[FairOpinion]

"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.

[Lancey Howard]

I don't trust the LA Times as far as I can throw Molly Ivins. I am sure they will say anything if they think it will sow discord among Republicans and screw up Arnold (who I support and want to see succeed). I would suggest a little caution before taking any bait offered up by the Slimes.

Regards,
LH