Tomorrow there will be many protests against Arnold Schwarzenegger throughout the state of California. I realized there wasn't anything planned for Pasadena. Now there is!

Here's all the information:

Where: Meet up at Central Park in Pasadena

(across the street from the Metro Goldline Del Mar Station)

When: Tomorrow (October 3rd) 4:45 - 5pm

(at 5pm we will begin walking up to Colorado Blvd. where we will assemble on the corners of Colorado Blvd. and Fair Oaks)

Contact: hatebear@aol.com



For more information please go to the CODEPINK website link here:

http://www.codepinkalert.org/CodePink_Vigil_Information_Arnold_Protest.shtml#eve

*NOTE: This is technically a CODEPINK event, so wearing pink would be good, but it is NOT a MUST. If you don't have pink to wear, don't worry! Come down anyway and bring friends. The more people, the BETTER. We need to be seen and we need our voices heard. We do NOT want a man with a record of degrading comments and actions toward women to be governor!

You would maybe prefer driver's licenses for illegals, corruption and endless tax raising, hmmm?

Swartzenfester admitted to lying about his past...

....lying don't bother you, huh?

...That you'd WANT Arnold in office.

So much fodder for insanely inaccurate "______ = Hitler" references you folks love so much.

Yeah, Fido...you LIKE the fact that he is an admitted liar...

....gives you another lying republican you can apologize for....gives your petty little existance some meaning.....



...so, tell me, does it bother you that you are supporting an admitted liar....and do you wonder what else he is lying about?

I recall one idiot (KPC, who else!) saying Arnold won't win. We'll just see now, won't we.

Do you support an admitted liar...one who admitted lying about committing a crime?

Yes or No?

Easy enough, if ya got the balls.....

No, I do not support any member of the Democratic Party, all of which are liars. Like Gray Davis, who told us the budget deficit was 'X' and it turned out to be 'X times 2'.

Out with Davis! The Liar! And his little Angry Left Poodle KPC, too!!

I don't care who wins the coveted position of Head Keeper at the California Asylum.

Has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever.

If I got orders to any base in California, I'd seriously consider taking the seven-day option and separating from the service.

What happens there is strictly entertainment for me.

All that aside, I doubt Arnold could screw up your looney bin any worse than it is or any of the other candidates could.

We'll know soon enough, though, won't we?

California gets the governor it deserves. Remember that.

"No, I do not support any member of the Democratic Party, all of which are liars. Like Gray Davis, who told us the budget deficit was 'X' and it turned out to be 'X times 2'. "

So does that mean you do not support Swartzengroper, who physically assaulted his coworkers and lied about it?

Yes or No....balls or not?

So, you don't know shit about California, don't care about California...

...but you hang around a California site...



...go figure!

Consider yourself fortunate you don't live in the People's Communist Hell of California.

Yes, living in California is like living in Stalin's Russia...

...fuckin' throwback.....

Right.

Just like America has turned into the Fourth Reich.

Careful with your ridiculous political comparisons, Chicken Boy; they may come back to bite you on the butt.

"No, I do not support any member of the Democratic Party, all of which are liars. Like Gray Davis, who told us the budget deficit was 'X' and it turned out to be 'X times 2'. "

So does that mean you do not support Swartzengroper, who physically assaulted his coworkers and lied about it?

Yes or No....balls or not?

I'm voting McClintock.

Now, what are you going to do, angry Left Poodle Boy?

Are you voting Yes or No on the recall?

If you're voting YES, who you voting for gov?

You got the balls to answer?

Fido, I never made any assertions that America is a fascist country....so you can bite my butt all you want, my little doggie....

and to the other Fido; I am voting no on the recall. There's my balls, beefcake.

So, ball-less one, do you condemn Swartzengroper as a liar and criminal who should not be governor of this state? And do you think the Republican party should address his criminal behavior?

Yes or No....Balls or no?

...my guess is "no"....

You're not spouting the imc party line, then.

Blasphemer!

Voting to keeping Tweedle-de-Dumb Gray-Out Davis in office. Figures. You like those people who lie to you about the severity of the budget, don't you? Don't ever tell me about complaining about liars again, not if you're voting to keep Doofus in. You never had any credibility anyway, just like your buddy Davis. Fucker lied out of every oraface during the election and you want to keep him in. Fuck You!!

Like everything else, you're going to lose this time around, too. Losing just seems to be your forte.

The Governor of California stood up to Enron and said enough with these games of trading and pretty soon the house of cards began coming down and when I say house of cards Enron is just the first card. But what I am really worried about is not even so much about the finances of Enron because I don't cry for the stock holders. They didn't cry when the stock was going through the roof, they weren't moaning then. What I am concerned about is what they did to their customers and their employees. And let me tell you in California they played games, in fact they used to have names for these games, they called them cramming, stacking, false scheduling and they were able to manipulate the power market to cause false shortages. What the experts who had to buy the power into the system grid politely called "Economic and physical with holding". What that meant is that they literally laid siege to the state of California. They literally would hold back power from the power lines, causing panic, causing a false shortage in the market, causing the prices to sky rocket, filling Enron's pockets. Unfortunately when you play that game your greed out strips your devious means to keep up with it and that is how they collapsed in on themselves. What I'm worried about of are the guys who are a step more cautious and don't collapse.

Lloyd Hart: Your looking into Enron at the present, can you discuss that subject a little bit.

Gregory Palast: I was talking to a mutual friend of George W. and Ken Lay. His name is Teal Bivens and he is one of the Texas pioneers that raised 0,000.00 to put G.W. in the White House. Teal Bivens said "look , of course Ken lay has special access, he's raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush." And he said "He's a Texan, you dance with dem dat brung ya." He looked at me as if to say what do mean does money influence your access to the president. Not every one can meet with the president of the United States but if you put up a couple of hundred grand you can meet with the president. Ken Lay was put on George Bush's transition team to make suggestions on who should be appointed to regulate his company. So he was very subtle about it. He'd call up candidates and say here's what Enron would like. He called up the incoming new chairman of the National Electrical Regulatory Commission that he approved of and said I have veto over your appointment. So what's made the Bush administration different from the Clinton administration or even the daddy Bush administration is that before, lobbyists had unbelievably easy access to the White House. Now they don't have access to the White House their in the White House. They don't have to lobby the administration they are the administrations. It's a whole other level.

Lloyd Hart: It's like the NRA (Nation Rifleman's Association) during the campaign bragging that they would have an office in the White House.

Gregory Palast: That they would have a gun in the desk in the Oval Office. Let me get down to some nasty little details. In the month of December of 2000 Clinton's Energy Dept. put out an order that effectively said that Enron could no longer trade in California. It basically put these power pirates out of the game. Because they had California by the balls and they were squeezing. Clinton put a stop to it. At least slowed it down. The day after the inauguration George W took office, was still hung over, still cleaning out the confetti from the Oval office. His Energy dept. reverses Clinton's order and Enron is back in the power game in California squeezing the State. So these are the details and this is what the access was buying. I think it's too simple to say that their money bought the policy. They own George W.'s brain I mean it may not be big, it fits in Ken Lay's pocket and there's room for spare change but they own it. Bush Believes in this stuff so you have to be careful that it's bought but there's no question when it get down to details like that, when you have a direct pipeline into the President of the United States you can say I don't like executive order A, B, C. That's a whole new level lobbying power that we've never seen before and Enron has used and abused it.

Source .> Greg Palast (Award-winning reporter for BBC Television’s Newsnight and The Observer of London, Greg Palast’s extraordinary reports have been front page news in Europe, yet blocked out of America’s main stream media.) http://www.gregpalast.com/aboutme.cfm

All you liberals are Chumpski puppets. Just get your marching orders, pull the strings and you'll do whatever your commanders tell you to do. "Attack Bush!" "Yee...Yeee..... Yee... Yes Sir".

Liberals. Bunch of damn lackeys.

"KPC=AngryLeftDavisLover"

Nope, wrong again, douchebag. I hate Davis, and have been organizing against him for quite a while. And what are you talking about "you're going to lose this time around"...I ain't runnin' for office, and this ain't a football game! How fuckin' dumb are you anyway?

Gee, doesn't it bother you that your are wrong all the time?

....fuckin' eunuch.....

So, ball-less one, do you condemn Swartzengroper as a liar and criminal who should not be governor of this state? And do you think the Republican party should address his criminal behavior?

Yes or No....Balls or no?

I'm going to condemn Davis as a liar and criminal who should not be governor of this state.

Don't tell me you hate Davis but are voting to keep that idiot in office. I'm not one of your stupid liberal comrades who'll fall for whatever you read in that little red book you people carry around.

If you're voting No on the recall, that's the same as saying you want to keep Davis in office. Therefore, your wish isn't going to come true, cause Davis is a gonner. You lose. You always lose. You want Bush impeached. Not gonna happen. You want the WMD thing to damage him in 2004. Not gonna happen. You want this CIA thing to get to him. Not gonna happen. You just can't win. But you're a liberal. You're used to being a loser. That's what you do best.

Remember: Golden Rule & Money Talks/Bullshit Walks.

Figure it out.

Moron.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis

Introduction



This site is inspired by the pioneering work of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). In 1937, the IPA was created to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda. Composed of social scientists and journalists, the IPA published a series of books, including:

• The Fine Art of Propaganda

• Propaganda Analysis

• Group Leader's Guide to Propaganda Analysis

• Propaganda: How To Recognize and Deal With It

The IPA is best-known for identifying the seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to the authors of a recent book on propaganda, "these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles, and textbooks ever since that they have become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects." (Combs and Nimmo, 1993)

2-Testimonial

Tiger Woods is on the cereal box, promoting Wheaties as part of a balanced breakfast. Cher is endorsing a new line of cosmetics, and La Toya Jackson says that the Psychic Friends Network changed her life. The lead singer of R.E.M appears on a public service announcement and encourages fans to support the "Motor Voter Bill." The actor who played the bartender on Cheers is an outspoken environmentalist.

"This is the classic misuse of the Testimonial Device that comes to the minds of most of us when we hear the term. We recall it indulgently and tell ourselves how much more sophisticated we are than our grandparents or even our parents.

With our next breath, we begin a sentence, 'The Times said,' 'John L. Lewis said...,' 'Herbert Hoover said...', 'The President said...', 'My doctor said...,' 'Our minister said...' Some of these Testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of the device; others, however, may represent the sugar-coating of a distortion, a falsehood, a misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion..." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

There is nothing wrong with citing a qualified source, and the testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair, well-balanced argument. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and misleading.

The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals who are not qualified to make judgements about a particular issue. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton, and Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. Both are popular performers, but there is no reason to think that they know what is best for this country.

Unfair testimonials are usually obvious, and most of us have probably seen through this rhetorical trick at some time or another. However, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity that we did not respect. When the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.

According to the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we encounter this device.

• Who or what is quoted in the testimonial?

• Why should we regard this person (or organization or publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?

• What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the Testimonial?

•

You may have noticed the presence of the testimonial technique in the previous paragraph, which began by citing the Insitute for Propaganda Analysis. In this case, the technique is justified. Or is it?

But surely all was not spiritual that weekend in Camp David. One sign is that First Lady Barbara Bush came back with a broken leg. What had happened? A few weeks earlier, George and Bar had granted a joint interview to two fawning and sycophantic reporters from People weekly. During this interview, Bush was asked, "Mr. President, this is an understandably tough period. How do you deal with the stress?" Bush answered: "Well, I have this dog named Ranger and this wife named Barbara and a couple of grandchildren." At this point, Barbara Bush broke in to say "Thought you were gonna say, 'I kick the dog, kick the wife.'" [fn 80] Had Barbara Bush suffered the fate of a battered woman during that pre-war weekend in Camp David? The official story was that she had slid down an icy slope on a saucer sled and hit a tree, producing a "non-displaced fracture of the fibula bone in the left leg." According to Mrs. Bush's press secretary, Anna Perez, George had yelled "Bail out! Bail out!" as Mrs. Bush accelerated toward the tree, but she had not heeded his advice. The incident had allegedly occurred during a sledding party after church on Sunday, January 13, in the presence four of the Bush's grandchildren (ages 6,4,4, and 1), and Bush loyalist Arnold Schwarzenegger, the chairman of the President's Council on Physcial Fitness. Bush's daughter Dorothy LeBlond and his daughter in law Margaret, may have been present or nearby, as may Schwarzenegger's wife Maria Shriver of NBC, and her infant daughter. But only the First Lady's press secretary spoke in public of the incident, which has therefore remained somewhat obscure. When the presidential party returned by helicopter to the White House that evening, Mrs. Bush was carried indoors in a wheelchair. [fn 81]

81. "First Lady Breaks Her Leg While Sledding," Washington Post, January 14, 1991.

80. People, December, 1990, p. 53.

These last second "revelations" obviously being directed from Davis and the Democrats with their willing accomplices in the media will be a real revelation for the citizens of the other 49 states to see if Californians are so stupid as to fall for these attacks. Californian's already have a poor reputation in the other 49 states for being so stupid as to elect Davis in the first place. That they have a house and senate that is controlled by liberal Democrats is a further black eye on the obviously limited intelect of the citizens of California. If they vote to keep Davis in, or if they replace him with Cruz "Davis Lite" Bustamente, they will continue to be the laughing stock of the country, a label they will so rightfully deserve. Come Oct. 7th, we'll see if the voters of California are serious about getting their house in order, or if they want to continue down the road of marxism.

the previous message brought to you by the Pete Wilson campaign to elect another deregulation dog who brought you the Enron rip off.

thanks for your support.

"Californian's already have a poor reputation in the other 49 states for being so stupid as to elect Davis in the first place. "

Amazing!!!

another magical Gallup poll.

If they vote to keep Davis in, or if they replace him with Cruz "Davis Lite" Bustamente, they will continue to be the laughing stock of the country, a label they will so rightfully deserve. Come Oct. 7th, we'll see if the voters of California are serious about getting their house in order, or if they want to continue down the road of marxism.

Yessss Führer !!!

wherever...

(for public information. I'm NOT Democrat )

This is a predominately liberal Democratic state with a liberal Dem gov, liberal Dem majority senate, liberal Dem majority house, and all the major cities have liberal Dem mayors and liberal Dem city and county councels. The liberal Dems run the state. So the current problems of the state rest clearly on the backs of the liberals for having caused it.

You people are stupid. You are! How do you dress yourselves? Or do you? Anyone who would vote for liberal Democrats cannot be labeled otherwise. If you are more left than the liberal Democrats, then you are ever more stupid than they are.

California is already looked at as the land of fruits and nuts. By keeping the same liberal losers in that got you into this budget mess, it will only demonstrate what most us us already strongly suspect, that the citizens of your state are unwilling to do what it takes to get yourselves stratightened out.

If the idiot voters of California leave in Davis or vote in his clone Bustamante, you will continue to sink deeper in debt and financial peril. You will immediately start screaming to Washington, D.C. for funds, and hopefully the Federal gov't will take over your states budget. They will tell your legislature the conditions under which you will receive Federal dollars, that being you need to cut here and cut there and lower this tax and lower that tax and here's where your budget dollars will go, and then it will designate where the Federal relief dollars will go, otherwise you don't get jack shit. There's no reason the other 49 states should have to pitch in because you morons are too stupid to realize what's good for you as you keep voting in "progressive liberals" who haven't a clue as to how and dress themselves without a 50,000 page gov't manuel, much less comprehend what it takes to properly run a state.

"If the idiot voters of California leave in Davis or vote in his clone Bustamante, you will continue to sink deeper in debt and financial peril. You will immediately start screaming to Washington, D.C. for funds, and hopefully the Federal gov't will take over your states budget. They will tell your legislature the conditions under which you will receive Federal dollars, that being you need to cut here and cut there and lower this tax and lower that tax and here's where your budget dollars will go, and then it will designate where the Federal relief dollars will go, otherwise you don't get jack shit."

Oh no..

Oh my God!!!

I'm absolutely petrified!!!

"There's no reason the other 49 states should have to pitch in because you morons are too stupid to realize what's good for you as you keep voting in "progressive liberals" who haven't a clue as to how and dress themselves without a 50,000 page gov't manuel, much less comprehend what it takes to properly run a state."

Definitely...

another magical Gallup poll.!!!



Arnol... you're my savior.

Amen.

LOL

Arnold isn't the best answer, and he's not going to save you, but he's better than Davis or Bustamante could ever hope to be.

Don't need a Gallup poll to see how stupid Californians are for voting in liberals. We'll see if any of you have wised up on Oct. 7th.

We do not need an admitted liar and criminal as governor.

Too late. We got Davis.

Really? What crime did he committ, and what lie did he admit to?

Don't tell me your one of those soft on crime Republican supporters of Swartzengroper?

Who would expect a liberal Democrat to admit to committing a crime? If he were to publicly stab someone to death, he'd claim he was just holding the knife and someone threw themselves on it numerous times.

He lied about the budget deficit. It's double what he said it was during the election. It's a crime what he's done to the state, taking a surplus to a deficit larger than all the other states combined.

I saw on another thread where you said you don't support Davis and fought against him. Why are you sticking up for him now? Do you like upholding the status quo?

I also read where you are voting No on the recall. Are you still going to vote for someone in case Davis is recalled? If so, who?

Pol: "Who would expect a liberal Democrat to admit to committing a crime?"

OK, what crime are you accusing him of? Did he, oh....sexually assault a co-worker or anything like that?

Pot: "He lied about the budget deficit. It's double what he said it was during the election."

He didn't lie...the election was years ago, things change

Pol: "It's a crime what he's done to the state, taking a surplus to a deficit larger than all the other states combined. "

Actually, this isn't a crime, if it were, we'd have a president that you would be wanting to impeach then, right?

Pot: "I saw on another thread where you said you don't support Davis and fought against him. Why are you sticking up for him now? Do you like upholding the status quo? "

I am not sticking up for him, I am voting for what I think is best for California. I will continue to work against him on issues I support and he opposes. And in the next election, I'll vote for somebody else....

Pol: "I also read where you are voting No on the recall. Are you still going to vote for someone in case Davis is recalled? If so, who?

Cruz Bustamante.

"He didn't lie...the election was years ago, things change"

The election was last November, 2002, not years ago!! Damn, what a great bong-hit you took. You missed the year 2002!!

"Cruz Bustamante"

So if Tweedle-de-Dumb doesn't get to stay, you want his clone, Tweedle-de-Idiot.

You're nothing but a Democratic Party hack. Let me guess, you voted for either Gore or Nader, two other politcal losers from the politcal loser left. It's people like you that have created the budget deficit. To hell with all of you!

1) Davis did lie about the budget right before the last election, which was LESS then one year ago. He quoted a deficit which was about one tenth of what it truly was. So he's either lying or unbelievably incompetent.

2) That is NOT a crime. It may be repulsive but it'

s not a crime.

3) So what. He doesn't need to commit a crime to be recalled. The majority of people simply are fed up with his abysmal performance. And so, the people will vote fairly enough, on whether or not to retain his services.

Remember that California is primarily Democrat. So if this truly is only a Republican "power grab" than there should be no problem crushing this attempt on the 7th.

4) As for who should replace him, I feel that the somewhat sorry best choice is Arnold. Bustamante is pathetic and utterly ineffectual. Grey lite. McClintock is out of it and the other dolts never had a chance, thank God.

You just have to laugh at the Angry Left. How can these people expect anyone to take them seriously when they publish books with titles like "The Big Lies of George W. Bush and the Big Lying Liars of George W. Bush Who Tell Them?"--AND THEIR HERO IS BILL CLINTON? Reasonable people can disagree with Bush policies, of course, but constantly calling him a "liar" serves only to remind people of how honest he is compared with his predecessor.

That's not all, folks. Clinton's lies, the nascent Angry Left told us at the time, were excusable because they were "about sex." A state employee accuses him of dropping his trousers, a campaign volunteer charges him with groping her in the Oval Office, a nursing-home operator says he raped her in the 1970s--those are all just "personal peccadilloes." It's time to move on!

In fact, there was a Web site called MoveOn.org set up in 1998 to oppose impeachment, which has remained in operation and turned into a center of Angry Left activity. So what are the folks at MoveOn up to these days? For one thing, they're beating the BUSH LIED!!!! drum, using a witless adjunct site called Misleader.org. Then there's this: "We're asking you to help fund a television ad devoted to putting [Arnold] Schwarzenegger's problem with women into the public eye. We need to raise at least 0,000 to make this happen."

http://moveon.org/

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10032003.html

http://www.moveonpac.org/moveonpac/viewcandidates.phtml

The Drudge Report reproduces a MoveOn.org news release announcing a press conference this morning in Los Angeles, featuring MoveOn co-founder Joan Blades, former candidate and "Green Acres" star Arianna Huffington and an unnamed "woman cited in the Los Angeles Times article" on Schwarzenegger's past boorishness.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

So let's see if i have this straight. Bush is bad because he "lies." Schwarzenegger is bad because he (admittedly) treated women in an offensive way. But Clinton's behavior was no big deal because he lied ABOUT offensive treatment of women. Does MoveOn really mean to assert as its guiding principle that it's acceptable to molest and even assault women if and only if you lie about it?

Nope. Wrong again...

let me help you....CONCISELY

Bush - LIAR - Lied to the country about the reasons for war.

Arnold - LIAR - Lied about sexually assaulting co-workers.

Clinton - LIAR - Lied about a consentual sexual liason.

...now, let the obfuscating begin....

Liar, assaulter, and Hitler admirer...

""I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

....This guy is despicable.....

>Clinton - LIAR - Lied about a consentual sexual liason.

To KPC, the following represents "consentual" sexual advances:

- A state employee accuses him of dropping his trousers

- A campaign volunteer charges him with groping her in the Oval Office

-A nursing-home operator says he raped her in the 1970s

So, that's OK.

Hey Arnold!! If you drop your pants, grope women, and committ rape, but you got a (D) by your name, it's OK with KPC.

....fucking pathetic....

He wasn't impeached for any of those allegations, none of which have ever been proved. He was impeached for lying about a consentual sexual relationship.

...Arnold Termingroper, on the other hand

- Has admitted to the crime of sexual battery after intitially lying about it

- Has made comments about his admiration for Adolph Hitler..

...and shitheals like you want to look the other way...

>He wasn't impeached for any of those allegations, none of which have ever been proved.

Of course not! Clinton never did those things. Those women lied.

However, if Clinton had an (R) by his name, weeellllllll..................................

KPC would have been right there telling us how were defending this sexual preditor.

Two-faced by any other name is still KPC.

California DON’T need other WOLF keeping the chicken coop.

California DON’T need Arnold.

Goodbye Arnold....

Hasta la vista baby...

chao...

adieu...

Let's keep Davis. He got us where we are today. State bankruptsy and mismanagement is a good thing.

...no, let's instead elect a lying sexual battery committing Hitler admirer...

...EXACTLY the governor she winds up with.

"...no, let's instead elect a lying sexual battery committing Hitler admirer..."

With all due respect, if Arnold was democrat or Green you'd be calling this what it is. Despearate groundless character attacks.

You'd be yelling Bullshit from the highest mountain.

You know you would.

If the polls are to be believed, last week's late hit by the Los Angeles Times has not hurt Arnold Schwarzenegger's chances at being elected governor tomorrow. Indeed, his poll numbers actually improved slightly in some surveys. There's always the chance that voters will deliver their own "October surprise" and prove the polls wrong. But assuming the polls are right and tomorrow night finds Schwarzenegger governor-elect, he will owe his office in significant part to Bill Clinton.

Schwarzenegger's alleged history of boorish, even assaultive, conduct toward women is a legitimate topic of journalistic inquiry. It does tell us something about his character, and it's a perfectly respectable reason not to vote for the man. Clinton's defenders, however, argued otherwise when their man faced allegations of the same type. We all remember the litany: The conduct in question was "personal," it was in the past, his critics were partisan or hypocritical, and anyway what did it have to do with the job of being president?

Given that many of the same people had attacked Clarence Thomas a few years earlier for purportedly making ribald COMMENTS, it was hard to credit the Clinton defenders with making a principled argument. But polls at the time showed a substantial majority of Americans opposing impeachment, so not only partisan Democrats found this argument persuasive, whatever the motives of those who employed it.

Democratic partisans, having employed the groping-doesn't-matter defense with such great success in defending Bill Clinton, they can hardly expect people not to apply the same argument to the Schwarzenegger case. You pretty much have to be a partisan Democrat to think Clinton's behavior was none of anyone's business while Schwarzenegger's disqualifies him from holding office.

The New York Post's Jonathan Foreman visited MoveOn.org's anti-Schwarzenegger rally Friday and offers a quote that pretty much sums it up:

"The most honest thing I heard came from film producer and Codepink activist Patricia Foulkrod. She admitted that Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes were as inexcusable as Arnold's. "The difference is that Clinton was so brilliant," she said. "If Arnold was a brilliant pol and had this thing about inappropriate behavior, we'd figure a way of getting around it. I think it's to our detriment to go on too much about the groping. But it's our way in. This is really about the GOP trying to take California in 2004 and our trying to stop it."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=106&e=1&u=/nypost/20031004/cm_nypost/sexlieshiddenagendas

Such hypocrisy prompted a rare fit of congency from Maureen Dowd:

"Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones by saying he had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so there was no sexual harassment involved. As to his dallying with an emotionally immature 21-year-old, Ms. Steinem noted, "Welcome sexual behavior is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is to stealing one."

Surely what's good for the Comeback Kid is good for the Terminator."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/opinion/05DOWD.html?ex=1065931200&en=4ad6239b77b4bde0&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

And what's good for the L.A. Times is good for the L.A. Daily News, which over the weekend published an op-ed by Jill Stewart, who asks why the Times hasn't subjected the governor to a similar investigation: "Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an 'office batterer' who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower."

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%7E24781%7E1676763,00.html

Stewart recounts her own reporting on Davis, which appeared in 1997 in the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles:

"Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office. He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him. . . .

Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs. The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!' "

Stewart writes that while she was researching the New Times story (which is reproduced below), she "crossed paths" with L.A. Times reporters looking into the same allegations. But the Old Times never published the story. "When I spoke to a reporter involved," Stewart recounts, "he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources. Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger." The Times may turn out to have done more damage to its own reputation than to Schwarzenegger's.

http://www.american-reporter.com/2,195/1.html

"The most honest thing I heard came from film producer and Codepink activist Patricia Foulkrod. She admitted that Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes were as inexcusable as Arnold's. "The difference is that Clinton was so brilliant," she said. "If Arnold was a brilliant pol and had this thing about inappropriate behavior, we'd figure a way of getting around it. I think it's to our detriment to go on too much about the groping. But it's our way in. This is really about the GOP trying to take California in 2004 and our trying to stop it."

Not that there was any real doubt, but Codepink is just another liberal front group. If people who agree with them treat women like dirt, it's OK because they hold the correct political positions. But if you have a (R) next to you name instead of a (D), then there's a whole different set of rules. Liberals are so two-faced, and they demonstrate it everytime they open their mouths.

Just remember this statement anytime a liberal says something about anything:

"The difference is that Clinton was so brilliant. If Arnold was a brilliant pol and had this thing about inappropriate behavior, WE'D FIGURE A WAY OF GETTING AROUND IT."

The liberal shills are running away from this.

Codepink spokesperson outted them for who they are.

Two-faced.

Well, let's see... Code Pink is not running for gov...

...so, getting back on subject; you condone the fact that Schwartzenazi lied about committing sexual battery? Or that he offered Hitler as one of his heros?

"Schwartzenazi"?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

When you were a kid, did you call your mom a Nazi when she made you go to bed?

The word has oozed from your keyboard so often it's lost all meaning.

Not that your posts ever had much meaning to begin with...

...so, getting back on subject; you condone the fact that Schwartzenazi lied about committing sexual battery? Or that he offered Hitler as one of his heros?