![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The California Governor's Debate
Sep. 25th, 2003 11:00 amLast night I watched the California Governor's debate, which featured the top 5 candidates vying for reelection: Arnold (Rep.), McClintock (Rep.), Camejo (Green), Huffington (Ind.), and Bustamante (Dem.). It was generally what I expected: scripted, generally lacking in substance, and when it moved into a crossfire arena it was usually only to exchange invectives. However, it also gave me a real sense of who all these people are.
Arnold was what I expected, though I was a bit surprised that he didn't make any huge gaffes. He spoke a lot of carefully written responses and also zinged off a number of carefully written one-liners. He spoke entirely in generalities ("We shall balance the budget" ... "We shall make California better for business" ... "We shall fix worker's comp"). The height of his evening was suggesting that he'd like to shove Arianna Huffington's head in a toilet bowl, by saying that he had a part for her in Terminator 4. (Ironically, this was in response to Huffington's statement that he didn't respect women. Good comeback, Arnold.) Before Arnold started talking, early in this election, I thought he might actually be an intelligent candidate. After all, all the media had been saying that for years as he carefully orchestrated his long-term plans for a run for governor. This debate cinched the fact that he's just a puppet, quoting other people's lines and putting on a false smile. I can't think of a much worse leader for California.
McClintock was charismatic, well-spoken, polite ... and evil. He's the cover model for corporate-controlled uncompassionate Republicans. He's happy to let the children of illegal immigrants die rather than offering them health care, because he thinks it's important not to undermine our immigration system. He talked about cutting social programs in order to reduce taxes on businesses. I'm shocked that any percentage of voters fall for this crap ... but his party has money. McClintock must be given credit for being blunt and honest. He didn't sugar-coat or hedge any of his big-business ballyhoing.
Camejo surprised me because he seemed very intelligent and spoke well on a number of important issues. He spoke of the need for single-payer health care and a runoff systems in elections. He talked about the tax inequality between the rich and the poor (the former paying a smaller percentage of their income as taxes). He ever so briefly touched upon the national scene and the problems with our war in Iraq. Before this debate I'd suspected that Camejo was the candidate closest to my views, but I'd planned to vote for Bustamante as the only one with a chance to win. Now, I'm much more torn because Camejo's ideas were so dead on what I think we should be doing that I think they need support, via votes. I find it interesting that in polls at SFGate the general populace thought that Camejo came off best in the debate by a wide margin while most of the newspaper articles I've read barely mention him, because he's a third-party candidate.
Huffington was high on a hobby horse. It was a nice hobby horse, all about how Bush is screwing up the country and about how Arnold is a jerk, but it was a bit far from the topics that were supposed to be covered at the debate. I think she was also the winner in the vitriol department. Overall, I'd say she came off quite badly, which is too bad because I support her views.
Bustamante surprised me also, for how little he came across as a politician. He was very soft-spoken and almost ... noble. A few times he said something and another candidate disagreed with him, and he said, "You're right." Politicians never do that. He frankly admitted that the government had overspent, and that was the cause of the current financial crisis. He also offered concrete plans for how to resolve things, something which Camejo and McClintock had also done, and which Huffington and Arnold had ignored.
Coming out of this debate, I'd rank my preference for these 5 main candidates as follows:
Arnold was what I expected, though I was a bit surprised that he didn't make any huge gaffes. He spoke a lot of carefully written responses and also zinged off a number of carefully written one-liners. He spoke entirely in generalities ("We shall balance the budget" ... "We shall make California better for business" ... "We shall fix worker's comp"). The height of his evening was suggesting that he'd like to shove Arianna Huffington's head in a toilet bowl, by saying that he had a part for her in Terminator 4. (Ironically, this was in response to Huffington's statement that he didn't respect women. Good comeback, Arnold.) Before Arnold started talking, early in this election, I thought he might actually be an intelligent candidate. After all, all the media had been saying that for years as he carefully orchestrated his long-term plans for a run for governor. This debate cinched the fact that he's just a puppet, quoting other people's lines and putting on a false smile. I can't think of a much worse leader for California.
McClintock was charismatic, well-spoken, polite ... and evil. He's the cover model for corporate-controlled uncompassionate Republicans. He's happy to let the children of illegal immigrants die rather than offering them health care, because he thinks it's important not to undermine our immigration system. He talked about cutting social programs in order to reduce taxes on businesses. I'm shocked that any percentage of voters fall for this crap ... but his party has money. McClintock must be given credit for being blunt and honest. He didn't sugar-coat or hedge any of his big-business ballyhoing.
Camejo surprised me because he seemed very intelligent and spoke well on a number of important issues. He spoke of the need for single-payer health care and a runoff systems in elections. He talked about the tax inequality between the rich and the poor (the former paying a smaller percentage of their income as taxes). He ever so briefly touched upon the national scene and the problems with our war in Iraq. Before this debate I'd suspected that Camejo was the candidate closest to my views, but I'd planned to vote for Bustamante as the only one with a chance to win. Now, I'm much more torn because Camejo's ideas were so dead on what I think we should be doing that I think they need support, via votes. I find it interesting that in polls at SFGate the general populace thought that Camejo came off best in the debate by a wide margin while most of the newspaper articles I've read barely mention him, because he's a third-party candidate.
Huffington was high on a hobby horse. It was a nice hobby horse, all about how Bush is screwing up the country and about how Arnold is a jerk, but it was a bit far from the topics that were supposed to be covered at the debate. I think she was also the winner in the vitriol department. Overall, I'd say she came off quite badly, which is too bad because I support her views.
Bustamante surprised me also, for how little he came across as a politician. He was very soft-spoken and almost ... noble. A few times he said something and another candidate disagreed with him, and he said, "You're right." Politicians never do that. He frankly admitted that the government had overspent, and that was the cause of the current financial crisis. He also offered concrete plans for how to resolve things, something which Camejo and McClintock had also done, and which Huffington and Arnold had ignored.
Coming out of this debate, I'd rank my preference for these 5 main candidates as follows:
- Camejo
- Bustamante
- Huffington
- McClintock
- Arnold