PDA

View Full Version : OT: Did he win just coz hes famous?



csinclair83
08-10-2003, 04:03 PM
Arnie Elected governor (http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,227054-1-9,00.html)

Graham L
08-10-2003, 04:08 PM
That's California, which has always been a bit strange. Florida elected a Bush as governor, and he appointed his big brother President.

-=JM=-
08-10-2003, 06:40 PM
He would've got the majority of the votes that previously wouldn't have been voted. He won partly just because people know who he is.

Martina
08-10-2003, 06:41 PM
Well, I reckon he won because his opponent said that he (Arnie) didn't have any political experience and folks knew the shambles that real politicians had made of Calif. At least Arnie won't be able to stand for el presidente as he's not a real American merely an import!

Winston001
08-10-2003, 07:03 PM
Unfortunately being well known is the key to being elected in modern society.
Gone are the days of open debate on a street corner or in public halls. Even if a good person tried the public wouldn't turn up.
No, televisual presentation and glib word bites are the ticket today.

Lets face it, if Judy Bailey decided to be Mayor of Auckland or an MP she'd bolt in.
Mind you she might be very competent. Nevertheless the point is that being well known for something which has no element of intellectual rigor or leadership is sufficient for a person to get elected. Ability doesn't come into it.
Hey sufficient wasn't a bad President, Arnie could be the best thing since sliced bread.

csinclair83
08-10-2003, 09:08 PM
damn he cant be president...
would have been good to get rid of bush next year and clean up da mess

PoWa
08-10-2003, 09:54 PM
Does this mean there will be no more Arnie movies?

Thomas
08-10-2003, 10:43 PM
>Hey sufficient wasn't a bad President,
You have me there?

Well we can assume that he is not popular here,which doesn't tell us much,I say give the chap a go,then if no good by all means say so..
Taking the argument that one needs to be famous to get into government,I would say if 10% are known here in NZ I would be surprised.

Being a good speaker doesn't make one a useful politician,I think of Muldoon with his think big and price freeze escapades,he set the country back 10 years.

csinclair83
08-10-2003, 10:52 PM
something was mentioned a while ago that terminator 3 was his final movie as he wanted to go into politics...
seems like he got a good start...

and there was another rumour...that if bush wants him 2 do speaking etc for money..he would make sure californa gets 65% of the raised money or he wont do the speaking....or 5% if it was for a charity....

seems like bush is in for a hard tme..

mikebartnz
08-10-2003, 11:12 PM
And then Roger Douglas got in and set it back another ten years so we ended up twenty years behind.

Budda
09-10-2003, 08:26 AM
Arnie cant be president he wasnt born in USA, but he is allowed to be a senator, I think its great that hes state gov, but hes got a lot of stuf ups to fix and he might end up being a scape goat if hes not careful.

But the sad thing is that really he is just a figure head for the shiver/kenady family, and in public he wont answer questions he hasnt been briefed on, (a bit like our own helen), sounds like he hasnt really got his one ideas :(

Winston001
09-10-2003, 09:41 AM
> >Hey sufficient wasn't a bad President,
> You have me there?
Ummm...stupid spell checker. Should have said "Ronnie wasn't a bad President"
But I acknowledge your point that fame isn't a necessary corollary for election. Probably in NZ only a few people get elected because of their media profile - but if you have the money you can buy a profile.
I suspect the same reality prevails in the US - that many local body politicians do not require fame to be elected. But in major elections it seems that money is the driver for success. It buys profile - or fame if you like. The more you spend the better your chances even if you do not have any previous experience or proven ability.
The problem is that this does not lead to the best people being elected. merely the ones with the most financial backing.

Winston001
09-10-2003, 10:21 AM
> And then Roger Douglas got in and set it back another
> ten years so we ended up twenty years behind.

Rob Muldoon may have been polarised New Zealanders but curiously the interventionist policies he followed are now being embraced by our Labour government. More rules and regulations and Govt subsidised enterprises every day. Eg. Kiwi Bank - how do you think PSIS, Taranaki Savings Bank, and the Southland Building Society (all totally NZ owned) feel about that.
Roger Douglas lead this country on a necessary path to individual choice and social freedom. The same policies have been adopted around the world. Unfortunately we have faded in the leadership stakes and are now drifting backwards towards Nanny State.

Thomas
09-10-2003, 12:14 PM
>The problem is that this does not lead to the best people being elected. >merely the ones with the most financial backing.


At the same time,with or witout a profile that wont ensure the right person will get elected,that requires a thoughtful voter and I say most vote on issues rather than a philosophy.

Winston001
10-10-2003, 12:46 PM
> At the same time,with or witout a profile that wont
> ensure the right person will get elected,that
> requires a thoughtful voter and I say most vote on
> issues rather than a philosophy.

Trite but true. (sigh)

Odin
10-10-2003, 02:56 PM
What i find strange is that life here seems to be imitating the movies. Does anyone remember the Stallone Movie 'Demolition Man' in after Stallone wakes up some 60 years later he finds out that Arnie was elected as Governor and that his popularity at the time cause the 63rd ammendment which then allowed him to run for president which of course he did and won. Maybe the same thing just might happen in reality so far it has ;D just my thoughts.