All signs point to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s rapid demise as governor of California. His polls have plummeted, his special election he had heavily promoted backfired when none of the measures on the ballot were passed, and now even members of his own party (republicans) are looking to remove him and replace him with someone else.
Mike Spence, the president of the California Republican Assembly, have gone on record saying he would like to have Mel Gibson as the next republican to run for Govenor. The good folks over at Guardian give us this:
“He’s (Gibson) shown himself to be both fiscally and socially conservative,” said Mr Spence, “and the success of The Passion of the Christ shows that he has the ability to reach out to people”.
“In public relations terms it’s a disaster,” said Democratic party official Bob Mulholland. “Not only are the Republicans disappointed with him losing all the ballot propositions but they think he’s throwing the Republicans over the side.”
Ouch! I guess there isn’t going to be a Christmas card exchange this year.
My biggest question for my American friends is this… why on earth did you guys elect an actor in the first place? At least Regan (God rest his soul) had a lot of political experience before running for any office. So why Gibson? Don’t get me wrong… I like Gibson a lot… but has he ever been a mayor? Has he ever served on a local council? Is he involved with any political organizations? Why would he… an actor… be a good leader for a state instead of some guy/woman who has lived there their whole lives, served the community and understands the needs of the people and has the experience to know how to do something about it? Just a thought from a Canadian observer.
(Oh yeah… like Canadians have never made political blunders before)
