As far as the eye can see (the legacy of Schwarzenegger)

But, your negations read like "blind, loyal feelings every time," also. Just from the polar opposite perspective.

CA GOP has a lot of problems. Among them, chiefly, is that the voting Republicans in the state cannot coalesce. There just is no unity of purpose in CA among self-assessed "conservatives" at this point, and it really, really, really needs to be improved upon. Because it loses elections every time.

But, your negations read like "blind, loyal feelings every time," also. Just from the polar opposite perspective.

Unfortunately that's because many have not taken much time in their due diligence, instead relying on the voice of the party or the liberal MSM in California. Get off the sofa and spent a few weeks on Google.

Another problem this forum experiences, as exampled by the quoted comment above, is because it is a conservative forum, not a partisan forum. Many Republicans have flocked to the forum in the past few years expecting Freepers to be loyal to their party, naturally believing that anything the CAGOP advances must be an incremental advance of conservative principals. They aren't, as exampled by the Schwarzenegger debacle. Freepers leave partisanship to the partisans.

CA GOP has a lot of problems. Among them, chiefly, is that the voting Republicans in the state cannot coalesce

When Schwarzenegger was perceived to be a conservative he won. After establishing a track record as a liberal he lost. Conservatives can win in California. Schwarzenegger is testament to the fact that even liberals can win in California if they present themselves as a conservative.

The problem with the CAGOP in California is not unknown. The CAGOP has poor leadership, it is disconnected from the electorate, it has done a very poor job developing candidates, its local central committees have assumed an elitist attitude and it doesn't have the will or resources to make a mid-course correction.

The CAGOP was completely unprepared for the recent grass roots revolt. An unprepared party allowed an excommunicated party leader to high-jack the election under the cover of their name. The CAGOP had no choice but to capitulate. This circumstance, reminiscent of the current Democrat Party dilemma, leads to the sort of repeated failures the CAGOP has been experiencing. Failures of this magnitude are generally solved by rebuilding over several election cycles.

Sorry to deflate one of your theories, but I'm not on the couch, nor the sofa. And, although I am quite aware that FR exists to pose discussion among conservatives, I'm surprised that you posit that you can determine who is and who is not among those. I know how I vote and what my voter registration is and to what political party I volunteer and donate and contribute, and I don't see the point of proving or engaging in relative "party contests" on FR about who is what and why who isn't. If someone's using FR and doing so in good standing with other users, generally, then I think it's respectful to accept them for their values as stated and not to presume to insult them otherwise.

It's the simplest means to stifle and undermine discussion, on the other hand, by introducing the "you aren't (conservative, Republican, whatever)" because when that occurs, the discussion is changed from the thread issue, whatever it is, to personal affront.

I've now seen this occur so many times but it's always on threads about Schwarzenegger, and about CA GOP.

What is the point of this type of personal malignment? People sign up and remain here because they're almost to a person conservative in one or many if not all areas of their lives. I know that I am. But, when I read these sort of statements such as you've just made -- referring to my comments and others here as evidence that someone or all of us misperceive a forum for conservative discussions vs. a forum for political talk -- I question your intense and purpose.

Because you call into question your ability to respect the statements of others, the premise, questions and points of view. If the CA GOP threads, particularly, are going to be consistently devoted to questioning who is a Republican and who isn't, then they're going to continue to upset and disenfranchise and they serve to UNDERMINE the Republican purpose, not assist it.

Unless, the CA GOP purpose is to undermine and disenfranchise (and by that, lose).

There was one person attempting to make a constructive comment about Schwarzenegger who was then questioned about their party affiliation. Now you question mine. Ah, I guess a vote for Simon in the past election indicates I'm no conservative, eh?

I can appreciate the lecture about who frequents FR but since I am here, and you are here, and so are others also here, it's a case of here we all are and most of us are conservatives and those who aren't are usually easy to spot over a brief time.

Threads about Schwarzenegger (and CA GOP, also), in my experience on FR, go like this:

1. The thread is posted
2. Someone comments in support of Schwarzenegger
3. Someone questions the political affiliations of commentor 2.
4. Commentor 2. responds and objects to 3.
5. Someone else comments about the thread
6. Commentor 3. questions political leanings of 5.
7. Commentor 5. objects to 6. and to 3.
8. Commentor 2. writes complaint about thread
9. Commentor 3. writes complaint about Commentor 2.
10.....etc., etc.

What I think is proven over and over again is that there is little to no shared understanding nor objective among CA conservatives, CA Republicans.

Here's where I am about this today, and as I tried to comment earlier: I'm glad we have Schwarzenegger and not Davis, and not Bustamante. I'm sorry we have Schwarzenegger and not Simon. I'm glad we have the possibility of more Republicans in state legislature and perhaps again in the Governor's office. I am not confident that Schwarzenegger will be re-elected. I would prefer a Republican and a conservative Republican in the Governor's office instead of a moderate Democrat, which I conider Schwarzenegger to be, despite is Party affiliation.

I've yet to read a thread lately on FR about Schwarzenegger that is not about personality -- and, most of us KNOW and AGREE that he is not a fiscal conservative so I think that ought to stop being an arguable point because nearly no one alleges otherwise -- and not about solving the problem that is harming improving conditions in CA and that is that there is no community among CA GOP beyond the isolated few who seem to cloister themselves away from the wants and needs of the voting Republicans in the state. Thus, there's enmity in CA among conservatives in addition to enmity between the parties.

CA GOP does not appear to be (d'oh) in touch with the voters in CA. That's the biggest problem I can see this morning. That and that it's next to impossible to discuss the reasons why on FR without someone questioning and accusing and thus, harming and preventing the discussion itself.

Sorry, typo, previous: intents, not intense (as in, "I question your intents and purpose...")

Spending other people's money is so much fun! Like a giggly girl in a shopping mall with her mom's credit card. Tee-hee. You go Girly-Man Ahnold.

So, do you have any opinion on the subject of the thread (i.e. the projected increases in deficit spending) despite claims by the administration that we are on the road to fiscal recovery?

While there are many shades of "conservative", I don't know of any that support this behavior as fiscally conservative nor that intended to see a 37% increase in General Fund budgets since Arnold took office.

I already wrote that there is little to no support nor suggestion here, elsewhere, that Schwarzenegger is fiscally conservative. To my view and experience, no one contends that he is, so disagreeing that he isn't as occurs here so often bears no reference to any specific comments. It's as if that statement is repeatedly introduced on these threads as argument with nothing. As in, no one is alleging he IS a fiscal conservative so repeatedly declaring him not to be is mere echo of ongoing opinion. In fact, I've never read here that anyone ever posited that he WAS a fiscal conservative, simply that they acknowledge he says he's a Republican, the CA GOP says they have and are going to again endorse him, so, case closed as to the Republican Party card/affiliation in CA.

Which is the problem to many of our views as to the CA GOP and lack of responsiveness, lack of representation to and for conservatives in CA. We have a Republican Party that is moreorless behaving like Democrats and Democrats that are behaving like more liberal Democrats and no representation for conservatives.

In Schwarzenegger's perspective, we, the state, ARE on the road to fiscal recovery. I don't agree with that, but within the terms he's considering, he thinks we are.

That's about all I can postulate as to why the statement is made in real comparison with the actual figures involved. It seems to be a perspective by Schwarzenegger and those who endorse him, but I often wonder if it's just endorsement language and not a reflection of reality.

Which, again, unfortunately, calls into question the credibility of the CA GOP and Schwarzenegger. They're the ones in leadership, however, and I'm not. I and others here can only opine about what we'd prefer but unless it's reflected by actual individuals in office, it's mere personal opinion or fact, relatively.

But, I agree with the earlier commenter here who was criticised afterward, unfortunately, and that is that it's not serving any good purpose to "bash" Schwarzenegger and do so routinely. He's at least an improvement over Davis and over the potential that was posed by Bustamente.

He's at least a start. Bashing and smashing is just not productive, after a point. Given that most voters agree he isn't a fiscal conservative, we only have improvements ahead, is perhaps the most constructive way to look at this.

It's a start. Could have been a real change but wasn't. But at least a start. And, holding Democrats responsible for the damage to the state seems to go over their heads entirely. I doubt they will ever, as a collective political and economic perspective, ever get the point that their borrow and spend, self indulgent and socialist programs are what has sent the state into the pits.

Schwarzenegger has made -- so he says -- headway with the credit issues but I am not knowledgeable this morning to any extent to reasonably discuss those.

Schwarzenegger has made -- so he says -- headway with the credit issues but I am not knowledgeable this morning to any extent to reasonably discuss those.

And therein lies the problem. Perhaps the suggestion that one do some research and googling, or read past threads, should be taken to heart. He has not made headway--debt has been massively increased and General Fund spending has increased a whopping 37% (at least) in just 3 years since he took office.

With budgets requiring a super-majority for passage in the legislature, there is simply no way that a Democrat Governor could have accomplished such largess. And until conservatives come together to say "Enough!", it will continue under the guise of Republican leadership.

1) Sorry to deflate one of your theories, but I'm not on the couch, nor the sofa

Which implies reasonable due dilegence. Yet ...

but I am not knowledgeable this morning to any extent to reasonably discuss those.

2) If someone's using FR

An obvious problem. Republicans using FR to promote their product which is widely separated from the values of this forum.

doing so in good standing with other users

Partisan spammers are never in good standing. They are tolerated but not in good standing.

3) Referring to my comments as evidence that someone misperceive a forum for conservative discussions vs. a forum for political talk -- I question your intense and purpose.

The purpose is to point out to observers that the comments are partisan, not conservative. That the author is not contributing to the discussion but rather obfuscating it with partisan misdirection.

There just is no unity of purpose in CA among self-assessed "conservatives" at this point, and it really, really, really needs to be improved upon. Because it loses elections every time.

Obviously a partisan statement outside of political philosophy, hence the reference to partisan intrusion and obfuscation. Evidence that the CAGOP has lost it's way, abandoned it's traditional principals and is now supporting a liberal in a futile attempt to cling to the idea that they remain significant in California.

4) If the CA GOP threads, particularly, are going to be consistently devoted to questioning who is a Republican and who isn't, then they're going to continue to upset and disenfranchise and they serve to UNDERMINE the Republican purpose, not assist it. not assist it.

Bingo. That is the exact goal. To upset and UNDERMINE the Republican purpose, not assist it. That is why we gather. As long as the CAGOP is unwilling to honor its traditions, it serves little value to our culture or our political sensibilities. If Republican state officials continue to advance and support liberal ideas and actions, with the blessing of the CAGOP, then the CAGOP needs to be dismantled and its representatives turned from office.

I'm not promoting anything and yet held hopes for some discussion other than this sort of personal projection of impossible to debate characteristics.

Go ahead, knock yerself out. There is obviously little you have to share about the thread issue and I'm just not interested in debating personal tidbits and making snarky comments to "debate" who is on first and who isn't.

Have a nice day.

Your closing comments, however, do read very much like a Democrat or Libertarian who is disgruntled at conservatives in CA. Because, you know, your comments have consistently derailed any discussion about Schwarzenegger and instead, reduced the thread to "CA GOP, bad".

So, who looks like he's/she's no conservative/Republican now?

I write this because I do think that, overall, those on FR who gravitate to the threads about Schwarzenegger never discuss anything but "CA GOP, bad" and then try to push others off the threads along the lines of "you're not a conservative/Republican" type comments, as I previously wrote.

I'll continue to read them but there isn't too much more that can be discussed, this issue, here. The consensus seems to be that Schwarzenegger's "bad," that the CA GOP is "bad," and then, well, who is more or less conservative or credible than anyone else.

Disappointing. And: end of my comments, this thread.

Gee, isn't it great they managed to find an electable Republican?

Partisans are welcome anytime. Party registration does not matter. Do the homework, bring the facts and make a meaningful contribution to the discussions.

If partisans want to promote the GOP, they are welcome. Their presence energizes conservatives, demands a command of the facts, forces them to sharpen their debating skills, and overall, livens the discussions.

Thanks for the exchange.