Schwarzenegger no longer worthy--(2nd CA. newspaper rescinds endorse.)

http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11305~1676505,00.html

Schwarzenegger no longer worthy

GIVEN the accusations of sexual abuse leveled against Arnold Schwarzenegger by six women and his disingenuous admission to such behavior, we strongly reconfirm that our readers vote "no" on the recall, but can no longer recommend they cast their 'if-not-Davis-then' vote for Schwarzenegger.

As stated in our initial recommendation last week, "none of the ... candidates still in the race fit our ideal criteria for governor." Although deeply divided on the second part of the ballot question, the ANG Newspapers editorial board initially recommended voting for Mr. Schwarzenegger because of his perceived leadership ability and blend of moderate social and conservative fiscal stands.


Although allegations of his abusive and disrespectful behavior toward women had surfaced earlier, the latest revelations reported in the Los Angeles Times and Schwarzenegger's convenient, but seemingly insincere admission that "I have behaved badly sometimes," alienates a significant proportion of the state's population, male and female.

MORE

I worry that too many absentee ballots have been cast for this to make much of a difference (although I can and will HOPE...)

I'm doubtful that having a sexual appetite is a loser in CA and even more surprised that some papers think so. There are reasons to not endorse Arnold but having sex doesn't seem to me to one of them.

It's about sexual harassment. There's a difference, you know.

comparing Arnold to Clinton, flogging the blog.

I had no idea that grabbing a stranger's breast, or putting your hand into a stranger's crotch counted as "sex." Especially when the stranger is furious and the perpetrator is laughing.

Most people would classify that under "sexual assault." Which is definately something other than "sex."

Kewl!

...want that to happen is "having a sexual appetite"??? Trying to take someone's clothes off in an elevator who does not want that to happen is "having a sexual appetite"???

Arnold groped eleven women that have had the courage to come forward and tell their stories. All but four have been willing to put their names before the public. How many more are out there?

Two other names have surfaced in Britain, and they have also been willing to disclose their names.

Newsflash for you, bud...Arnold's behavior qualifies as sexual assault in California, and in quite a few other states.

Didn't we just go through this a few years ago? Don't we now want some proof before making the headlines? Are we going to repeat this crap ad nauseam?

by Arnold so that there is no doubt of their veracity...Why are you on Arnold's side?....Can you not recognize sexual aggression?

Have you seen the video of Arnie's appearance on the British talk show "Breakfest in Bed" or whatever it was called, where he groped the female host on live television?

I'm sure somebody here will be happy to provide you the link. Take a look at it and then we'll talk "crap."

maybe a lot of women in this country should initiate a groping day. Just walk up to a man and grab his balls -- a hands on educational approach.

Is that what it would take to convince men that being grabbed anywhere for any reason by any uninvited person is assault, plain and simple?

Oh well.

Great that the paper rescinded it's endorsement of Arnold.

Our out of calif local news reported the Oakland Tribune's retraction was because of "bad behavior". WTF? Farting at the supper table is bad behavior. But at least it's good for a laugh (the 1st couple of times)

dude, you are WAY out of the loop! (good grief....)

But the charges were without proof. Same here.

making up the shit about Clinton. Ahnold admitted that he commited sexual assualt.

Speaking as someone who has been treated in a similar manner by a stanger, I can assure you that I didn't feel "sexy" afterwards. In fact, the only fantasies I had about the guy later involved cutting off his privates and stuffing them into a disposal! :grr:

Clinton's history dealt with CONSENSUAL sex.

And what the fuck does Clinton have to do with this anyway?

Arnie's history shows a clear pattern of NON-CONSENSUAL sexual ASSAULTS - with plenty of supporting corroborating detail to back it up.

He says he did not know they were in bad taste. To walk up to a woman and put your hands up her dress and grab her butt and say you did not know that it was in bad taste is really stupid. If you want to argue about accuasations and things that have not been admitted to as fact, even by Arnold, try the one about his behavior change when his wife was on the set. If he did not know he was being a pig why the behavior change? Maybe he knew that his wife would not like the idea of him doing that so he did not do it in front of her? Let me ask you this, if he does this only when his wife is not present because she does not approve of it, why is he being so disrespectful of his wife? Does he not take his marraige seriously? He is 50 something years old!!! Child molesters and rapist know it is wrong, but they do it anyway. Maybe they don't understand why it is wrong but they know if they are caught there will be punishment. If he can not learn this, I guess this makes him a moron.

He admits to being a sexual harrassing individual

He disrespects his wife

He is a moran

I am alerting your post.

Let's go back to good old fashioned "probable cause" and investigate these charges, which the candidate seems to have admitted.

Equating this case with consensual sex, as in the case of Clinton's stupid decisions, is to ignore important material differences between willing and unwilling. Don't you agree that that is important?

A sexual appetite?? How deliberately insulting.

Here's a snip from the article, in case you didn't read it.

It indicates a pattern of recurring abuse and boorish behavior that in different circumstances could have led to assault charges. By no stretch of the imagination can his groping and grabbing on "rowdy movie sets" be dismissed as an isolated incident.

This isn't about consensual sex or making a discrete pass at someone. It's about UNWELCOME grabbing and groping, assaulting, molesting, and humiliating women.

Very disturbing to see you minimize this to the level of a normal sexual appetite. There's something really fucked with that.

I can't believe there are so many that can't grasp this. Men, you cannot stick your tongue down a woman's throat and call it fun and games. Or stick your hand up her skirt or pull her down on furniture or grab her boob. If you do that, it's a crime.

I remember a couple of years ago a kid I know was driving around with friends in his trunk. I mentioned it to my daughter, you know, 'things I didn't think I had to tell my kids'.

Apparently some men need to be told they can't sexually assault women. Something else I wouldn't have thought needed to be said.

(I know it's a tiny number, you guys know if you aren't in the group)

What in heavens name are you talking about? This has nothing to do with having sex. Clinton had sex, Arnie is a serial assualter. He grabs, humiliates and molests women against their will.

The outrage that sane people feel has nothing to do with having sex.
I sure hope that you dashed off that comment in a thoughtless moment, because forcing oneself upon another is not "having sex."

with normal sexual relations is beyond belief! Here's a big :thumbsdown: to you and others having the same mindset.

From your posted article:

"the ANG Newspapers editorial board initially recommended voting for Mr. Schwarzenegger because of his perceived leadership ability and blend of moderate social and conservative fiscal stands."

Looks as if they recognize how STOOPID they look for endorsing him and are merely trying to correct their own image, I think.

"Perceived leadership ability!" Omigod! They insult their readership, expecting ANYONE to buy that rot!

In the end, we find ourselves agreeing with Sen. Dianne Feinstein vote "no" on the recall and abstain on a replacement. That sentences us to three more years of Gray Davis, but it is -- as voters concluded last November -- better than the alternatives.

will make a hugh difference. I think that this could help - I have a little hope (which I haven't had until now).

that's what i'm seeing in the davis ads here in sacramento. no on the recall, and that's it. davis has totally disassociated from bustamante.

Voting no on the recall is fine. But NEVER abstain from voting on a replacement. If you do, you are handing the decision on a possible replacement to those who vote yes on the recall.

of voting for Ahnold - so that's better than nothing. Those supporting Ahnold are likely to choose another Repub candidate anyway, don't you think?

On the peninsula between SF and San Jose.

My Aunt and Uncle live there.

but the Fundamentalists think Arnie is terrific, great family man, according to Orrin Hatch, which only reinforces my long-held view that there is nothing "family" about the Christian Coalition.

Arnold should drop out and save himself the embarrassment. Even if he were to be elected governor, these actions of his will make it difficult for anyone to look at him with respect. The Hitler support, combined with his German accent, makes him a rude caricature of himself.


Cher

he has become a caricature of himself. Lately, I noticed that when I see him on the news, I start humming Mel Brooks' "Springtime for Hitler" - I can't help it. It immediately pops into my head! B-)

The sexual harassment and the admiration of Hitler are bad enough.

But they're taking away from a big economic issue too:

CA is broke. And Arnie is probably very cozy with Kenny Lay from Enron, judging by the meetings he had with him.

CA stands a good chance of getting back the 9 billion dollars Enron stole from them during the fabricated energy crisis. IF Arnold doesn't elected.

If Arnold is elected, CA can kiss that 9 billion goodbye for good.

His portfolio will be devastated. This must be why the other financial gurus support his candidacy. Arnold should disclose his financial interests now.

I guess they didn't diversify enough! Some of these companies will be going bankrupt when Bustamente wins his lawsuit. With a democratic governor in office, they will have to return the stolen money to California. Also, there is the matter of punitive damages in fraud cases. 9 billion is just the specials.

him in the first place, that is a fairly liberal and Democratic area. The fact that they endorsed him to begin with is not good, at least they had the balls to withdraw the endorsement but it is kind of late in the game to catch up now.

I am now long of tooth (and short a few neurons), but I cannot remember a time when newspapers would back off their endorsements of a candidate.

Of course, I am so old that I remember when papers would research a candidate before endorsing him/her/it/them.

Anybody else got enough winters on them to help me out here?

:dunce:
dbt

I rememeber about 25-30 years ago in Michigan, an incumbent in the state legislature got his daughter to run for office too, somehow necessitating that the incumbent's office should appear by his name on the ballot.

The Detroit Free Press (pre-JOA) then rescinded their endorsement at that cheap maneuver.

Sorry for the sketchiness of the details.

it is the exact, same withdrawal of endorsement as is printed in the Oakland Tribune. They are both ANG Newspapers. Check it out & you'll see what I mean.