The FUNDING AND BONDS have to line up. They have to train thousands of volunteers in the new systems, this kind of thing can't be suddenly done within 80 days.

Can they even get the tens of thousands of machines on that short of notice? They have a hard enough time getting all the materials ready for this crazy huge ballot as it is, the biggest ballot in California history.

We're not even going to have the normal number of polling places for this special election, because they can't even get that together in time.