Calblog

So why don't Republicans like Buffett?

Republicans, and more than a few Libertarians,
don't like Warren Buffett because he loves
taxes. He also seems to not really understand
how people outside of his own Omaha circle think.

Remember that commercial containing the line, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV"?

Someone must have believed that puppy really sold, because now we have Lowe essentially saying: "I'm not a professional campaign advisor ( policy wonk, whatever), but I play(ed) one on TV ..."

Talk about the snicker factor!

Adam, that's kinda funny. You kinda prove my point.

Buffet has a history of helping elected Democrats and Democratic causes. He has a history of bashing supply-side efforts to invigorate economic growth, including the President's most recent effort to cut taxes. What is surprising is that he doesn't seem to appreciate the very economic system that allowed him to become one of the world's richest men.

Why?

Shriver shows Arnold for what he is: liberal scum.

Dropped in here after my usual stop in at "The Corner" at NRO, better known as Nincompoop Reactionaries Online. Some clown over there thinks there is sound political analysis available here--he likes how you blame Maria Shriver for some recent developments that bother you.

Because the LA Times says Shriver's wearing the pants, you buy into it hook, line, and sinker. Whatever happened to skepticism of the liberal media? Whatever happened to not necessarily believing everything you read?

But it's what you wanted to hear, so you ate it up like barbecue. Makes things a lot easier for intellecually and morally flabby folks like you seem to be.

When in doubt, blame the woman. It's a venerable tradition, going back to the book of Genesis, and you misogynist twerps have got it down to a tee.

Better yet for you, it allows you to indulge your irrational, childish, and just plain weird hatred of anyone and anything connected with the Kennedy family. What a sophisticated bunch of analysts you are, just like the right wing commentators who bring up Ted Kennedy when they can't put together a cogent, original argument.

I was ready to despise Schwarznegger but when I found out who was against him--Limbaugh, NRO, people like you--I had second thoughts. Not that I would ever vote for him, but it's refreshing to see a Republican who doesn't see anything wrong with getting high or laid, who doesn't hate gay people and love guns, and who seems to have reasonable views on abortion.

Imagine that--a Republican who thinks for himself but isn't afraid of diverse viewpoints.

Unlike you, of course. You sound like caricatures of what conservatives are, just like Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, and the rest who have brought political dialogue down to the level of professional wrestling.

And maybe the funniest thing about all this is the fact that Bustamante will ultimately triumph, as he should. Then you can all complain about a person of Latino descent being in charge of California. You won't come out and say so directly, but your racism will be the match of your misogyny.

Ray,

Was that last post what passes for an "argument" among liberals? If so, this state is even farther gone than I thought.

Ray,

If you'd only read a little more, you could have seen my original take on the LA Times article http://www.calblog.com/archives/002558.html. In that earlier piece, I noticed the dramatic difference between the accounts of the LA Times, the Sacramento Bee, and the SF Chronicle. At the time, I thought that the LA Times was playing up the "shake up" theory to suggest that there's something rotten in Denmark which, at the time, I doubted.

Now, as events unfold, I'm reminded of the Times piece and attempt to put two and two together. I call 'em as I see them. If you agree with my fairly reasonable, I think, proposition that folks like Pete Wilson and George Gorton would on the natural prefer not to hang with the likes of Rob Lowe, what other explanation could there be? How else can the switch from Club for Growth/Howard Jarvis style tax-cutting to Warren Buffet idiocy be explained?

I think it's a reflection of Shriver, a Kennedy Democrat, taking a more central role in the campaign, a move that has been written about by the LA Times. It's not blaming the woman. In fact, after seeing her picture on the website, I'm starting to doubt that Shriver is even human.

I jest, of course, but If you have a better explanation for Arnold's recent, unexpected campaign moves, I'd be all ears.

When in doubt blame the woman? You've got to be joking, Ray. Calling these guys sexist is just plain silly and childish as most Republicans are looking at this from a purely political angle. I know that may come as a shock as the majority of liberals would prefer this debate be about a battle of the sexes as opposed to debating Arnold's beliefs and his campaign methods. It's far easier to make the mean old Republican men explain why they're beating up on a blue-blooded, Kennedy Democrat.

Spooky is dead on -- if Arnold's truly running as a Republican he needs to inject himself with some Republican advisors and a pro-tax zillionaire and an actor that loves taping himself having sex with young chicks just doesn't pass the smell test.

With that said we Republicans need to look at our original goal which was to oust Davis and replace him with a Republican. Would I be thrilled with Arnold? At this point, most likely not. But would he be better than Davis? I believe, at this point, that he would. However to fractionalize this race even more is the same type of suicidal politics that we've done for ages. The conservative and liberal voices in the state GOP need to hold their noses and get behind one candidate otherwise we'll have Cruz as our Governor. Capiche?

Our main agenda and voice to the public is that we're going to fix the financial disaster that the Democrats made. That's it and nothing more. Don't let the Dems paint you in to the corner about abortion, the death penalty and others as the financial disaster is all that should matter at this point in time. They want this argument to be anything other than their tax and spend ways and we cannot let them get away with it.

Now I need to go back to enjoying my last day of vacation before I head back to work and pay for the debacle that Davis and his liberal friends in the legislature created for me.

Please allow me to translate the first sentence of Ray's comment:

I am a troll.

The rest of what he has to say is merely reiteration.

Warren Buffett is a financial genius and one of the original "turnaround specialists". He may be a democrat who upsets Republican orthodoxy on Property taxes, but he made his fortune in the private sector and is unlikely to recommend any additional onerous government regulations in his capacity as Arnold's adviser (if anything, he might have helpful advise on the types of onerous regulations that California could afford to lift).

As far as Rob Lowe is concerned, I can't for the life of me see what benefit he brings to this campaign, unless he is simply on board as a cheerleader for Arnold (and I'm not sure why people are jumping to the conclusion that his "role" in the campaign will be more significant than that).

Ok, I'm bakc. Enough about Arnold. Get ready for the McClintock posts.

Not going to suggest what Shriver do with Arnold's cigar. Nope... not gonna do it.

Warren doesn't "love taxes". He loves government that enables him to make money. This government adequately funds itself so that it doesn't get its debt rating cut. This government doesn't cut trillions in taxes just as the surplus is evaporating.

If he is so stupid to support reasonable tax levels, how did he get so rich? Luck?

Spooky I think you've nailed this. You would think Ahnuld would have learned a thing or two when his buddy Dick Riordan listened to HIS Democrat wife and hired his Democrat camapign advisors like Susan Estricht to get him through the Republican primary while cavalierly insulting those party member with the temerity to be socially conservative.

Molly- I'm in your corner so far as being more than willing to back Ahnuld and send Davis to the scrapheap of history in spite of misgivings about the recall's impact on our regular elections. Unfortunately, and I hate to put it this way, but things have gotten to the point where Arnie is going to have to wake up and perform a major bitchslap on Rob, Warren, and the mother of his children. That and start answering some real questions, even if they are from some braindead reporter. I'd rather see us muddle along for the next 3 years under Cruz than muddle under Arnie. And so far he ain't showing me he's willing to do anything more than muddle, albeit with a little more entertainment value. However, this may seem farfetched now, but if Arnie continues to implode, and either Simon or McClintock throws their support to the other (preferably to McClintock), we could possibly see something like Bustamente -40, McClintock-41, Arnie/Ueberroth-10, Huffington/Cornejo-5, Others-4.

Re Buffett. I think its fair to say that Warren loves taxes... for other people. Especially if their dumb enough to buy stocks of companies that pay dividends (unlike his), or to leave their estates to their own families. And rather than pay you a dividend for uncle sam to get his cut, Warren will offer to make a tax deductible contribution to your favorite charity courtesy of Berkshire Hathaway. Warren, in his wisdom, plans on leaving some $40 billion to the likes of planned parenthood. Apparently we've got an abortion shortage these days. Great investor though, give him credit.

Don't you just hate those people who avoid taxes by donating to charity? Argh, that chaps my hide!

Ohhhh, and family planning. There just aren't enough unwed teen mothers out there. Have to do something about that!

Go ahead, support McClintock. Social conservatism goes far in California elections. Just ask Simon.

Oh yeah, is calling him Cornejo a joke I don't get? The Green candidate is Camejo.