Showing posts with label Schwarzenegger (Arnold). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schwarzenegger (Arnold). Show all posts
June 07, 2009
Der Ahhnold officially jumps into empty pool
A flat tax? Did Howard Jarvis possess his mind? Any Golden State moderate independents thinking of voting for him in 2010, should he run, now stand informed that they, too, would be jumping in an empty pool by so doing.
November 05, 2008
The crystal ball for top Republicans says …
Just as Hillary Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign failure can be reduced to one event – deciding to campaign in Iowa – so McCain’s failure in the general election can largely be reduced to one event.
In this case, Sarah Palin was McCain’s Achilles heel.
And, it’s not just me; 59 percent of Americans, which has to include at least a few Republicans, find her a drag on the ticket.
I don’t think he ever totally got over the petulance he had at being told by Karl Rove that he couldn’t pick Joe Lieberman as his Veep. (And, some “maverick,” eh? If he really were a maverick, he would have told Rove and Steve Schmidt where to get off.)
Another turning point? McCain’s “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” line. But, I think he could have done more to overcome that without the Palin baggage.
That said, what’s ahead for McCain?
He’s a 72-year-old senator whose one signature piece of legislation was passed in the face of massive opposition from senators in his own party. And, for the next two years, he’ll be in a Senate with shrunken GOP membership and, on many issues, an inability to filibuster. On other issues, Harry Reid, assuming he stays as majority leader, is likely to call Republican filibuster bluffs.
If you thought McCain was in danger of melting down during this year’s election, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
He’s up for re-election in 2010, and there’s already plenty of speculation popular Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who has shown she can stand up to the GOP, will run for his seat.
I actually hope he doesn’t retire in 2010; I’d like to see him get another beatdown.
Meanwhile, here’s what happens to some other top Republicans.
Sarah Palin? Well, her future has taken yet another twist in the last week or so, with Ted Stevens’ conviction followed by his re-election. Assuming his appeals fail and he finally gets the boot from the Senate, she has to be eyeing his seat.
If not? I expect she’ll face both a primary challenge and a three-way general election race for governor in 2010. That’s unless she decides to run for Lisa Murkowski’s Senate seat, in which case she’ll have her head handed back to her in a hat. She may try to run for president in 2012, in which case she’d better have a hat ready for her head again. After that, the Peter principle kicks in and she goes to Fox News.
Meanwhile, Newsweek delivers more of the goods on the horribleness of Campaign Barbie, from the Secret Service seeing her incitements raise the threat level against Obama to just what a clothes horse she really is.
Somehow, I don’t think her and First Dumbass Todd being seen as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast” helps her image unless Alaskans are even more down with political corruption and cynicism than say, Louisiana voters.
Mitt Romney? He’d like to bid to be the “kinder, gentler” Religious Right-focused candidate. But, especially if GOP bloodletting after this convention pushes the part further right, there’s no chance of that. Beyond general reasons, his Mormonism will remain unacceptable to many. On the flip side, the way Mormon money pushed Prop. 8 over the top, he has to be looking at 2012.
Mike Huckabee? He could be the Religious Right front-runner, but I won’t say “should be”; he’ll have to keep himself in the public eye enough in the next four years.
Tim Pawlenty? If re-elected in 2010, he could be the “sensible conservative” alternative. Obama’s victory aside, governors still have many advantages over senators in running for the presidency. (Don’t forget that before Obama, the last Senator-cum-President, Jack Kennedy, had been in the Senate less than a decade.)
Mitch Daniels, re-elected in Indiana, is a possible up-and-comer. He raised taxes there despite protests from Grover Norquist and his ilk.
Rudy Giuliani? He’ll continue to get rich off 9/11 legends of his involvement. At the same time, he misses the game. I think he has to be tempted to run against Patterson for gov in 2010, but only if he has a pretty clear GOP field. With Mike Bloomberg apparently wanting another term as mayor of the Big Apple, one potential opponent is out of the way.
Mike Bloomberg? He’ll be the Hamlet of Gracie Mansion on another third-party bid.
Arnold Schwarzenegger? I’m really not sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t run for re-election. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did and lost. Or won. Or ran for the Senate in 2010 against Dianne Feinstein. She’s going to be 75-plus, and I don’t doubt age will be an issue. That all said, his “No on 8” stance has probably ended what remains of his love affair with the California GOP. I think he could win a primary for the Senate as easily as he could for his current spot, if not more so.
Charlie Crist? If the GOP bloodletting turns out not to make the party into aConstitution Religious Right party writ large, Crist has to be considered a front-runner for the nomination. His dignified, quiet distancing of himself from McCain’s more nutbar attacks on Obama, ACORN, etc., stand him in good stead.
The Republican Party? McCain’s loss will probably be interpreted through the lens of Prop. 8 success in California. That said, a pro-life issue in Colorado lost, so Religious Righters could push the GOP into further trouble if they insist their view is the correct one.
Meanwhile, let the infighting begin.
Outgoing National Republican Senatorial Conference Chairman John Ensign says the GOP needs a bigger social tent, while Grover Norquist and Tony Perkins are gathering a meeting of ’wingers tomorrow.
I think the choice to head the RNC in the future will be a “tell.”
LATER – some leading Democrats.
In this case, Sarah Palin was McCain’s Achilles heel.
And, it’s not just me; 59 percent of Americans, which has to include at least a few Republicans, find her a drag on the ticket.
I don’t think he ever totally got over the petulance he had at being told by Karl Rove that he couldn’t pick Joe Lieberman as his Veep. (And, some “maverick,” eh? If he really were a maverick, he would have told Rove and Steve Schmidt where to get off.)
Another turning point? McCain’s “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” line. But, I think he could have done more to overcome that without the Palin baggage.
That said, what’s ahead for McCain?
He’s a 72-year-old senator whose one signature piece of legislation was passed in the face of massive opposition from senators in his own party. And, for the next two years, he’ll be in a Senate with shrunken GOP membership and, on many issues, an inability to filibuster. On other issues, Harry Reid, assuming he stays as majority leader, is likely to call Republican filibuster bluffs.
If you thought McCain was in danger of melting down during this year’s election, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
He’s up for re-election in 2010, and there’s already plenty of speculation popular Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who has shown she can stand up to the GOP, will run for his seat.
I actually hope he doesn’t retire in 2010; I’d like to see him get another beatdown.
Meanwhile, here’s what happens to some other top Republicans.
Sarah Palin? Well, her future has taken yet another twist in the last week or so, with Ted Stevens’ conviction followed by his re-election. Assuming his appeals fail and he finally gets the boot from the Senate, she has to be eyeing his seat.
If not? I expect she’ll face both a primary challenge and a three-way general election race for governor in 2010. That’s unless she decides to run for Lisa Murkowski’s Senate seat, in which case she’ll have her head handed back to her in a hat. She may try to run for president in 2012, in which case she’d better have a hat ready for her head again. After that, the Peter principle kicks in and she goes to Fox News.
Meanwhile, Newsweek delivers more of the goods on the horribleness of Campaign Barbie, from the Secret Service seeing her incitements raise the threat level against Obama to just what a clothes horse she really is.
Somehow, I don’t think her and First Dumbass Todd being seen as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast” helps her image unless Alaskans are even more down with political corruption and cynicism than say, Louisiana voters.
Mitt Romney? He’d like to bid to be the “kinder, gentler” Religious Right-focused candidate. But, especially if GOP bloodletting after this convention pushes the part further right, there’s no chance of that. Beyond general reasons, his Mormonism will remain unacceptable to many. On the flip side, the way Mormon money pushed Prop. 8 over the top, he has to be looking at 2012.
Mike Huckabee? He could be the Religious Right front-runner, but I won’t say “should be”; he’ll have to keep himself in the public eye enough in the next four years.
Tim Pawlenty? If re-elected in 2010, he could be the “sensible conservative” alternative. Obama’s victory aside, governors still have many advantages over senators in running for the presidency. (Don’t forget that before Obama, the last Senator-cum-President, Jack Kennedy, had been in the Senate less than a decade.)
Mitch Daniels, re-elected in Indiana, is a possible up-and-comer. He raised taxes there despite protests from Grover Norquist and his ilk.
Rudy Giuliani? He’ll continue to get rich off 9/11 legends of his involvement. At the same time, he misses the game. I think he has to be tempted to run against Patterson for gov in 2010, but only if he has a pretty clear GOP field. With Mike Bloomberg apparently wanting another term as mayor of the Big Apple, one potential opponent is out of the way.
Mike Bloomberg? He’ll be the Hamlet of Gracie Mansion on another third-party bid.
Arnold Schwarzenegger? I’m really not sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t run for re-election. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did and lost. Or won. Or ran for the Senate in 2010 against Dianne Feinstein. She’s going to be 75-plus, and I don’t doubt age will be an issue. That all said, his “No on 8” stance has probably ended what remains of his love affair with the California GOP. I think he could win a primary for the Senate as easily as he could for his current spot, if not more so.
Charlie Crist? If the GOP bloodletting turns out not to make the party into a
The Republican Party? McCain’s loss will probably be interpreted through the lens of Prop. 8 success in California. That said, a pro-life issue in Colorado lost, so Religious Righters could push the GOP into further trouble if they insist their view is the correct one.
Meanwhile, let the infighting begin.
Outgoing National Republican Senatorial Conference Chairman John Ensign says the GOP needs a bigger social tent, while Grover Norquist and Tony Perkins are gathering a meeting of ’wingers tomorrow.
I think the choice to head the RNC in the future will be a “tell.”
LATER – some leading Democrats.
September 28, 2008
Der Ahhnold hoist by own and GOP petard?
California state prison guards threaten a recall drive; conservative wing of California GOP considers supporting it.
June 30, 2008
Brokaw goes hardball on ‘Press the Meat’
In his first Sunday as short-term replacement for Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw reportedly baked Arnold Schwarzenegger on the coals:
And, no, that wasn’t a one-off crack; Brokaw kept up the grilling.
I haven’t watched any of the Sunday Morning Soaps™ (c’mon, folks, that’s what they are) for more than a decade. Maybe I’ll tune in on Brokaw.
“When you ran for governor in 2003, you ran as a fiscal conservative who would change the system, who would bring business-like techniques,” Brokaw said. “Now, you are facing a $15-billion deficit here in California. Unemployment is running at about 6.8 percent; you’ve got the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. If you were the CEO of a public company, the board would probably say, ‘It is time to go.’”
And, no, that wasn’t a one-off crack; Brokaw kept up the grilling.
I haven’t watched any of the Sunday Morning Soaps™ (c’mon, folks, that’s what they are) for more than a decade. Maybe I’ll tune in on Brokaw.
June 05, 2008
California officially in drought
Der Governator is blamed by some for not declaring a drought earlier; others blame the federal courts and environmentalists for blocking more water withdrawals from the Sacramento Delta. Doesn’t matter, Californios; after the driest spring in 88 years, you’re definitely and officially in a drought.
And, I’d say, get used to it.
Global warming-associated climate change says the Desert Southwest is going to get drier as well as hotter. That means even less water from the Colorado River and less snowmelt in California’s own rivers from the Sierras.
As for conservation, yes, farmers could do more, but, it’s obviously residents who have to tighten their belts.
The answer is NOT, contra Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and avocado grower Al Stehly, building new reservoirs:
But, with California already billions of dollars in the red, even with Ahhnold using another bond to avoid budget cuts or tax hikes, can California even afford this?
And, if you’ve to less water flowing into rivers, what good does it do to build more reservoirs anyway? Isn’t that almost literally pounding sand down a rathole?
And, I’d say, get used to it.
Global warming-associated climate change says the Desert Southwest is going to get drier as well as hotter. That means even less water from the Colorado River and less snowmelt in California’s own rivers from the Sierras.
As for conservation, yes, farmers could do more, but, it’s obviously residents who have to tighten their belts.The answer is NOT, contra Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and avocado grower Al Stehly, building new reservoirs:
“It's not a water problem; it's a plumbing problem. You can't get it through the delta,” Stehly said. “I don't know what they're doing in Sacramento. They're sitting on their hands.”
Schwarzenegger implied as much yesterday, calling on legislators to approve his proposed $11.7 billion water bond, which would pay for more reservoirs and help restore the delta.
But, with California already billions of dollars in the red, even with Ahhnold using another bond to avoid budget cuts or tax hikes, can California even afford this?
And, if you’ve to less water flowing into rivers, what good does it do to build more reservoirs anyway? Isn’t that almost literally pounding sand down a rathole?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)