He's not a politician, he's a freakin' actor for goodness sake! And a bad actor at that!!
2006-11-08 06:41:22 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I was going to ask the same question...he's taken more bribes than anyone in recent history, people in California must have their star struck heads up their a55's.
2006-11-08 06:44:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i'm balloting for Arnold. i did no longer vote for him in the previous because of the fact i replaced into against the bear in mind. i might have voted for Westley, yet he lost to Angelites. the difficulty with Phil is that he's bought and paid for via the civil provider unions. Do i think of he's doing a stable job? No - in no way. Do i think of the alternative will do extra suitable? No - he will only advance taxes and help out his cry infant civil provider pals on the price of taxpayers
2016-10-21 11:58:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I sure as sh*t didn't, and, no, I don't know what the h*ll happened.
The freak -- what the h*ll happened to Kahliforrnions?
His being an actor (good or bad) is the least of it, the Bush-kissing monstrosity.
ugh
No idea what went wrong here. California picks some real lu-lu's sometimes (remember the other really bad actor named Ronnie?).
I blame all such things on Southern Cal -- why, oh, WHY are we one state?
sigh
2006-11-08 09:47:14 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately he was able to convince more than 2 million people that he should be govenor for a second term. Obviously those 2 million people don't know a bad actor when they see one.
2006-11-08 06:54:05 · answer #4 · answered by Lucy E 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I voted for him, even though I normally support Democrats. He's learned to abandon partisanship and work together with the Democratic Legislature. If there is anything we've learned in the past six years, it's that one-party rule is a bad idea. I like having different parties control the legislative and executive branches of government.
2006-11-08 06:56:55 · answer #5 · answered by Cardinal Rule 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Better than Phil Angelides
2006-11-08 06:48:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, apparently the majority of voters in California voted for him...
2006-11-08 06:42:33 · answer #7 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
About 2/3's of Californians. Sorry, you're the loser.
2006-11-08 06:43:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Better than Angeledies. Phil would have been another grey davis wanna be by taxing us to death
2006-11-08 06:51:17 · answer #9 · answered by Reality Has A Libertarian Bias 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Enough people to get him re-elected apparently.
2006-11-08 06:42:54 · answer #10 · answered by Nunya B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋