I value Tom McClintock's opinion on fiscal matters (I'm surprised you don't). It's good enough for him. I will read it however. How would you handle the inevitable political warfare if he made cuts? He didn't even make education cuts and look at the union's efforts. We need to give him breathing room. Redistricting and paycheck protection can give that. I don' t mind some borrowing when it's done in the name of substantive reforms.
Governors in CA *had* this mid-year correction power for about 50 yrs until the Duke was governor. It's a tool we could use. I don't know specifically why Arnold is shy at making cuts but, hell, Bush has never vetoed anything including the transportation pork farm. Bush has much more political capital left than Arnold.
I fully expect Arnold will face an ugly GOP primary (if he runs), may well lose that and the GOP's goat will be mowed down by the next Democrat governor who will surely raise taxes as the sun rises. The recall will have been totally squandered. We need to salvage it and I for one will support the gov's reform agenda and two other measures.
>>I value Tom McClintock's opinion on fiscal matters ...
Really? Did you value his opinion about borrowing and vote against Prop 57/58, then?
Newzjunkey,
Since you didn't respond to any of the posts to you, I'll add some content and perspective for others. You said you value McClintock's opinion on fiscal matters. Like the Budget perhaps? Or opposition of Prop 57/58? Tom's positions on the budget would have avoided the mess the state is in today. Instead of praising him as a consistent voice doing what is right, you mock him.
I glanced at a bit of your posting history to see how much you "value" him. You call him a "hack," a "political dinosaur" and "out of step with California." You say: "I can't respect this guy." I see only contempt with your smearing. You don't value his opinion; you only use it as a sales point when it happens to fit your purpose.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988828/posts?page=2060#2060
For a guy who's been there 20 years. You know, we *do* have term limits. I guess he only cares about a career in politics. He's a hack. That's a serious turn off. He claims to have never voted for a budget. Yippee. And I understand he's voted against the legislative pay-raises but hasn't ever turned away the money for his own pocket.
This guy can't win if he can't reach out (only 35% of voters are GOP and if that splits he's SOL). This guy can't get anything done if he can't compromise. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988701/posts?page=55#55
I have to laugh at this. Tommy couldn't win in November against a nobody for state-wide office.... McClintock is a political dinosaur and not just in California. But his politics are so out of step with California that he'll never amount to anything. The right-wing keeps offering its latest "next Ronald Reagan" "Saviors" and one-by-one they fall. Simon was only the latest of these to fall. Against a rightly maligned Davis in 2002.
I can't respect this guy. He trumpets his "20 years" in the legislature which totally disrespects the will of the California voter to term limit their state representatives. It might be legal but he's just a political hack. "Proud" of having never voted for a budget.
He's on a personal vendetta against the party...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993062/posts?page=68#68
...*Electability* is the critical test. McClintock has never won state-wide (lost in '02), he's been in the legislature a Jurassic 20 years despite the will of Californians being *for* term limits. He talks the talk because he *can* and affects virtually nill. Didn't vote for any CA budgets and yet we still got them. Great work, Tom! Seems he lacks both the charisma needed for the governor's desk and the interpersonal skill to actually successfully move an agenda.
From what I've learned and observed, Tom's on a personal vendetta against the state party and reliving his "nightmare" of having stepped aside for Bob Hope's son who ultimately lost that Congressional race. This has nothing to do with Davis's failures, fixing California or Arnold's social views. It's all about Tommy's personal demons. I had enough of *that* kind of self-absorbed "leadership" during the Clinton years to last many lifetimes, thank you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997125/posts?page=64#64
McClintock has very much tainted his previously sterling reputation with me in the way he attempted to act as a spoiler seeming due to his contentious relationship with the state GOP and inability to look beyond is having stepped aside for the ultimately losing son of Bob Hope for a congressional seat. I'm also not swayed by his "20 years" of political experience--we have term limits in CA for a reason, Tom--we don't want "experience money can't buy" like Gray Davis. Has he ever held a regular job? He's only 47! He's never voted for a CA budget. He's not a practical risk taker and seems to be able to accomplish little. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086140/posts?page=5#5
This is the fast path to wrapping that debacle up--as the ad says "refinance the debt at lower interest rates"--and puts The Governator in a position where controlling spending is *realistic* without dire economic consequences which would have dramatic *national* impact. AND it does not raise taxes.
I *HATE* bond measures (NO on 55), but I'm supporting his YES on 57 & 58 plan. This provides critical wiggle room to avert economic catastrophy.