Replies

<< The point is McC couldn't wait to voice his objection (sans his lofty solutions) of course. >>

"Point taken"

But the point is labored, if not downright manufactured.
Reading the second paragraph of the original posting, it looks like McClintock was interviewed along with other Republicans who "echoed" what McClintock said. And McClintock has always been against these types of bonds anyway, so there is really nothing new here. McClintock, contrary to what the liberals around here would have us believe, did not rush to the TV cameras to throw cold water on Arnold's plans. He only said once again what he has maintained all along. The LA Times needed a "story", I guess.

Regards,
LH

Mr McLintock, in any case, is on the right side of this argument. The state government must immediately cut spending and not borrow and blow another cent to buy another vote.

Meanwhile I'll sit on my hands and see how it goes.

"other Republicans who "echoed" what McClintock said. "

==

That is what the paper said. But if you read the article, the only other R. actually quoted put it quite differently, than McC.

Sen. Chuck Poochigian (R-Fresno) also expressed misgivings but said Schwarzenegger had "inherited a massive problem."

"There's no one who's enthusiastic about borrowing," Poochigian said. "The question is, what can we do to solve our problems? I have not yet made a decision on what I'm going to do. A vote on the proposal would be very difficult."

And Brulte said:

Brulte said the key to Schwarzenegger's fiscal recovery plan was a cap on state spending, a central Republican demand.

"If the price I have to pay for a spending cap is a willingness to support a deficit bond, I'm willing to look at that," Brulte said. "But our prime objective is the spending cap."

This is a BIG difference from the way McC stated it.

Also look at my post 81, about what I thought would have been an acceptable thing for McC to say.

McC's statement was a self serving statement and an attack on Arnold. PERIOD.