Well, I guess it's official now...

It was a very quickly buried comment shortly after Davis signed the bill. Heard about it while watching "The News With Brian Williams" on CNBC. I'm not surprised there is no press on it.

It was probably said in response to the calls from many conservative republicans who said that Arnold was too "liberal" when it came to social issues such as gay rights, because he hadn't uttered a peep about that before the bill was signed when it was being proposed.

[EDIT]

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/100603arnoldPartner.htm

Arnold Schwarzenegger would not have signed California’s Domestic Partner legislation that was recently signed into law by Governor Davis, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Schwarzenegger was responding to a series of questions the Chronicle asked each of the candidates running to replace Gov. Gray Davis Tuesday. The only other major candidate opposed to the landmark law was fellow Republican, state Sen. Tom McClintock who also voted against it in the legislature.

Though Schwarzenegger has maintained throughout the campaign he supports domestic partner benefits for same-sex families, his opposition to the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act is seen as a final attempt to solidify his Republican base amid criticism by conservative groups he is too soft on gay issues.
Click to expand...
 
Natoma: if you actually read the article that the questions were posed in, Schwarzenegger's spokesman said "that is not legislation we have specifically looked at", not that they wouldn't sign it.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mcherald/2003/08/23/news/state/6601208.htm

Assuming, of course, that this is the question posed. I couldn't find anything at the SF Chronicle to document what your site is saying.

Its a shame that people with an axe to grind (your website quoted) are willing to lie to get their point across.
 
I heard the same thing from MSNBC quoting the SF Chronicle Russ. I went to their site already looking for the article but it doesn't appear that they carry articles online so it was no doubt print only. Also, who said anything about the Monterey Herald? People can give separate answers to separate newspapers. It happens all the time in politics. ;)

http://www.sfchron.com
 
SfChronicle has gone berserk. After Arnold won, there was an extremely long and incoherent editorial on SFGATE.COM, almost frothing at the mouth because of Arnold's victory.

Not to mention on the candidate profiles section, like 80% of the copy space for Arnold's profile is dedicated to negativity, whilest many of the other candidate profiles are sparkling clean.

I don't think it can be said that SfChronicle is unbiased in this. San Francisco is a unique place politically, and it's hard for anyone to say anything even left of center without getting stomped on, since the city is filled with hard leftists and other elite weirdos.

All I'm saying is, do not trust SfChronicle or LA Times. Both have misquoted and butchered Arnold before even after papers like the NYT and WashPost printed corrections.
 
Are you SURE it wasn't the Contra Costa Times that asked the question, and the writers at your website didn't get confused?

Because the Contra Costa Times DID ask that exact question; and all but two said they would sign it. McClintock said he wouldn't; Schwarzenegger's rep said that they had not looked specifically at the legislation.
 
If what Democoder says is true about SFChronicle (I wouldn't know, I don't read it of course) then your "willing to lie" jab should be directed at them, and not the article that commented on SFC don't you think Russ? Shoot the messenger and all that.

Frankly I don't know how a newspaper can lie or misrepresent answers to questions asked of a political candidate without that candidate going out of his/her way to make sure it's corrected. I know if I were running a political campaign I'd at least speak out about it if I had been grossly misrepresented, especially if it could hurt my position, yet nothing was sent to the media from the Schwarzeneggar campaign. I just find that a little odd don't you?
 
RussSchultz said:
Are you SURE it wasn't the Contra Costa Times that asked the question, and the writers at your website didn't get confused?

Because the Contra Costa Times DID ask that exact question; and all but two said they would sign it. McClintock said he wouldn't; Schwarzenegger's rep said that they had not looked specifically at the legislation.
Click to expand...

Again, I first heard about this on CNBC during "The News With Brian Williams". The only reason I went to gay news websites uk.gay.com and 365gay.com is because I couldn't find anything about it in mainstream media. All the sources stated SFC interview.

So either CNBC and the gay news websites were incorrect, or this interview did indeed take place. Frankly I don't know which one is true, but the evidence seems to support that SFC reported what it did, considering it came from a "mainstream" news outlet in CNBC and other not-so-mainstream news outlets.

You tell me.
 
Well, the article in the Contra Costa times didn't, they stated he would not comment on whether he would sign it or not.

Your website stated that he would not sign it.

And Schwarzenegger wouldn't come out and correct the ambiguity, because he's not going to alienate the hard core conservatives who would have otherwise voted for McClintock.

Come on, the guy's been on radio--Hannity's program even-- saying he's for domestic unions, just not "gay" marriages.
 
365gay.com said:
Though Schwarzenegger has maintained throughout the campaign he supports domestic partner benefits for same-sex families, his opposition to the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act is seen as a final attempt to solidify his Republican base amid criticism by conservative groups he is too soft on gay issues.
Click to expand...

Russ, we're in agreement that Schwarzeneggar has stated many times that he supports domestic unions. I'm not arguing that. Actually I'm not really arguing anything save for the validity of the existence of the article at SFC.

I'm not concerned with Contra Costa because political candidates give different answers to different papers all the time. All I know is that it showed up on CNBC and gay news websites, all quoting SFC as their source, saying that he would not have signed the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act.

Considering the point that you make that he doesn't want to alienate the hard core conservatives who were going to go with McClintock, I don't see this as so far fetched or out of the realm of strong possibility.

Frankly it's good politics.
 
Not to mention that Gold's Gym and the muslce beaches were FULL of gays during Arnold's time, so I doubt he's antigay. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he even had a gay experience.

It's like being a male hairdresser or ballet dancer. 95% of your friends and coworkers are going to be gay.

Arnold is not a conservative. He's what I'd call a Guilliani or McCain republican.
 
If you can come up with something--ANYTHING--that directly quotes Schwarzenegger or his rep saying he would not sign the bill, I'll agree with you.

But as it stands, nope: I think the article you quoted was confusing the Contra Costa Times and the SF times (both are in the Bay Area) and misrepresenting what was said--because he would say flat out that he would support it, they're saying he said he wouldn't.
 
Russ, as I said before, it wasn't just 365gay.com that stated this. uk.gay.com and CNBC all said the same thing about SFC. So are they all confusing SFC with CCT or SFT?
 
They would if one was generating their news based on other news services. It happens all the time.
 
DemoCoder said:
Not to mention that Gold's Gym and the muslce beaches were FULL of gays during Arnold's time, so I doubt he's antigay. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he even had a gay experience.

It's like being a male hairdresser or ballet dancer. 95% of your friends and coworkers are going to be gay.

Arnold is not a conservative. He's what I'd call a Guilliani or McCain republican.
Click to expand...

Having a gay experience or having gay friends/family doesn't mean you're automatically for domestic partnerships or are suddenly sensitive to other gay issues.

Did you ever see Cruel Intentions? You'll know what I mean if you saw that film. Just think the cello scene with the mom. ;)
 
RussSchultz said:
They would if one was generating their news based on other news services. It happens all the time.
Click to expand...

Well honestly I can't answer or hope to answer for three separate news sources and how they all got the same information from apparently the same source, so I guess I'll just leave it at that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Microsoft is reportedly subsidizing $100-200 per Xbox while Sony started breaking even more than a year ago, help me understand
2 3
Replies
54
Views
7K
Nesh
N
BRiT
Gamescom 2020 Hype Thread [2020-08-27 - 2020-08-30]
5 6 7
Replies
122
Views
10K
BRiT
BRiT
Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
13K
trinibwoy
T
G
Tech Differences between Switch and 7th Gen (PS3/360) Games
2
Replies
21
Views
9K
GuardHei
G
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
17K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Back
Top