Conan the Vulgarian

Conan the Vulgarian
By Susan Faludi
Susan Faludi is the author of "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American
Man" and "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."

October 5, 2003

PORTLAND, Ore. — Three days before The Times published its story
detailing Arnold Schwarzenegger's alleged groping of six women, a
friend of mine who works in the movie industry was sitting in my
kitchen asking the question, "Why doesn't anyone seem to care about
Arnold's reputation for sexual harassment?" She was puzzled and
frustrated. "Everybody in the business knows about it," she said,
noting the several cases that she was privy to, "but it doesn't even
seem to register."

Now that it's made the press, will it matter? Probably not. So late in
the game, the revelations are easily dismissed as last-minute dirty
politics, much the way the eleventh-hour report of George W. Bush's
drunk-driving arrest never got any traction. And with the hours
running down on the preelection clock, Schwarzenegger was quick to
acknowledge that he had "behaved badly sometimes" and to say that what
"I thought then was playful" he now recognized had "offended people."

But who are these people? Who, besides the specific women who had to
endure an unwelcome paw up their shirts and under their skirts, is
offended — and why are so many not offended?

Even before The Times' piece, Schwarzenegger's bad behavior toward
women had made the rounds. Premiere magazine offered chapter and verse
on Schwarzenegger's molesting tendencies two years ago, and the Oui
interview in which he bragged about nailing that babe in a gang bang
has been endlessly recycled. None of it seems to have had an effect on
the very constituency that expressed the most disgust over reports of
Bill Clinton's philandering: American men.

Tarred with the same sexual-harassment brush, Schwarzenegger and
Clinton emerged with mirror-opposite gender gaps. Clinton rode an
ever-larger female gender advantage to election in both campaigns (a
whopping 17-percentage-point gap in 1996), while Schwarzenegger owes
his lead in the polls to a lopsidedly male following, with 45% of men
supporting him in the latest survey, compared with only 36% of women.
Why the difference between the two pols with the wandering eyes?

Given that Schwarzenegger owes his fame to Hollywood, maybe it's only
fitting to find the answer on the silver screen, in Neil LaBute's
acute dissection of American gender pathologies, "In the Company of
Men." The 1997 movie told the story of Chad, the gotta-be-on-top
corporate striver, and the pact he coercively forges with his more
sensitive and flabby co-worker, Howard, to compete for the honors of
seducing and then humiliating a deaf woman.

Howard identifies with the woman's plight and falls for her; Chad,
meantime, goes in for the kill, humiliating both the woman and — maybe
more to the point — Howard. "Never lose control," Chad tells Howard.
"That is the total key to the universe."

Clinton was perceived by men as having lost this control, and worse,
lost it to a series of women. He may have been the aggressor, but as a
seducer he really meant to seduce, thus exposing an almost feminine
sort of desire and vulnerability. For this, he was humiliated, held up
like Howard for ridicule in male eyes. No wonder so many women
empathized with Clinton: He was essentially shamed like a fallen
woman.

Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is Chad the "playful" cad, going
after women, s******ing frat-boy style, for the score. Sex isn't even
the prime object he The women in the Times story were manhandled,
not seduced. There is no warning, no courtship (unless you count such
romantic come-ons as "I'd love to work you out"); the hand darts into
their underclothes like a bolt from the blue, a preemptive strike.
"Did he rape me? No," one woman said, recalling the time
Schwarzenegger allegedly grabbed her breast. "Did he humiliate me? You
bet he did."

Humiliation so often seems to be the theme in these tales of
Schwarzenegger's conquests, humiliation not just of women but —
perhaps even more notably — of the men these women "belong" to. One
woman said she was groped by Schwarzenegger when she went to Gold's
Gym to watch her husband, Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding rival, the
former Mr. Universe Robby Robinson.

"What he did was uncalled for, but I couldn't say nothing," Robinson
said; fear of exile from the bodybuilding business kept him mum. A
similar dynamic was at work in an episode recounted in an earlier
Times story, where Schwarzenegger was said to have used the wife of
Don Peters, another bodybuilding competitor, to shame her — and him.

According to the article, after Schwarzenegger had bedded the woman,
he picked up a phone and, claiming he was dialing his lawyer to
reschedule an appointment, asked her to take the receiver. It turned
out the number he dialed was her husband's, and while she held the
phone, Schwarzenegger yelled into it these words, cleaned up by The
Times' censors: "I just [made love to] her! I just [made love to]
her!" As Tina Turner would say, what's love got to do with it?

A Schwarzenegger spokesman told The Times that the episode with Peters
and his wife was just a case of "locker room humor." Which actually
explains a good deal of Schwarzenegger's appeal to male voters. He
comes out of the testosterone-ruled world of weight rooms and action
movies, where women are the designated observers and adorners, and
where men find their place in the wolf pack through a well-established
ordeal of hazing and humiliation.

The men who don't make it to the top in that world still have the
compensation of identifying with the one man who does, as long as they
don't identify with any of the women, as long as they don't "say
nothing." They still belong to the pack, by virtue of being male.

No matter how much sand gets kicked in their face, they still can
fantasize that one day they, too, like Charles Atlas, will do enough
leg lifts to rise in the ranks. At a time of deep economic and
international insecurity, the easy power of the bully boy is a siren
call to the American male populace, as evidenced by President Bush's
continuing allure to the very men whose interests are least served by
his domestic and foreign policies. The locker room game works as long
as only men get to play, and only as long as they agree to play by
certain rules. One rule is that sensuality is verboten, but aggressive
jocularity is not. Humiliating women in a "playful" way can signal a
powerful rejection of "the feminine" and a powerful reinforcement of
male bonding.

That rejection of the feminine explains why, in the gubernatorial
debate, Schwarzenegger seemed inordinately fixated on shutting down
Arianna Huffington, (whose poll numbers barely registered in the
contest). ). When all that interrupting and haranguing didn't work, he
resorted to a veiled threat of physical humiliation, implied in the
remark, "I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4.' " As much as
Schwarzenegger denied it later, it's hard to imagine what part he had
in mind but the famous one assigned the uppity female robot in
"Terminator 3," whose face he buried in a toilet bowl. And even that
fate he evidently found to be insufficient degradation; as he told
Entertainment Weekly, "I wanted to have something floating in there."

Funny, right? Not to Huffington. "It's a continuum of a lack of
respect," she remarked to me a few days after the debate, "from not
putting a single woman on your economic team, to bullying a woman at a
debate, to treating women in such a humiliating way in the course of
your daily life." Now Huffington is out of the race and we're back in
the all-male locker room of American politics. Indeed,
Schwarzenegger's public drubbing of his female rival may have only
elevated him in that boys-only arena.

Women's anger about rape and harassment is exacerbated by the
knowledge that their attackers are after power, not sex. In American
politics, it's the opposite. Harassment is deemed more acceptable if
it's not about sex but is part of a locker room power dynamic between
the boys. The gender gap is really between those afraid of bullying
and those afraid of intimacy. Women will forgive a politician's lapse
if it at least seems motivated by a susceptibility to desire or
emotion. Men afraid of sensuality will forgive the same act (and
actor) as long as the behavior can be laughed off as winner-take-all
sport.

wrote:
, Schwarzenegger was quick to
acknowledge that he had "behaved badly sometimes" and to say that what
"I thought then was playful" he now recognized had "offended people."

But who are these people? Who, besides the specific women who had to
endure an unwelcome paw up their shirts and under their skirts, is
offended — and why are so many not offended?

Where were the complaints hiding before a few days prior to the
election? At the time, he might have felt "invited", but then found out
he wasn't. I haven't seen any reports of him harassing someone who told
him "no". It is not as black and white issue as some people might
believe. There is often a fine line dividing "being playful" and
"offending people", and this line can also vary among different people.
Not that Arnold didn't do something wrong, just that it is possible that
someone can do something offensive without knowing it.

wrote in message
...

Conan the Vulgarian
By Susan Faludi
Susan Faludi is the author of "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American
Man" and "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."

In case you haven't noticed, this is rec.TRAVEL.air. If you want to talk
politics, there are lots of boards on which to do it.

For now, enjoy your life on my ignore list.

Rich
--
Visit America's Aviation Headquarters:
www.usaviation.com

With all of the anti Arnie stuff you are posting in this user group I only
hope that he does get elected if for no other reason than to **** you off in
much the same way you are ****ing me off with your posts which have nothing
to do with this group.

wrote in message
...

Conan the Vulgarian
By Susan Faludi
Susan Faludi is the author of "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American
Man" and "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."

October 5, 2003

PORTLAND, Ore. - Three days before The Times published its story
detailing Arnold Schwarzenegger's alleged groping of six women, a
friend of mine who works in the movie industry was sitting in my
kitchen asking the question, "Why doesn't anyone seem to care about
Arnold's reputation for sexual harassment?" She was puzzled and
frustrated. "Everybody in the business knows about it," she said,
noting the several cases that she was privy to, "but it doesn't even
seem to register."

Now that it's made the press, will it matter? Probably not. So late in
the game, the revelations are easily dismissed as last-minute dirty
politics, much the way the eleventh-hour report of George W. Bush's
drunk-driving arrest never got any traction. And with the hours
running down on the preelection clock, Schwarzenegger was quick to
acknowledge that he had "behaved badly sometimes" and to say that what
"I thought then was playful" he now recognized had "offended people."

But who are these people? Who, besides the specific women who had to
endure an unwelcome paw up their shirts and under their skirts, is
offended - and why are so many not offended?

Even before The Times' piece, Schwarzenegger's bad behavior toward
women had made the rounds. Premiere magazine offered chapter and verse
on Schwarzenegger's molesting tendencies two years ago, and the Oui
interview in which he bragged about nailing that babe in a gang bang
has been endlessly recycled. None of it seems to have had an effect on
the very constituency that expressed the most disgust over reports of
Bill Clinton's philandering: American men.

Tarred with the same sexual-harassment brush, Schwarzenegger and
Clinton emerged with mirror-opposite gender gaps. Clinton rode an
ever-larger female gender advantage to election in both campaigns (a
whopping 17-percentage-point gap in 1996), while Schwarzenegger owes
his lead in the polls to a lopsidedly male following, with 45% of men
supporting him in the latest survey, compared with only 36% of women.
Why the difference between the two pols with the wandering eyes?

Given that Schwarzenegger owes his fame to Hollywood, maybe it's only
fitting to find the answer on the silver screen, in Neil LaBute's
acute dissection of American gender pathologies, "In the Company of
Men." The 1997 movie told the story of Chad, the gotta-be-on-top
corporate striver, and the pact he coercively forges with his more
sensitive and flabby co-worker, Howard, to compete for the honors of
seducing and then humiliating a deaf woman.

Howard identifies with the woman's plight and falls for her; Chad,
meantime, goes in for the kill, humiliating both the woman and - maybe
more to the point - Howard. "Never lose control," Chad tells Howard.
"That is the total key to the universe."

Clinton was perceived by men as having lost this control, and worse,
lost it to a series of women. He may have been the aggressor, but as a
seducer he really meant to seduce, thus exposing an almost feminine
sort of desire and vulnerability. For this, he was humiliated, held up
like Howard for ridicule in male eyes. No wonder so many women
empathized with Clinton: He was essentially shamed like a fallen
woman.

Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is Chad the "playful" cad, going
after women, s******ing frat-boy style, for the score. Sex isn't even
the prime object he The women in the Times story were manhandled,
not seduced. There is no warning, no courtship (unless you count such
romantic come-ons as "I'd love to work you out"); the hand darts into
their underclothes like a bolt from the blue, a preemptive strike.
"Did he rape me? No," one woman said, recalling the time
Schwarzenegger allegedly grabbed her breast. "Did he humiliate me? You
bet he did."

Humiliation so often seems to be the theme in these tales of
Schwarzenegger's conquests, humiliation not just of women but -
perhaps even more notably - of the men these women "belong" to. One
woman said she was groped by Schwarzenegger when she went to Gold's
Gym to watch her husband, Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding rival, the
former Mr. Universe Robby Robinson.

"What he did was uncalled for, but I couldn't say nothing," Robinson
said; fear of exile from the bodybuilding business kept him mum. A
similar dynamic was at work in an episode recounted in an earlier
Times story, where Schwarzenegger was said to have used the wife of
Don Peters, another bodybuilding competitor, to shame her - and him.

According to the article, after Schwarzenegger had bedded the woman,
he picked up a phone and, claiming he was dialing his lawyer to
reschedule an appointment, asked her to take the receiver. It turned
out the number he dialed was her husband's, and while she held the
phone, Schwarzenegger yelled into it these words, cleaned up by The
Times' censors: "I just [made love to] her! I just [made love to]
her!" As Tina Turner would say, what's love got to do with it?

A Schwarzenegger spokesman told The Times that the episode with Peters
and his wife was just a case of "locker room humor." Which actually
explains a good deal of Schwarzenegger's appeal to male voters. He
comes out of the testosterone-ruled world of weight rooms and action
movies, where women are the designated observers and adorners, and
where men find their place in the wolf pack through a well-established
ordeal of hazing and humiliation.

The men who don't make it to the top in that world still have the
compensation of identifying with the one man who does, as long as they
don't identify with any of the women, as long as they don't "say
nothing." They still belong to the pack, by virtue of being male.

No matter how much sand gets kicked in their face, they still can
fantasize that one day they, too, like Charles Atlas, will do enough
leg lifts to rise in the ranks. At a time of deep economic and
international insecurity, the easy power of the bully boy is a siren
call to the American male populace, as evidenced by President Bush's
continuing allure to the very men whose interests are least served by
his domestic and foreign policies. The locker room game works as long
as only men get to play, and only as long as they agree to play by
certain rules. One rule is that sensuality is verboten, but aggressive
jocularity is not. Humiliating women in a "playful" way can signal a
powerful rejection of "the feminine" and a powerful reinforcement of
male bonding.

That rejection of the feminine explains why, in the gubernatorial
debate, Schwarzenegger seemed inordinately fixated on shutting down
Arianna Huffington, (whose poll numbers barely registered in the
contest). ). When all that interrupting and haranguing didn't work, he
resorted to a veiled threat of physical humiliation, implied in the
remark, "I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4.' " As much as
Schwarzenegger denied it later, it's hard to imagine what part he had
in mind but the famous one assigned the uppity female robot in
"Terminator 3," whose face he buried in a toilet bowl. And even that
fate he evidently found to be insufficient degradation; as he told
Entertainment Weekly, "I wanted to have something floating in there."

Funny, right? Not to Huffington. "It's a continuum of a lack of
respect," she remarked to me a few days after the debate, "from not
putting a single woman on your economic team, to bullying a woman at a
debate, to treating women in such a humiliating way in the course of
your daily life." Now Huffington is out of the race and we're back in
the all-male locker room of American politics. Indeed,
Schwarzenegger's public drubbing of his female rival may have only
elevated him in that boys-only arena.

Women's anger about rape and harassment is exacerbated by the
knowledge that their attackers are after power, not sex. In American
politics, it's the opposite. Harassment is deemed more acceptable if
it's not about sex but is part of a locker room power dynamic between
the boys. The gender gap is really between those afraid of bullying
and those afraid of intimacy. Women will forgive a politician's lapse
if it at least seems motivated by a susceptibility to desire or
emotion. Men afraid of sensuality will forgive the same act (and
actor) as long as the behavior can be laughed off as winner-take-all
sport.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:22:15 GMT, "ITRADE" wrote:




wrote in message
.. .

Conan the Vulgarian
By Susan Faludi
Susan Faludi is the author of "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American
Man" and "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."

In case you haven't noticed, this is rec.TRAVEL.air. If you want to talk
politics, there are lots of boards on which to do it.

For now, enjoy your life on my ignore list.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, boo,hoo.

TRAVELER must be be in tears because you are ignoring him.

Rich

"john" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:22:15 GMT, "ITRADE" wrote:




wrote in message
.. .

Conan the Vulgarian
By Susan Faludi
Susan Faludi is the author of "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American
Man" and "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."

In case you haven't noticed, this is rec.TRAVEL.air. If you want to talk
politics, there are lots of boards on which to do it.

For now, enjoy your life on my ignore list.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, boo,hoo.

TRAVELER must be be in tears because you are ignoring him.

Rich

Well, you can now join him.

Rich
--
Visit America's Aviation Headquarters:
www.usaviation.com

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:42:38 GMT, "ITRADE" wrote:




"john" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:22:15 GMT, "ITRADE" wrote:




wrote in message
.. .

Conan the Vulgarian
By Susan Faludi
Susan Faludi is the author of "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American
Man" and "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women."

In case you haven't noticed, this is rec.TRAVEL.air. If you want to talk
politics, there are lots of boards on which to do it.

For now, enjoy your life on my ignore list.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, boo,hoo.

TRAVELER must be be in tears because you are ignoring him.

Rich

Well, you can now join him.

Rich


Hey, pretty soon "rdadd" will have pruned his list
down to everybody that agrees with him! As he stares
fondly into his mirror while sending messages to --
himself.

(wipes away tears)

Here's one last -- can I call it "prayer"? for the CA election.

The whole world is watching (well, at least 49 other states g)
this White House-sponsored attack on democracy.

===============

Voice4Change
Uniting Our Voices
http://www.voice4change.org

October 7, 2003

Californians Vote Today!!!
Tuesday 07 October 2003

Please forward this email to anyone you think should read it -- this
is once again a very close race and tomorrow every single vote will
count. Also keep in mind that many usual polling places will be closed
this election. You can click here to look up your polling place. And
forward this to your friends so they can look up their polling places
as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Click here to look up your polling place.
http://moveon.org/pac/recall/materials.html
In some counties, regular polling places will be closed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

If you notice any Irregularities, The Committee to Defeat the Recall
has set up a hotline for you to report to:
Call 1-877-321-vote


NO ON RECALL!
NO ON PROP 54!



Seven Reasons Why You Absolutely, Positively MUST Vote on Oct. 7:

1. Your vote matters. If you don't vote, Schwarzenegger becomes your
governor. It's that simple. A poll conducted Wednesday through
Saturday showed support for the recall and Schwarzenegger dropping
fast. This election could be decided by a very small number of votes.
We can win this, but your vote is absolutely necessary.
(http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6935056.htm)

2. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Pete Wilson sequel. Governor Pete Wilson
grew state spending much faster than Gray Davis ever has. Worse, he
championed energy deregulation and in 1996 signed the bill that
deregulated energy in California. Wilson opened the gates to let his
energy pals rob the state blind.


[Traveler comment: Below Arnold being just a front]

And now he and his former team are running Schwarzenegger's campaign
and choosing his policies. Even more troubling: Schwarzenegger seems
to be in bed with the same energy interests as Wilson (See #7). We
want to see Terminator 4, not Wilson 2.

3. We have no idea what Schwarzenegger is going to do with California,
and neither does he. He doesn't have a plan to balance the budget. He
hasn't said what cuts he'll make or what taxes he'll raise. California
needs a real leader, not someone who plays one in the movies. You may
be frustrated with the way things are now -- but if Schwarzenegger had
a plan to make them better, don't you think he would have told us
about it?

4. He lied about taking money from special interests. The night he
announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show he told us, "As you know,
I don't need to take money from anyone. I have plenty of money
myself." He then turned right around and accepted over $10 million not
from "special" interests, but rather, as he explained it, "business
and individuals,absolutely. They're powerful interests who control
things."
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...chwarzdebates/)

5. Arnold Schwarzenegger might belong on the sex offender registry,
but not in the governor's mansion. So far 15 credible women have come
forward with stories of being physically assaulted by this man -- some
only a few years ago. He has not denied some of the stories (in fact,
he said "where there's smoke, there's fire"). He has tried to chalk
his mistakes up to "rowdiness." But these incidents constitute a
string of crimes that would land anyone except a multi-millionaire
actor in jail and on the sex offender registry.
(http://www.rsicopyright.com/ics/fulf...202:4651&icl=3.
5555.697170-43635)

6. The Nazi stuff is serious. Who cares how long ago it was that
Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he wanted to have an experience "like
Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium, and have all those people scream at
you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say." That's
scary! And now nuns are being roughed up at Schwarzenegger rallies. A
film maker who worked closely with Schwarzenegger in the '70s says he
saw him playing "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his
collection at home."

At his
1986 ? wedding Schwarzenegger toasted a confirmed Nazi war criminal,
Kurt Waldheim, saying "My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's
name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy,
but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt." Where
there's smoke, there's fire!
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/national/03BOOK.html,
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086742/, Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times)

7. Because Schwarzenegger STILL hasn't explained why he met with
Enron's Kenneth Lay at the height of the energy crisis. Schwarzenegger
attended a meeting of top business leaders and Republican politicians
on May 17, 2001 that was apparently held to thwart a Davis-Bustamante
plan to recover $9 billion from energy companies. He still hasn't
explained why he was there or whether his candidacy for Governor was
discussed at that meeting. And he's refusing to talk to reporters in
these last days of the campaign.
(http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/util.../pr003708.php3)

Please forward this email to your friends, family and coworkers --
this race is too close to call, and it's crucial that every single one
of us votes. To look up polling places for yourself or your friends
click he

http://moveon.org/pac/recall/materials.html

Make sure all your like minded friends and family vote -- work with us
to turn out thousands of "unlikely voters" by clicking he

http://moveon.org/pac/votecount/

Thank you,

--Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team

Note: We know that many of you are not in California...However if you
have friends or contacts in California please forward this message to
them...
http://www.voice4change.org/stories/...=031007~mo.asp

wrote:
Here's one last -- can I call it "prayer"? for the CA election.

The whole world is watching (well, at least 49 other states g)
this White House-sponsored attack on democracy.

Yes the whole world is watching, but in a bit like the OJ Simpson soap
opera/circus. Powerless since we can't vote, we can only watch in amazement
the shananigans going on in Kalifornia. And the media are having a field day
showing Arnold the actor pretending to be a politician. (after all, actors are
very good at reading scripts and changing personality depending on what their
director tells them to do). We are seing about as much footage of his
terminator movies as we are of him speaking at political rallies :-) :-) :-)

I just hope that if Kalifornians elect Arnold, they will be electing Arnold
Swartznegger and not the terminator or the other characters he has played.

Unfortunately, Traveller, even though you have posted some relavent
and interesting messages in the past- your rants on this incrediblely
boring non-issue on a news group that is clearly unrelated to your
particular fetish (Arnie) have earned you a place in my kill-file.
I know this is nothing of interest to you, but if you are really as
rabid as you appear on this issue, that almost nobody else on earth
gives a **** about, at least you could contain your postings to a
newgroup that was germaine to the topic.
Have a nice day.
C.

wrote:



If you notice any Irregularities, The Committee to Defeat the Recall
has set up a hotline for you to report to:
Call 1-877-321-vote

So this committee expects some of their members to cause these
irregularities?


NO ON RECALL!
NO ON PROP 54!

What about prop 53?
I would be you diddn't even know it was on the ballot



Seven Reasons Why You Absolutely, Positively MUST Vote on Oct. 7:

1. Your vote matters. If you don't vote, Schwarzenegger becomes your
governor.

Are you saying the anti-recall people are less likely to vote than the
pro-recall people?


It's that simple. A poll conducted Wednesday through
Saturday showed support for the recall and Schwarzenegger dropping
fast. This election could be decided by a very small number of votes.
We can win this, but your vote is absolutely necessary.
(http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6935056.htm)

Do you mean the survey that had the Recall and Arnold leading, even
among female voters?

2. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Pete Wilson sequel. Governor Pete Wilson
grew state spending much faster than Gray Davis ever has. Worse, he
championed energy deregulation and in 1996 signed the bill that
deregulated energy in California. Wilson opened the gates to let his
energy pals rob the state blind.

How is he a Pete Wilson sequel. His platform is for reduced government
expenditutes and a balanced budget.



[Traveler comment: Below Arnold being just a front]

And now he and his former team are running Schwarzenegger's campaign
and choosing his policies. Even more troubling: Schwarzenegger seems
to be in bed with the same energy interests as Wilson (See #7). We
want to see Terminator 4, not Wilson 2.

Prove this link to Energy Interests.


3. We have no idea what Schwarzenegger is going to do with California,
and neither does he.

We have already seen what Davis has done.

He doesn't have a plan to balance the budget. He
hasn't said what cuts he'll make or what taxes he'll raise.

And we know that Davis has already tripled one (yeah, to him it isn't a
"tax".... so, what... IRS says it is a property tax as it is based on
value.)


4. He lied about taking money from special interests. The night he
announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show he told us, "As you know,
I don't need to take money from anyone. I have plenty of money
myself." He then turned right around and accepted over $10 million not
from "special" interests, but rather, as he explained it, "business
and individuals,absolutely. They're powerful interests who control
things."

You are right, individuals are powerful interests....... So.....


5. Arnold Schwarzenegger might belong on the sex offender registry,
but not in the governor's mansion.

Sure, guilty until proven innocent, right?


So far 15 credible women have come
forward with stories of being physically assaulted by this man -- some
only a few years ago.

All of them are credible? How do you know this?

He has not denied some of the stories (in fact,
he said "where there's smoke, there's fire"). He has tried to chalk
his mistakes up to "rowdiness." But these incidents constitute a
string of crimes that would land anyone except a multi-millionaire
actor in jail and on the sex offender registry.

How many police reports were filed?
Would all non millionaires really go to jail for patting someone's
behind? I guess the NFL is in trouble.


6. The Nazi stuff is serious. Who cares how long ago it was that
Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he wanted to have an experience "like
Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium, and have all those people scream at
you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say." That's
scary! And now nuns are being roughed up at Schwarzenegger rallies. A
film maker who worked closely with Schwarzenegger in the '70s says he
saw him playing "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his
collection at home."

You actually believe this nonsense?
How did he know they were Nazi marching songs?



At his
1986 ? wedding Schwarzenegger toasted a confirmed Nazi war criminal,
Kurt Waldheim,

Do you mean the former UN Secretary General?
/

7. Because Schwarzenegger STILL hasn't explained why he met with
Enron's Kenneth Lay at the height of the energy crisis.

Why is it your business?

Please forward this email to your friends, family and coworkers --
this race is too close to call, and it's crucial that every single one
of us votes. To look up polling places for yourself or your friends
click he

THanks, you have convinced my that your people are crazy..
I am going to run over and vote for Arnold now.