Posted on 09/29/2005 4:16:31 PM PDT by minus_273
If that were true he would have raised our taxes by now. He hasn't. That's a principle I CAN DEFINITELY admire.
What's happened to CA in my lifetime is simply AWFUL in so many ways.
If that were true he would have raised our taxes by now. He hasn't. That's a principle I CAN DEFINITELY admire.
---
It's (tax hikes) coming, imo, not that I take any joy in saying it. Either that or massive long-term debt (also coming .. at least we get a shot at voting them down) on a pretty good sized pile already sitting there.
Also aren't the increases in fees(also known as taxes, parcel taxes, tuition fees, etc) at the local level due in some degree to the restructuring of where the money flows?
The bottom line ,, spending is out of control and remains so.
btw, Awful is an understatement, because as goes California goes the nation.
Are you a life long resident? I'm a 3/5'er myself, in the Bay
Area.
It makes no sense from any perspective to not act on a principle out of concern for alienating 'gay voters'.
---
I would argue that point, for political reasons.;-)
Funny, no one has called my earlier comment that the Gub could just not sign it and let it become law, being as the people or the courts will decide what is to be in the end.
(California does not have a pocket veto option where a Gub can just let a bill die after it is submitted for signing or vetoing.)
This might have afforded the Gub some additonal support to come his way for his reform initiatives, now, even fewer voters will show show up on November, imo.
I hpe I am wrong, but if he has to appeal to his base by making decisions like this on social issues that are already more than likely already pre-destined to be rejected anyway, why even further alienate those who coild help put the initiatives over the top.
just some thoughts.
I still disagree with your rambling reasoning, or perhaps it's malproductive...because you still assert that it's best to "not alienate" "gay voters" while allowing this legislation to, what, pass? To pass based upon a faulty and offensive set of principles because a governor doesn't want "to offend" some voters? Who mostly don't/won't/haven't voted for him anyway?
It's a tough line to govern for everyone, even those you know revile you (I can imagine) but in the end, successful government either acknowledges constituents or it doesn't and wins or loses based upon that fine thing. I'm not suggesting any elected IGNORE the voters who don't agree with the politicians, respectively, I'm just saying again AS TO THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, "gay voters" are already "alienated" about nearly any and all issues important to conservatives and while I don't consider Schwarzenegger to be a conservative, per se, I do think he's the closest thing in CA we have to one in government who'se managed to get elected.
However, his election was a tenuous experience, to my view and I DID read each and every voter breakdown afterward as to percentages of what percentages representing what and whom...and what Schwarzenegger and the GOP in CA did was get Schwarzenegger into the Governor's office by a minority of minority numbers of voters, not a majority as if Schwarzenegger had run in a usual and ordinary campaign. In effect, he received less votes for the Governor's office than Grey Davis did when he won the office earlier, prior to recall. SO, Schwarzenegger has about one choice as I see things now, if he is to win a reelection in the state in an open campaign against other candidates from the Democrats.
And that is to emphasize, recognize and campaign to his conservative voter supporters. His moderate record and even liberal record as to some issues has already cost him support from some of that slim minority who voted for him in the recall.
I'll vote for him again, however, I'm not pleased about having to do so, based upon the past two weeks with his office (other issue, not related to this one), BUT, the alternatives are worse. So, I consider a vote at this point for Schwarzenegger as a vote against a Democrat gubernatorial candidate. That's about it, unless Schwarzenegger makes a radical turn to the right in the next weeks. He really needs to, to a conservative right. His "I'm the Governor for all the people" thing isn't working too well but I do doubt that any one person can govern CA well by that standard. Even Reagan couldn't and he was reviled by the Democrats here and by all liberals of all sorts. And Pete Wilson was nearly ripped up by them.
So, Schwarzenegger's moderate positions have enabled him to moreorless stay where he is but I can't say it'll be sucessful for a re-election on an open and ordinary campaign statewide. And because of that, UNLESS Schwarzenegger comes clear in representing conservative voter interests and, yes, values, and tries to "not offend" the liberal voters, he's in trouble for a re-eletion.
stow your puffy platitudes about me hating the GUb or inferring I want himm to fail.
I don't like many of his policies and definitely feel he has chosen many of the wrong people for positions.
Thanks for what you think happened in the process leading up to the Recall and the pandering to a shrinking base as well..
Things could get worse? Oh boy.
certainly not cheaper no matter who is in office is about all I can say at this point.
His "I'm the Governor for all the people" thing isn't working too well but I do doubt that any one person can govern CA well by that standard.
Thanks for such a constructive post.
I still disagree with your rambling reasoning, or perhaps it's malproductive...because you still assert that it's best to "not alienate" "gay voters" while allowing this legislation to, what, pass? To pass based upon a faulty and offensive set of principles because a governor doesn't want "to offend" some voters? Who mostly don't/won't/haven't voted for him anyway?
Need I remind you the Gub won because a lot of conservatives showed up to vote Yes to the recall and an even larger number(but fewer conservatives) including a majority of cross over voters including gays and liberals picked aRnie out of the long list of candidates.
PS,, malproductive is not a word. .. but I will add it to the list of things my "rambling reasoning" has caused me to be labled as .. ;-)
"btw, never fall in love with a politician or your own hype.. They'll both fall flat on their face in front of you eventually."
By the way, this statement of yours is hilarious. Aside from not understanding what you mean by falling in love with my own hype and having my own hype fall flat on my face in front of me, I'm amused at your suggestion about falling in love with a politician.
I have said nothing to indicate that I "love" Arnold. I have simply commented on some things he's done that I approve of. You, on the other hand, have clearly invested a great deal of emotion in "anti-Arnold," so much so that you can't even find anything good to say about an action of which you approve, and whenever someone says anything positive about him, you come out loaded for bear.
It's quite comical.
well, at least I got a hilarious out of you. :)
Oh, one thing, I do enjoy it when he travels out of state doing the business for the people, if that is any consolation.
Cruz'n BustaMeCHa trembles a bit when that happens and hopes nothing happens that he has to get involved in while aRnie out and about the globe.
You know something? I really get worried about what the new generations are going to be faced with sometimes. Maybe there is a reason people don't live forever. The more you know the more you need a remote vacation.
So anotherwords, you just wish he would have signed it and been done with it? Right?
LOL Norm, get a grip.
Read the rest of the thread and then get back to me.. if you still feel the same
Thanks
Norm, I'm glad he vetoed it and so are you. It won't kill you to admit it.
At this rate , mankind will breed itself out of existence or fail to breed except by artificial means,, in which case maybe it would be better we did move on as a cosmic "experiment".
"Cruz'n BustaMeCHa trembles a bit when that happens and hopes nothing happens that he has to get involved in while aRnie out and about the globe."
Agreed
Aw shucks, I was looking foward to the media and all the shots of the second round of new marriages and then later, the looks of all the newlyweds faces when they had the rugs yanked out from under them. darn!
I can't understand the "group hugg" mentality that seems implied when the media cover's homosexual hook-ups. When you consider what the two guys will be doing later, it kinda destroys any of the warm funzzies that could have been generated by the coverage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.