Arnold's "No New Taxes" Rhetoric Was Just That - All Talk

FlashReport ^ | 9-18-2007 8:16 am | Jon Fleischman

[fr_freak]

I don’t know if McClintock will throw his hat in the ring again or not - he’s done so for the last couple of elections, but he doesn’t seem to get all that much support from the Republican machine in CA.

[Amerigomag]

Sorry, the first 18 months show otherwise. Just my opinion.

A reasoned response would suggest that this opinion would be difficult to substantiate. Granted, the rhetoric was formidable, but the actions were either grounded in liberalism or justified by either contemporary mob whim or conflicting federal law. There was a consistent refusal to acknowledge conservative values as a basis for action.

There rapidly developed a pattern of emphasizing the few, apparently, conservative actions, while in the background, authorizing or codifying liberal policies which nullified the hype. Homosexual marriage v Unruh Civil Rights is an excellent example.

Beyond the undermining of driving privileges for illegal aliens, there is little evidence of any conservative action from Nov 2003 through May 2005, and even that episode was marked by an apparent willingness for concession with time.

[nickcarraway]

Ha Ha! You fell for it.

[Badeye]

‘I don’t know if McClintock will throw his hat in the ring again or not - he’s done so for the last couple of elections, but he doesn’t seem to get all that much support from the Republican machine in CA.’

So I’ve heard...its a pattern with some state GOP’s lately, here in Ohio, historically in New Jersey, both come to mind.

[Badeye]

‘Beyond the undermining of driving privileges for illegal aliens, there is little evidence of any conservative action from Nov 2003 through May 2005, and even that episode was marked by an apparent willingness for concession with time.’

Fair assessment.

That said...who exactly is it that thought Arnold was a ‘conservative’ in the first place?

I didn’t. I just knew he had the best shot for Republicans to win the Governor’s race. It seems if you convinced yourself ‘beforehand’ that Arnold would be a conservative, you are very angry, and disappointed (not you personally, a general observation of mine).

I never had that thought cross my mind once. The conservative was clearly McClintock, and I say what I said then; He didn’t stand a chance in hell of winning.

[Amerigomag]

I never had that thought cross my mind once. The conservative was clearly McClintock, and I say what I said then; He didn’t stand a chance in hell of winning.

Yes an no.

The case for yes:

1) If the Austrian had not entered the race, Davis would not have been recalled.
2) Conservatives only represented about 15% of the voting electorate in 2003. McClintock would have been forced to make significant concessions to achieve a plurality.

The case for no:

1) Bustamante wasn't competitive, regardless of public polling, because of the ingrained, cultural bias in the electorate.
2) Had McClintock been the chief Republican candidate, the Democrats would have entered a high profile, non Hispanic candidate and split the Democrat vote.
3) The electorate was ready for a fiscal change and whomever the Democrats entered would have been perceived as SOS.

As things turned out the Democrats and the Republicans were both winners. The Republicans, who early-on wanted nothing to do with the Recall, got rid of Davis and the Democrats got another liberal in the executive.

[Badeye]

Thats simply the best analysis I’ve ever seen on this topic.

Thanks, nice job.