When you can't win on facts, you try personal attack. OK.
If you don't even know who Bill Jones is, you have no business commenting on any of this.
But we have to accept that they are ultimately to final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what isn't. Do you see my point now?
Oh, the old Marbury v. Madison canard. There's a reason the DOJ dropped the Emerson case. Let's see if you can figure out what it was.
I agree McClintock as a single candidate would indeed win the election with a simple plurality. That's why it's a good thing he's got company from Schwarzenegger.
That does not follow. Ahnold is splitting the Republican vote.
A traditional conservative such as McClintock would be resented by the general population as having been rammed through by the right-wing. It would not play well for the Republicans and would ultimately trigger a backlash that would resonate with average voters.
That may have been true fifteen years ago, but since the development of mass media among the people it has become no longer true. You still haven't been able to show why we need Ahnold when conservative ballot propositions have been so successful. What you don't understand is that the Internet and the fax machine changed everything. What plays well in the media no longer determines elections. That's why your assertions about Davis' media buys against Riordan don't hold water.
That wasn't meant as a personal attack. I was in fact just stating it as I see it.
Oh, the old Marbury v. Madison canard. There's a reason the DOJ dropped the Emerson case. Let's see if you can figure out what it was.
I know exactly what that case was. It was the case that established judicial review as it is today which effectively elevated the Court above the other 2 branches of government. And I thought that when the case was dismissed, it was then successfully appealed by the DOJ and Emerson was found guilty in Federal court. What strikes me as the salient issue is that the final ruling was that the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right.
That does not follow. Ahnold is splitting the Republican vote.
But it does follow. Try and follow this: Arnold is splitting the Republican vote, effectively keeping the right-wing from ramming a conservative candidate through who could not otherwise win in a regular general election.
Arnold is saving the Republicans from themselves.
Arnold's widespread support is coming instead from all factions of the political and non-political spectrum. This is what makes him the best choice, because he is the only candidate that the vast majority of Californians will accept as consensus, thus providing him the neccessesary mandate he will need to govern in an otherwise politically divisive special election.
That may have been true fifteen years ago, but since the development of mass media among the people it has become no longer true. You still haven't been able to show why we need Ahnold when conservative ballot propositions have been so successful. What you don't understand is that the Internet and the fax machine changed everything. What plays well in the media no longer determines elections. That's why your assertions about Davis' media buys against Riordan don't hold water.
I would like to believe that is true, but I just don't see it reflected yet in the perceptions of average Californians. Perhaps it is because I live in the Bay Area, but the typical response from even the most non-political persons is "*gasp* you're a.. a... r-r-republican...??"
Most people here seem to still buy into The Simpsons-style mass media propaganda that Republicans are heartless, stingy, bible-thumpers who want to destroy the environment.
In the pop-culture perception wars Arnold can take us forward a long, long, way.