(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Well, it says something I think about the voting public in California that Arnold Schwarzenegger managed somehow to avoid a political quagmire over the meeting with Ken Lay (and its potentially far-reaching political implications), but has become entangled in questions over a stupid interview with a skin magazine 25 years ago, which ultimately says nothing about his ability to lead in government.

Now that he has claimed he made up the story he told then about taking part in a locker-room gang bang, the voters of California have to ask themselves which would be worse: (a) the thought that Arnold did those things many years ago and is lying now to cover it up, or (b) the thought that he lied all those years ago.

Perhaps he should have instead taken a page from the Bill Clinton book on politics and said, "Yes, I did take part in that, but I didn't come."

Comments

[mlfoley.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did take part in that, but I didn't come."

*snort* Personally, I don't see why it is such a big deal. It was the 70s for goodness sake. I am more interested in his ability to be a governor than whether he slept around and did drugs in the 70s.

[cruelly-kind.livejournal.com]

And here I was hoping that he'd be the one who just owned up to his past. How's he going to to deal with the joint he smoked on camera for the documentary "Pumping Iron"?

[halfempty.livejournal.com]

but has become entangled in questions over a stupid interview with a skin magazine 25 years ago, which ultimately says nothing about his ability to lead in government.

But it does say as much as everything else we know about him and his ability to lead in government.