[sruleoflaw]

No, I don't have it backwards. I've got it perfectly. McClintock would oppose a bond issue NO MATTER WHO IS GOVERNOR. And I would imagine you can't think of any reasonable causes for opposing such a bond issue -- even though we'll pay $1.75 for every $1 borrowed.

Just chill out for a few days. When Arnold goes after the bloated bureaucracy and state expenditures, he will have no better ally than McClintock. Will you still be hitting Tom with the hammer then, too?

[FairOpinion]

"When Arnold goes after the bloated bureaucracy and state expenditures, he will have no better ally than McClintock."

See my post 81, I think.

[Sal]

...[Arnold] will have no better ally than McClintock. Will you still be hitting Tom with the hammer then, too?

Back in the heat of the election I was surprised to see such naked hatred for a consistant small government Republican, but I wrote it off to a fear of losing the whole shooting match. Now I'm not so sure.

I was and remain a McClintock supporter, but I voted for Arnold even though I knew by then that he would win anyway. I wanted his victory to be as big as possible to send a message to the legislature and the LA Slimes that there was nothing they could do to stop this grass roots juggernaut so they better just get out of the way.

I'm still hoping California can be dragged back from the brink of utter destruction. Arguments on the way to do it are to be expected. Not all of the arguments are accurate. IMO bonds and taxes are the same thing in the end.

I expect harsh words over which solutions are right, but I do NOT understand this desire to absolutely rip a very good man to bits and leave him bleeding out on the sidewalk. The hatred is visceral. It is also irrational. I don't know the cause, but I no longer believe it's because they see McClintock as a spoiler.