Posted on 11/30/2005 6:12:08 PM PST by Amerigomag
Arno who could not and would not campaign for the Republican candidate for the Senate in the last election.......California again stuck with Boxer."
I seem to recall that the candidate in question didn't campaign for himself, either--heck, I can't even remember his name. So why should anyone else have?
Bottom line: we conservatives decided, for various reasons, to not turn out 11/8/05. In at least two dozen cases I'm personally acquainted with, the primary reason was to ensure that Arnold would not survive the March 2006 primary.
That may or may not be a good reason.
Or, more likely, and supported by the voting results, Conservatives did show up in force. Props 73 and 75, the most conservative of the measures, faired the best and almost passed. They passed in almost 60% of the counties. That could not have happened without a strong conservative turnout. At the same time, Arnold gave only a lukewarm endorsement for Prop 73 and alienated the union-thugs through an inept campaign thereby motivating the enemy to go to the polls in droves, resulting in defeat of all items he was associated with.
Arnold has taken leftist positions since even before being elected. He and you cannot (believably) use this election defeat as substantiation for a futher leap leftward. He has increased spending and debt beyond comprehension (and is considering even more), including the $6 billion for sham stem-cell research. He has enacted more gun control laws. His judicial appointments include fewer than 50% republican. He now has Leon Panetta advising him on how to restructure his office and appointed a rabid democrat as his chief of staff. Are you telling me that Republicans should continue to endorse this man?
"Or, more likely, and supported by the voting results, Conservatives did show up in force. Props 73 and 75, the most conservative of the measures, faired the best and almost passed. They passed in almost 60% of the counties. That could not have happened without a strong conservative turnout."
Wrong. It could and did happen with a weak conservative turnout. When you look closely at the margins in those counties, what should have been 75/25 votes were 55/45.
If you sleep with a Kennedy, you get to think like one.
Not all is "bright" either.
She's also a gay activist type who "married" her homosexual partner.
Thanks for posting!
This should be on the front page of every newspaper in CA every day until November 2006.
And maybe next time the GOP & the electorate will learn
Pete Wilson...shame on him
RINOld...shame on us!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
He took leftist positions, but alienated the union-thugs, which led to his defeat -
??? was he supposed to play kissy face with the union-thugs thereby alienating the conservatives ??? Was that supposed to get him the union-thug vote ?
Don't be foolish, no matter what he did they were going to spend as much money as they could suck out of their captive members to defeat him - and Arnolds tepid support by Republicans obviously did not help him enough to overcome them.
You stress "almost" - almost means second place in a two horse race.
You actually expect him to sit around with "almost" enough support to get his plans passed ?
If the far right did not spend so much time attacking him, perhaps it would have been the union thugs that were on the "almost" side of the fence.
As I said, nearly 60% of the counties passed Props 73 and 75. That is 34 and 33 counties, respectively. You are saying they should have passed by 75/25? The numbers just do NOT support that.
The county with the highest Republican registration in the state is Placer County, with 52%. If you look at only the Dems and Reps (ignoring Greens, etc), the highest percentage of Republicans is still Placer County (64%/36%). While you and Arnold would like to blame this on all those evil conservatives, the numbers don't support your story. But feel free to keep makin' this stuff up!
Did you see Pete's quotes, defending the indefensible?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/01/MNGHFG12B61.DTL
"As I said, nearly 60% of the counties passed Props 73 and 75. That is 34 and 33 counties, respectively. You are saying they should have passed by 75/25? The numbers just do NOT support that."
No, that isn't. Please learn how to read and how to do math before you start talking about math.
I am saying that in each of those counties, the margins should have been much higher than they were, i.e., in the hypothetical conservative Lost Overshoe County, the county total should have been somewhere around 75/25, and it was actually around 55/45.
Fantassssssdick comments! (That's an Arnold imitation attempt)(grin)
Pete Wilson?
Wilson has less credibility than a screen door on a submarine.
But I do like the idea from the article of making Tom McClintock the GOP candidate for governor next year...
maybe Mrs. RINOld will convince hubby that they can't live off what he's bringing in as governor.
With friends like RINOld; who needs enemies! LOL
Semper Fi,
Kelly
When the recall for Davis went thru with no help from the "Fake" Republican Party. It was when they realized they could not stop it, the one party state could only do one thing to make sure a conservative was not elected, so they ran Arno. Whooooo, if you vote for a conservative then a Democrat will be elected.......Yea, so the ugly truth is, vote for a Rino and a Democrat will still be elected....
Arno did not want these measures to pass so hence no advertising, nothing till the last month and only half heartedly.
If you want to blame someone, blame those that refuse to see that electing a RINO is no different than a Democrat. Blame those voters that are willing to side step their beliefs because they think they can not win.
I understand the math quite easily, thank you. When you can show me that there is a Lost Overshoe County in California, or anything resembling the numbers you are making up, please let me know. As I said, the reported numbers do not support your contentions.
http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_u.htm
Prove it, or can it.
I found out that the new rule change that allows the CAGOP to endorse Arnold (so we have no primary) expires in 2006. This rule change is only good for 1 year and benefits only Arnold. Great Scott!
I have been told that McClintock will not even consider running for Gov. at this time. He has too much money invested in the Lt. Gov. race and doesn't have the funds to go up against Arnold or Angelides (sp?). His plan is to win Lt. Gov. then run for Gov. after that.
I think the link I gave you mentioned a "one-time suspension" of the rule. Sweet, huh? Talk about the CAGOP leadership offering up the governorship on a silver platter!
Sorry to hear McClintock can't engage fast enough. Perhaps the CACOP planned that, as well?
Did you see that we are once again up against code pink on Sunday? Hope to see you there!
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.