Since we had such a wonderful time discussing Arnold as a potential candidate for CA governor, thought I would bring up L.Flynt. Besides being cynical and saying this is just publicity stunt or some wacko act, my question:-
Does or can a successful businessman, even one in the adult industry, make a good governor? What can a businessman bring that a professional politician lacks? Is it dangerous because of the possible bias he might bring to his industry once he is governor?
any thoughts? I don’t mean this to be a troll or have it degenerate into bitterness.
If Grey Davis should decide against re-election and Diane Feinstein decides to remain in the Senate, I think Larry Flynt and Arianna Huffington should form a ticket. Larry has been a staunch defender of the 1st ammendment. Hell, he even got shot for it! His ideas on immigration, education, and prostitution are enlightened. He can even cross the partisan divide. Nominally a Democrat, he said that if he drops out of the race, he would back Riordan for Governor. I think it would provide some entertainment if Arnie backs out and a really dull race ensues.
Have you ever actually dipped into the contents of a Hustler mag? Filled with cartoons so racist they’d make the ghost of Strom Thurmond giggle in his grave. It’s sad that so many people think of the guy as some sort of hero because of that movie with Woody Harrelson. The man is an amoral scumbag. Would you feel comfortable voting for a incestous pedophile (according to his cousins) for governor? The price we pay for defending the 1st amendment is that we have to defend the likes of Larry Flynt and his right to free expression.
Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden both had operatives trying to get samples from Larry Flynt’s hot tub for use in biological weapons (Bob Guiccione was second on their list). Hardly the kind of guy you want running California…
I think Larry Flynt would be exactly the sort of governor that California deserves. Imagine the tourist revenues that would be brought in by Naked Baywatch. Add a small tax upon that kind of money and California would be running a budget surplus for generations to come.
Well, remember Ed Norton’s line to the jury in the movie "The People vs Larry Flynt. “You don’t have to like this man, hell I dont like this man. But you have to respect him.”
I think he has plebian tastes. However, he will be the first one to admit it. The movie articulates this in a telling way. These working class men from Ohio are talking about porn, and saying that they don’t understand the articles from Playboy. Should pornography just be enjoyed by elites and educated people? While I include myself in the latter, I feel that what makes the U.S. a great country is that someone can take an idea and implement it successfully. Larry Flynt did that and should be admired, even if you don’t eat what he has to offer. ehhehehehe. Although I think many would eat what was on the menu.
I also think that politics, except for political junkies and plutocrats, is boring for most of the masses. If Flynts possible running interests people and gets them involved in the process–it is a good thing! Same goes with Jerry Springer running for the Senate in Ohio.
Nope, I don’t have to “respect” that kind of “good old boy.” Why does he feel the need to include cartoons of Jews and “n****s” in a magazine designed for looking at naked chicks? Nobody likes to see their bigotry mixed with their pornography. Okay, maybe some Archie Bunker redneck types, but not me. There’s nothing sexy about racism.
And it’s insulting to the “common man” to try and peg this neanderthal whose mentality is still stuck in Jim Crow as some sort of working-class hero.
I would hope that Californians would learn from their state’s current financial crisis that politics does matter – it will affect their wallets if they don’t elect someone with at least two brain cells to rub together. IMHO, despite my joking about it above, I really don’t think he’s got anything near what it would take to run a state. And unless the voters he attracts take voting seriously, his run will do more harm than good for California – especially if he somehow attracts enough idiots to win.
Flynt might be shrewd in a very neanderthal way, but his running for office is right up there with his “conversion to Christianity” (late 1970’s) for publicity scams. Just like Howard Stern’s “run” for NY governor a few years ago, it’s all about getting headlines cheaply.
cousins - is that incest in the US?[/quote]
Incest laws vary from state to state; as far as I’ve ever heard, they apply only to marriage and then only when it is between close relatives (first cousins or closer). Some states have exemptions if the couple is unable to have children (e.g., too old).
However, it doesn’t seem to matter, since a quick search in Google turns up web pages about Flynt molesting his own daughter at around age 12 or 13: dianarussell.com/Flynt.html
I seldom agree with Feinstein but I think she has a good point -
Ditto. The recall is a ridiculous idea in this case. It’s supposed to cost around $60 million and we could end up with a governor who wins just a few percent of the vote. Unless I’m missing something, Davis could lose with 49% percent of the vote and we’ll have a new governor with, say, 10%. Although I don’t particularly care for Davis, I’ll vote not to recall.
Grey Davis may have the charisma of a stone (how did he get in Cybil Sheperds pants?) but to blame him completely for California’s economic mess is stupid. Why?
Because of the structure of the State Government getting laws passed in California is a slow, tedious process. So partisan bickering sometimes puts the government at a complete standstill (brings back memories of Newt doesn’t it)
Energy companies (Many from the lone-star state were responsible for price fixing) Blame them for your high bill not Davis.
The economy as a whole has slowed and this more than anything is responsible for the huge deficits.
This recall effort is wasting even more money. Its like using exlax to to cure the runs.
[quote]THE [East Bay Express] PAPER supplied the $3,500 entrance fee and 65 signatures needed for Coleman to be considered a candidate. Its Aug. 6 issue features 10 stories on Coleman as a candidate, as well as a poster stating
[quote=“MaPoDoFu”]You’d rather leave Davis, who has proven himself utterly incompetent at managing the state’s finances, in power for another three years?
There might not be a California to vote in by the next election.[/quote]
I wouldn’t even vote to recall a Republican governor from office in the same situation. It’s a waste of millions of dollars and is likely to result in having a governor with even less popular support than Davis. And what’s to stop Democrats fom mounting a recall election as soon as a Republican governor takes office? Nothing in the constitution says the recall has to be for a reason–all you need is a few million dollars to hire petition collectors.
This whole California governor recall effort has turned into something worse than a carnival freak show and another huge waste of taxpayer money.
Does anybody know what the mechanics of the recall are?
Is the first round a vote on whether or not recall Gov. Davis? What will be the exact wording on the ballot?
And then will the second round be to vote on which one of the several hundred candidates will replace him? Is that right? Will the winner of that round be whoever gets a simple majority or will there then be a run-off election?
If it is just a simple majority then California could see their next governor being elected by just a tiny, tiny percentage of the voters. For example, if there are 301 candidates on the ballot and candidates #1 through #300 each receive 0.33 percent of the votes (300 x .33 = 99%) then candidate #301 would win with just 1% of the votes.
