Ariana Huffington is a LIAR

The following comes from F.A.Q. section of the Huffington for Governor web site:

<<Wouldn't Arianna just be another "Ralph Nader," splitting the liberal and progressive vote so that the Republicans win?

Not in this election. The recall has no primaries and no runoff. That means that whoever gets the most votes becomes governor. Period. Even without a majority.

How does that change things?

With no primary, dozens of Republicans have already entered the race. And without a runoff, it's the Republicans who are in the most danger of splitting their votes. With so few progressives of any note on the ballot, we can afford to vote for a candidate we really believe in.

Arianna won't split the vote. She'll win because the Republicans are splitting the vote.>>

http://www.ariannaforgov.com/article.php?list=type&type=5#FAQ-05

Excuse me, but just how STUPID does Ariana Huffington think her supporters are? Oh well, I suppose the question pretty much answers itself. OBVIOUSLY a vote for Huffington, or that other left-wing spoiler from the Green Party, makes it more likely that Ah-nuld will edge out Bustamente. Just because the Republicans are stupidly dividing their votes is not reason for the left to follow suit. It's particularly galling that Huffington would make this argument while she's currently hovering at around 4% in the polls, which is pretty close to Bustamente's current lead over Ah-nuld. The simple truth is that Huffington can't win, but she can siphon off enough votes from Bustamente to allow Ah-nuld to squeak by. She knows it, and now she's lying to cover up the ugly truth: Huffington is Ralph Nader in a dress.

wonder why we're not great fans of Arianna.

but i'm still very suspicious of her.

I didn't know about Ralph Nader until I visited this site for the first time.

Arnold has a lot of built in competition, and Bustamente, like any other candidate can make or break his own effort. This is democracy, and it is all about the votes.

I mean Issa already left the race in tears, and it is not even September yet.

A runoff would remove the spoiler factor.

Unless I'm missing something, Huffington's argument is a little bit Orwellian.

NT

...........she would get the hell out of this thing. May she can work out a deal with Bustamente or something. Either she or Camejo should move the hell out the way, because the Repubs are playing for keeps in this battle. But alas, too many people on the "far left" are so enamoured by their own ideas that they fail to see the sign of the times-- i.e. by running in this race, she's almost ensuring that, as the DU puts it "the Groping Austrian Beefcake could become Governor Groping Austrian Beefcake."

- Cappa

I'd be very interested to know the answer to that question.

Also, failure to support your candidate or line of reasoning does not make a person a "LIAR." Cool heads prevail.

Oh, and the Green Party candidate whose name you withheld in favor of pejorative description is Peter Camejo.

Huffington cannot win, but she can screw the Democrats with her candidacy. Therefore, she's the spoiler.

I'm more qualified than either one of them, and I wouldn't draw anyone's vote but my own. It isn't about qualifications, or Arnold never would have announced; neither would Bush for that matter.

but how are more qualified then Ariana? ugh I am getting off subject, Everyone SHOULD care. What improves democracy is when someone looks at all the candidates and sees how they are qualified and fit to do the job. I think Bustamante is the most qualified out of all them. But Arianna is more qualified then Arnold in response to the original poster.

So as soon as a Democrat announces his intentions, the independents, Greens and others had better undo theirs and fall silently into line.

How very just and logical and not at all presumptuous.

If these people are 'progressive,' if they aren't simply out to ruin the chances of Democrats, then they would step aside in close elections, as this one promises to be. If, on the other hand, they are out to spoil, like Nadir, then they will stay in the election, even though they have no chance of winning, knowing that by doing so, they give the anti-progressive forces a chance at winning. It's simple, really, as you well know, having seen these arguments before. They have the right to stay in or depart, and I wouldn't dream of denying them that right, but I'm not going to pretend they aren't doing what anyone with a triple-digit IQ can figure out.

Unless progressives undo their plans upon Democratic announcement, they have IQs of less than 100.

By spelling Nader's name "Nadir," your devastating wit has committed to thoughtful discourse.

Doing something other than what Democrats do, even if Democrats haven't done it yet, is "simply out to ruin the chances of Democrats."

Gee, I guess that proves the thesis that Huffington is a LIAR (sic). Also, I'm suddenly convinced to vote Dem with no questions asked, ever. I just can't stand being accused of not being progressive.

Unless progressives undo their plans upon Democratic announcement, they have IQs of less than 100.

I begin to wonder about your reading comprehension, as this doesn't even approach what I said.

By spelling Nader's name "Nadir," your devastating wit has committed to thoughtful discourse.

This incredibly bad sentence reinforces my doubts about the afore-mentioned reading comprehension. It reminds me of an online translation, from, say, Russian to English.

To reiterate, if a candidate, of whatever stripe, stays in an election they have no chance of winning, knowing their presence can screw up the chances of someone else, then they are spoiling. Don't know how else to put this so you'll understand it.

Let's see how well your scold stands up to scrutiny.

You: "They have the right to stay in or depart, and I wouldn't dream of denying them that right, but I'm not going to pretend they aren't doing what anyone with a triple-digit IQ can figure out."
Me: "Unless progressives undo their plans upon Democratic announcement, they have IQs of less than 100."
You: I begin to wonder about your reading comprehension, as this doesn't even approach what I said.

Looks like it does approach what you wrote. Next time you attempt to insult my intelligence with personal garbage about reading comprehension, make sure that you can reason well enough to pass my basic writing class.

Next?

Me: "By spelling Nader's name "Nadir," your devastating wit has committed to thoughtful discourse."
You: "This incredibly bad sentence reinforces my doubts about the afore-mentioned reading comprehension. It reminds me of an online translation, from, say, Russian to English."

Uh, learn some grammar, ace. The introductory element (e.g.- clause or phrase) offset with a comma before an independent clause is a complete sentence, not an "incredibly bad" one. Next time you engage in irrelevant criticism of grammar, make sure that you can do it well enough to pass my basic writing class.

I can see that my point is lost on you, so I'll just remind you about the need for noun-pronoun agreement, as long as you're going to play the pedantic game.

Sorry, the expression 'Anyone with a triple-digit IQ can figure out' does not equate to 'If you don't do this, you don't have a triple-digit IQ.' I sincerely hope that your boast about 'intro to grammar class' was simply internet chest puffing; if not, I pity your 'students.'

Uh, learn some grammar, ace. The introductory element (e.g.- clause or phrase) offset with a comma before an independent clause is a complete sentence, not an "incredibly bad" one. Next time you engage in irrelevant criticism of grammar, make sure that you can do it well enough to pass my basic writing class.

Gee, teach, I didn't say the sentence was gramatically incorrect; I said it was incredibly bad. Your sentence states that my 'wit' has committed to some kind of discourse; an awkward construct, as it implies my 'wit' makes decisions of its own. 'Your arm was committed to playing baseball.' 'Your legs were committed to walking.' 'Your fingers are committed to typing endless streams of nonsense, twisting what other people say around so you can attack them.' 'That airplane is committed to landing.' 'The Greens are committed to frustrating the Democratic Party.' Oops, that last one is correct.

At any rate, I commit my wit to something; it doesn't commit itself.

Your personal aggressiveness did successfully divert from the issue.

Like it or not, I have students, no quotes around the word, and I am respected in my field. Suffer.

The thesis that Huffington is a LIAR (sic) has not at all been proved. Your apologia in its support that presumes everyone else should drop their plans midstream to accomodate Democrats has not at all been supported, just as your complaint about my narrative style doesn't make your "Nadir" bon mot any less hackneyed.

Sorry you don't like that. I bet if a Republican were making your hostile and diversionary arguments, you'd see the problems with them.

We Greens don't just want to frustrate Democrats, especially Dems who listen, and while I cannot count you among those, I nevertheless offer you the last word. Use it wisely.

but the proposition that Huffington was a liar was never mine to begin with, nor did I argue in its favor (although I have no doubt that it's true). My argument revolved around Huffington's status as a spoiler. This late in the game, it's simply piling on to point out that this would be, yet again, an instance of rather ... substandard, shall we say, reading comprehension on your part.


Your students are in my prayers.

that people who will defend Bill Clinton with their dying breaths as the last bastion of liberalism, morality and democracy are often the very first ones to denigrate Mr Nader. It proves to me that politics has absolutely nothing to do w/ reality and everything to do with emotion and propganda.

Most here understand the reality of US politics today. Neither Ariana nor Comejo have the infrastructure to effect anything in California. If they do win, they are dependent on either Democrats or Republicans) to move their agenda. So what's the point? Ego gratification?

The reality is (as it was in the 2000 national election), that the Greens/Independents can only spoil Democratic chances and enable the Republicans.

Sadly, it is you people who view American politics with emotion and fairy tale beliefs.

If Arianna doesn't have a chance then niether does Arnold because she is overly qualified. I don't think she will win but he has as much a chance as Arnold.

It is you people who point fingers if you lose an election or get it stolen by the supreme court. You should be pointing fingers at the supreme court but instead, fingers are pointed at Nader.

I HATE the fact that people like you want to limit the choices between democrat or republican. Well what about the people who don't like the issues the democrat or republican takes, it is you people that limit our choices. In the very first election, 12 candidates picked up at least 1 electoral vote.

A liitle cognitive disonance here, I think.

By all means, vote for whoever you want....just don't whine when that serves Republican interests.

and when I said you people, I meant the type of people who only wants to limit our choices to one candidate and get mad when another candidate decides to run. Unlike you, I don't blame Nader for the Supreme Court giving the Presidency to Junior.

Really, wouldn't a name like VermontInd2004, be closer to your political persuation? You wouldn't want to give people the wrong impression about your politics on this board do you?

It's a "free" country...you can vote for whoever you want!

a vote for arianna is a vote for arnold!
a vote for larry flynt is a vote for arnold!
(from the other side)a vote for simon is a vote for bustamante!

and in the primaries...
a vote for anybody but lieberman is a vote for bush!
or...
a vote for kucinich is a vote for lieberman!
or...
a vote for dean is a vote for bush!
or...
a vote for edwards is a vote for dean!
or...

i'm loving it. i really am.

Please, she is more qualified then he is. She has an economics major from Cambridge, she keeps up with what is going on by writing columns and books.

Bustamente is at 25%. Ah-nuld is at 22%. Huffington is at around 4%. Obviously, Ah-nuld's changes look a hell of a lot better than Huffington's. My best guess is that Huffington and Camejo (sp?) would be able to attract around 5-8% of the vote between them, which is more than anough to hand the election to Ah-nuld. Hell, Nader only needed a few thousands votes in Florida to hand the election to Bush.

Now that he is on the ballot to replace Davis if he loses the recall?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/15/democrats.recall.ap/

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio denounced the effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis, but said Thursday they want the party to rally behind a Democratic alternative in case Davis is thrown out.

"I'm against the recall, I think it's wrong. But I think people ought to have a choice beyond Arnold Schwarzenegger and Larry Flynt," said Lieberman, endorsing Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. Actor Schwarzenegger and Flynt, a pornography publisher, are candidates on the October 8 ballot.

Most of Lieberman's rivals don't want to talk about an alternative to Davis.

<snip>

For now, Lieberman is the only candidate fully invested in the recall drive.

"Cruz Bustamante is a friend of mine, he's chairman of my campaign here in California," Lieberman said.

if Arnold doesn't say anything other then "I'll be back." "Hasta La Vista Baby" "I am going to Sacremento to Clean House." Also, Simon attacked him and accused him of being liberal. So Simon will launch an anti-Arnold campaign and I wonder what his poll numbers are? Simon will definately split the repuke vote.

Obviously, it didn't matter in the 2000 Presidential election, it certainly won't matter in the California run-off. What does matter is whether the next person getting elected has a (D) or an (R) after his name. That matters.

Having listened to her and watched her, she did take on Arnold. She, I believe, won't stay in it for the long haul but has raised the Arnold/Enron meetings publicly.

The point is this election is critical and EVERY VOTE counts. Camejo can't win but can do serious damage as can Arianna.

That's the reality.

If one doesn't want a Republican governor and one believes in elections where no hanky panky takes place the
NO on the RECALL and YES on Bustamante.

Right now, I think Ueberroth is the Republican Nader, since I think he and Ah-nuld are going after the same moderate Republican/independent/moderate Democrat vote. But Huffington isn't going to take votes away from him.

And while she attacks Ah-nuld, she still supports the Davis recall, which makes her persona non grata in my book.

This can't be correct, dolstein this is one time you couldn't have said it more suciently. Total oportunist check this out

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/wnews/13recall_a1empirea.html
(snip)
Wilson's former chief of staff, Bob White, will deal with lobbyists, business executives and national GOP leaders. Two former deputy chiefs of staff, Marty Wilson and Patricia Clarey, will coordinate internal operations.

Candidate Arianna Huffington said she had hired the man who ran Jesse Ventura's campaign for governor in Minnesota as her campaign manager.

Dean Barkley, who served briefly in the U.S. Senate filling the seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the campaign. He will work with Bill Hillsman, who created TV ads for Ventura.

Films and TV shows featuring Schwarzenegger and other celebrity candidates probably will not be broadcast in the state for the next few months so that stations can avoid having to give rival candidates equal time.
(snip)

For people in the know Jesse a good buddy of Arnold that told him he should run for governor a while back. Maybe this is old news but just found it interesting

when I seen him on Real Time w/Bill Maher. He called the Republican party a machine who only cares about winning and not where the candidates stand on the issues.

Ummm.....yeah. Keep toein' that line by all means, it gives the rest of us the opportunity to measure our independence.

you do know Nixon is dead, right?

"it gives the rest of us the opportunity to measure our independence"

Perfectly stated! It's always what best for the elitist few....you know, I could be just like you, too, and thumb my nose at both parties..show everyone how smart I am and how I won't let my reputation be sullied by association with either party. Nosiree, because, as Ralph said, "there's not a lick of difference between the Democrats and Republicans".

If I was a betting person, I'll bet you are:

(1) Under 25
(2) Have no kids
(3) Highly educated
(4) White

Just a guess.

Under 25. Only to call to point ageism is as bad as any kind of ism. Not that I am a religous person or anything, but wasn't it a man named Jesus that said something about from the mouth of babes. Ever heard a song by the title "Teach the children". Often times they teach older people as much, and sometimes more.

The thing that get me tough if "there's not a lick of difference between the Democrats and Republicans".

Really though is that true, if they all didn't care how we voted, why do they make such a fuss about how somebody might vote (vote tampering aside, thanks Bev)

I keep on thinking I am in a little dirtwater backwards country where operatives from the beltway invade and con people to keep voting till the beltway crowd gets the results they like.

But I do remember how smart I was when I was 22. Seems like the older I get, the less I know.

I guess I found Ralph's core thesis wrong (and look how old he was, I'm a lot younger than that)...I truly believe there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. I mean, you've lived in the world for longer than 23 years, you understand the relative seachange in our economy, foreign policy, domestic agenda in these 3 years, right? What's changed? Not the House or the Senate or the Supreme Court. Just a President with the letter (R) after his name.

Sure, Ralph can paint Democrats with the same brush as the Republicans, but I also understand that Democrats have not had control of the House in 10 years, the Senate in 5 years, and the SCOTUS in 16 years(?). Tell me how you get a New Deal or Great Society when the last popularly elected Democrat spends 8 years fighting a political Inquisition and Impeachment? Or how does a Democrat find his voice when the corporate media is so biased in favor of Republicans that we are essentially shut out of the national forum? Honestly, do you think a few Greens or Independents are going to breakthrough this wall and lead us to the Promised Land?


If our political battle was between electing Democrats and Greens, I'd sit back and enjoy the fight. But this isn't the reality. It's black vs. white and shades of gray don't count.

His core thesis is that we've granted control of our government to corporations who lack interest in social values.

He's right.

I agree with most of what you said, the corporate greed machine is rolling through most of our hometowns and taking most anything that isn't tightened down securely. The things that are fastened down, the corporate hierarchy are still claiming for their own.

I think Ariana must take lessons from Ralph, they both seem to have the same carpetbagger mentality.

I had just hoped not to be alienating young people here, for we are all just passengers on this little speck of dust in the sky. Some of us may here tomorrow, while others may be gone. The only real thing we can leave is a future for those that come after us

including my two, a chance to live in a country free of the Republican Corporate Fascism. When we sucessfully beat the problem at hand, I will gladly work to moving the Democratic Party further to the left.

I guess we got to learn to walk first, again, before we can run...

reciprocate. All of them nice words he has put upon so many here would never have been possible if we would not have acknowledged and encouraged for a true exposing of beliefs. I glad people can come here and let out their true feeling without fear of reprisals. Truly the Original DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

P.S. I haven't met a person yet that thought they really truly hated someone, without them having a passionate dislike about something about their own person. My Mea Culpa is about *, in him I see a bumbling fool that uses these bumbling fool routine/handicaps as a crutch to get by when things are tough. So rather than take it on the chin, he ducks his responsibilities and lets others take the blame. I have done that once or twice myself and felt guilty for it to no end. (I don't like thinking I am anyway attitudinally like that dude, yuk)
You see it is that perticular part, shirking the buck, * does best. I think it really would make someone who felt that responsible parties should fess up (at least to their selves) about their own misdeeds where applicable and change their ways accordingly. That sort of thing will never happen with *, in essence the perfect fit for the GOP usurpers

of course I know Nixon is dead. If you don't get it, you don't get it, I guess. The comparisons are numerous and very appropriate.

As for "thumbing my nose at both parties" -- you did hit it right on the head, and that attitude comes from reading history. Historically the Democrats have been just as corrupt and full of lies as the Republicans. Any reading of the politics of Chicago, the city of my birth, will bear this out in (often mindboggling and comic) detail, as will any good reading of Tammany Hall's exploits.

Do I believe here is "no difference" between the two parties? No, absolutely not, especially at the present moment, and when the next election comes I will (most likely) vote for the Dem candidate.

What I find most humorous is the whiny tone and desperate "slippery slope" debate tactics adopted by most of the Nader-haters here on DU. Just about everyone familiar with Nader knew damn well that when he called the two major parties "Republicrats" he was engaging in a kind of metaphorical shorthand that spoke of the disease of corporate influence on the American political process. Not that you would ever know that from the postings here on DU....which says to me that Mr. Nader may have hit closer to home than the diehard Party loyalists are willing to admit. The issue of corporate influence on the so-called party of the "Left" has yet to be adressed in any real form.

Most of the Nader-haters on DU want to blame him for Gore's "loss" of the presidency, which is just plain foolishness. Gore didn't lose the damn election and anyone here at DU who says differently hasnt done enough research.

I also believe very strongly that the emergence of 3rd parties is VITAL for the restoration of democracy in this nation and favor including all 3rd parties in deabtes, etc, even the "right-wing" ones like the Libertarian Party.

As for your characterization, you got numbers 2 & 3 correct....the others are misfires.

Don't mind us old slippery slopers on the DU, we really do know Ralph...we've seen enough of them over the years.

Actually, I get a real chuckle out of the Andersons, Perots, and Naders who think they have a special "vision" that sets them apart from everyone else. But what happens where they to get elected? What part of their "agenda" would get enacted without hooking it into the dominant party legislature?

Don't get me wrong, I wish Ralph had won in 2000. He'd have been a hell of a lot better than the present Bush administration. But what progressive ideas of his would have passed this Congress? Honestly.

If you want to play with the big boys, you can't do it starting from the top down. You have to do it from the bottom up. Just like building a house. If you want a structure to last, you need to build the foundation 1st. But that's real work and Ralph's age and ego precludes that from occurring.

Perhaps it's people like you and VermontDem04 that can lay the groundwork for a national alternative Party that repudiates all the evils inherent in the Democrat and Republican Party and can reap the seeds you sow in, say, 3-4 election cycles....but you'd better start now ;-) . Good luck!

Oh yeah, I did "get it" about the BushNixon04....I wonder, though, could the Republicans run a dead man as VP in 04? Is Nixon suitably reformed? You might be on to something...lot of votes in California.

Look around. Then be glad that your arguments don't rely on personal comments. Cheerio.

place.

He must not like Arianna so much that he searches her entire website looking for a piece of info to blast Arianna on. And all he can come up with are reasons why Arianna is in the race.

I went to her website initially to see if the text of her remarks regarding Ah-nuld's meeting with Enron were available.

But of course, my motives for visting in her website in no way change the fact that it contains a blatant lie to would-be supporters about there being no potential downside to voting for Huffington, as opposed to the leading liberal candidate, Cruz Bustamente.

If you want to defend the Huffington's veracity, please do so on the merits, instead of attacking me.

and while you mentioned Arnold's 22% and Arianna's 4%, you forgot to mention Simon's percentage and the other republican candidate's %'s. So I don't think Arianna will cost the democrats the election, but like people like you point fingers if you lose an election or get it stolen by the people who you SHOULD be pointing fingers at.

it's been getting torn down. I checked out Freerepublic once or twice, it was horrible, but am quite sure, brainless or brainwashed people pose only manageable threats.

The ones that come from there to here are the ones to think about, for the reason being, they are not being challenged to think over there and are made to be mere parrots. When they get here those constraints are off mostly and they start their stuff to cause problems.

Guilt by association only works when it is an accessory to the crime.

How would we know squat unless somehow we can keep track of them and their underhanded ways. If dolstien wants to work as a foil, that should be cool, the wind can blow from many different directions.

If you watch any basketball, sometimes you send in your second-string center to do a few hard fouls on the opponent.

I don't know Arianna's motives. But, having read many of her columns, I am very pleased she is in the race, to bring up issues about corporate control of this country. If she can get some hard fouls on that problem, it will benefit the entire discourse (okay, discourse may be too strong a word what with muscle boy supposedly one of the leading candidates).

Democrats have voted to let Bush get his war on. Democrats -- some -- are involved in helping shield Diebold from public scrutiny (Cathy Cox, Sec. of State, Georgia). Democrat AND Republican state legislators were wined and dined and laden with donations, and voted, unanimously or nearly unanimously, to deregulate energy in California.

Unfortunately, putting a D after yer name doesn't make you always do the right thing.

Let's have as much debate as the corporate media will allow in California. Then, vote for the best possible outcome that IS possible.

Arianna's a good friend of Al Franken and I think he's had a lot of influence on her. I heard her speak last spring and thought she was quite sincere and fabulously smart and witty. Whether she has enough business or political experience or magic powers to solve the huge problems facing California's governor, I don't know, but do any of the candidates?

There are scarier Republicans than Arnold. I'd love to see them all get behind him, get him elected, and then have him turn out to be more liberal than all his in-laws.

but at least she's out there saying what needs to be said regarding the ca recall debacle...

i am convinced beyond a doubt that her live presser she had last week where she BLASTED arnold a new one had an effect on californians' view of arnold... it helped bustamante poll ahead...

so at least she's out there fighting the fight right now...

n/t

and Davis will remain in office?

Sorry, I don't think you can lay this at Arianna's feet.

Besides, she's the smartest person in the race, and if she had a penis and steroid-inflated muscles she would be running ahead of the pack.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When she declared no democrat was in the race. Bustamonte, to my knowledge, is not going out of his way to tell the media that the California energu crisis was Bushco's doing. See:

POWER OUTAGE TRACED TO DIM BULB IN WHITE HOUSE for the full explanation... (This Palast fellow is dead-on)

Arianna is doing a Public service even if she _doesn't_ win...

The correct things are being said but they seem to be comming out of the wrong set of lips. somehow the I feel as if they are setting up a tag team, with some of the other pulling out like Issa did along the way. None it would suprise me. These Republicans play it like a game and when they lose they don't suffer, they get just get a little less, unlike the rank and file of a lot of Democrats and non-politicos

When normal people end up paying more on their property tax for a modest home they have, than Ariana does on her whole income tax, something is really wrong with that picture. Sounds to me like her whole life was a write off.

After hearing interviews with Simon and McClintock I'm 100% convinced that both will withdraw and endorse Schwarzenegger if he's ahead after the first debate. The Republicans have worked some kind of deal.

Maybe Ariana Huffington will do the same thing. If so there's nothing wrong with her running. It probably will generate more interest. This is a way for people to get their issues out there.

If she stays in, though, then she obviously doesn't give a flyin' F. I'd never vote for her anyway.