Replies

Because he has to negotiate with the majority of Democrats in Sacramento! Because he cannot offer a flat NO due to 14 other states having them legally and Bush offering a guest workers program...he needs to maintain the popular status in this liberal state, because he is turning this state around when it comes to financial, attitudes, bi-partison votes and party growth/direction...emough?

No. Let's take them one at a time...

Because he has to negotiate with the majority of Democrats in Sacramento!

So, he's lying?
Or was he giving his honest position when he explained that his concerns were insurance and background checks?

Because he cannot offer a flat NO due to 14 other states having them legally and Bush offering a guest workers program...

If 14 other states give DLs to Illegals, that means 35 don't. On top of that, Californians oppose them.
Sure he can say no.

Because he cannot offer a flat NO due to 14 other states having them legally and Bush offering a guest workers program...

Schwarzenegger was on record during the campaign as supporting McCain's S. 1461, another so-called "guest-worker program" that was cited by "Republican officials" in this Washington Post story leaking President Bush's imminent proposal for an Illegal Alien Amnesty by another name, which he announced on January 7th.
In addition, Schwarzenegger's support for some form of CDL for Illegals predates President Bush's proposal (see the quotes posted to you at #31), therefore the latter can't be a cause of the former.

he needs to maintain the popular status in this liberal state,

This liberal state passed Proposition #187, Three Strikes, ended bilingual ed and racial preferences, and defined marriage as one man and one woman.
This liberal state qualified the Save Our License referendum, which Schwarzenegger wouldn't support, yet which remained the only leverage by which he was able to effect the repeal of SB60.
You think Schwarzenegger needs pretend to be open to CDLs for Illegals to maintain popularity?
Why, when CDLs for Illegals are so unpopular?

because he is turning this state around when it comes to financial, attitudes, bi-partison votes and party growth/direction...emough?

Just about enough. You seem to be buying the line that Republican politicians need to pander to the pro-Illegal lobby, or need to appear willing to do so, in order appeal to constituencies that are not traditionally Republican.
The numbers indicate otherwise.
Check out the Vote analysis of Prop. 187, the illegal alien initiative.
Note the huge majorities voting Yes on #187 among Independents (61%), Men (62%), non-Hispanic Whites (64%), Seniors (66%), Conservatives (76%), and Republicans (76%).
Note the majorities in favor of #187 Among Blacks (52%), Asians (52%), Moderates (56%), and College graduates ( 54%), Women (56%).
While these figures are ten years old, and limited to California, it’s remarkable how close they are to current polls of Americans on issues such as welfare or Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

See post #2 for some of those polls.

Get ready for the Gil Cedillo campaign of "Arnold lied to me". Cedillo, Torres and others on the left will enjoy spreading this rumor to the minority members of California.

Congratulations to the 'gullible for carrying the water for this "hammer". The Dems will play this into Prop 187 all over again...and the conservative talkers helped with this cause.

Yes, Arnold was talking; but the goal was to 'make the hurdles so high' that the Dems would be the ones who would say no to SB1160.

Not now...now it is Arnold and the Republicans saying no to the DL bill. This will be used by the Dems in the campaign!

Silence would have been golden on this one. The Governor would have never signed this highly controversial bill, but we could have allowed the Dems to think so.

Welcome to political strategy...setting yourself up for the future. The Republicans bashed Arnold and the Democrats have captured a third rail, wedge issue for their services later this year!

Tooth...you are forgetting one thing. AS negotiated with Cedillo to repeal SB60 when he was elected. Gil dance then, so AS needed to offer a return conversation now. THis is called political dialogue. I'm assuming you prefer the McClintock way of negotiations.

Yes, the state supported Prop 187, but the "Beast" is NOT the state! The "Beast" is majority LIBERAL Democrat. Arnold lives in the beast, not with the vote...yet! He needs to be bi-partison as much as he can. We cannot have a stalemate during the budget or the financial discussions/decisions.

Leasership is in influence...not manipulation or 'dictatorship' (My way or the highway). Arnold is influencing hundreds of people everyday. They will vote and they may (will) help with the flood to the polls to support GOP, Jones and Bush!

On your poll...what year was Prop 187? What has happened to the GOP since the 'hishandling' of Prop 187...not the content of 187, but the mishandling of the messaging and the rhetoric - welcome to the "son of 187" with this issue. The Dems are wringing their hands tonight with this gift, as well as the media!

Thanksd for the dialogue!