This Arnold voter who also likes McClintock knows that Arnold has gotten farther with other things than Tom ever could. This was a tough issue and the lies in the union ads playing in heavy rotation on the radio were completely outrageous and difficult to combat. The union is going to be a tough nut to crack, but I have faith that Arnold (NOT "Rnold") can do it.
Actually, you're wrong. Tom would have exercised the line-item veto power the governor has. Arnold on the other hand ranted and raved like a mad-man against excess government spending ("We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem"-remember that Arnold blast from the past?) yet failed to veto one dollar from last years budget. He could have gotten us out of this mess with numerous strokes of his pen.
Given that the dems lack a 2/3 majority in the assembly, there isn't a darn thing the Dems could have done to stop his vetos. He could have ended the spending problem he so has rightly identified is the true bone in the throat of this state. But no, he decided, as he usually does, to take the easy way out and borrow some $15 billion in new spending. Given Tom's record in the Senate, I'm sure he would have had the gonads to have vetoed said spending. I know that Arnold had no record to run on, just a lot of nice, cute and funny lines from his moives. Don't feel bad about being taken by the great actor from Austria, many people were. Next time though, listen to logic and not emotion.
By the way, Tom's running for Lt. Governor so there is still some hope for this state, despite Arnold's making problems worse.