Replies

Yes, Arnold is the only Republican that can win and not do harm to the party.

Let me explain, as I think it merits an explaination.
There what do you think will happen if Simon or even McClintock wins by a slim plurality?

They will be recalled. Immediately.

And how do you think the largely Democratic voters in California will respond to such a "right-wing coup" in the state?

Certainly it will not be kind. The Democrats will not lay down on this one.

Arnold is the only Republican - the only candidate at all, even - who can win and be accepted by the people as legitimate. The political atmosphere would be poisoned far worse than it is now if someone else won.

After not even being able to beat the very governor we're throwing out, what do you think the response to Republicans through out the state would be if Bill Simon won?

Do you think having an "illigitimate" Republican Governor who "stole the election" would be good for Bush here in 2004?

Consider it carefully.

Yes, Arnold is the only Republican that can win and not do harm to the party.

Schwarzenegger could do the most harm of anybody to the party. If he comes in a raises taxes, ends Prop 13, bans guns, increases spending, how is that going to be a good thing? And if he come in and endorses Barbara Boxer in 2004 and endorses Dems in other races in 2004, how will that help the GOP? Already, some of his friends have suggested he may switch parties after elected.

They will be recalled. Immediately.

That's ridiculous. It's very hard to recall a governor. Californians aren't going to turn around and have another recall. Cite a shred of evidence in support of that.

And how do you think the largely Democratic voters in California will respond to such a "right-wing coup" in the state?

If it's a coup, it's a coup, even if Schwarzenegger wins.

Arnold is the only Republican - the only candidate at all, even - who can win and be accepted by the people as legitimate.

Do you have any evidence of this? No.

Do you think having an "illigitimate" Republican Governor who "stole the election" would be good for Bush here in 2004?

It is said that you have such disrepect for the Constitution. The recall is a full legal process. How come you are not concerned with the November 2002 election being illegitimate, since there were more illegal votes cast than the difference between the two candidates. It's interesting that you have less respect for a fully legal recall, than you do of voter fraud. Why is voter fraud not important to you?

The Bush thingie is a total red herring. Local politics wil have no impact on Bush in California one way or the other. And California will still be more Dem than the nation at large. It is not in the list of states that will decide a close presidential election. Where do people come up with these postulates that are so odd?

The idea that folks will then vote to recall whomever is elected in this recall, is ludicrous. They will recoil from that. Mullhollands' threat to do so is just jive, from a man who makes jiving a full time occupation, but I wish he would carry out his threat if a Pubbie is elected. It will backfire big time.

In summary, the idea that electing McClintock would be bad for California and/or the GOP is simply one of the more wrong headed ideas I have read around this place, and I have read some doozies in my time.

By the way, I am not a right wing nutter. I am a RINO (per the currency of this place), and a Neocon, and proud of the latter.

Cheers.