Posted on 01/13/2006 4:35:43 PM PST by FairOpinion
A recent poll shows the born-again "moderate" Republican governor has gained back some popularity, especially in the Bay Area, and is now in a dead heat with Democratic competitors.
"Our survey demonstrates that Schwarzenegger's retreat from the more conservative rhetoric and agenda he brandished during the latter part of 2005 has paid off among middle-of-the road voters," said Melinda Jackson, director of the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University.
The governor's job performance rating among voters in a Democrat-leaning state has climbed from 36 percent positive and 53 percent negative in September, to 40 percent positive and 51 percent negative this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidebayarea.com ...
The CA economy needs priming. The recent flapnoodle over the solar energy debate? Does anyone besides me remember that President Bush has allocated funds for this? This means.. fed dollars are coming into CA, and with it, accountability measures. for one example.
Wrong. Bickering results when ideologues such as yourself and others who refuse to admit what they are up to is what dickers up these threads. Knock it off. You aren't any more conservative than Diane Feinstein, playing the hand of "real conservative" only when and just because you can write it on a cyber board and grab data from some source; and you know how to play the "divide" game by bootstrapping off conservative principles.
The supposition is correct only if the endpoint of the game is partisan advantage. Partisan advantage, however is not among the aims founding this forum. Advancing a philosophical, politcal principle; conservatism, is.
That partisans have trouble grasping the distinct difference between the two pursuits is understandable. They are, after all, partisans. Loyal to party, advancing that party at the expense of traditional principles if need be.
From my perspective conservatives in this house have been quite frank about their objectives: 1) drive the political whores out of the GACOP leadership and 2) cause either the conversion or downfall of Schwarzenegger, clearly a liberal by any traditional standards.
Baloney.
A cell? ROFL.
Did ya ever think it might be we post to people who are like minded conservatives?... People who have an opinion on issues that is respected? ... People who are willing to discuss issues, present facts, and support their contentions?
Perhaps you would just prefer to try to taint all of those people by implying they are part of "a cell". Nice touch!
In the beginning, I fell for it. Now I know better. I know you are using "posts" to sucker others into something which isn't being discussed.
Perhaps you would just prefer to try to taint all of those people by implying they are part of "a cell". Nice touch!
Try the other leg, it's got bells.
What else can he do but settle back into RINO mode. Californians as a whole do not want change...
As I stated:
That partisans have trouble grasping the distinct difference between the two pursuits is understandable. They are, after all, partisans. Loyal to party, advancing that party at the expense of traditional principles if need be.
Masquerading? LOL. There you go again, FO, viewing things in a two dimensional unrealistic world (or, more accurately, trying to present them in twisted terms). Some propositions were NOT conservative, in fact they were outright deceptive and destructive. Prop 76 deferred expense, provided for more borrowing, and authorized new bonds. Yes--I opposed it, as did more than 60% of the voters (including Republicans!).
What about Prop 78, Fair Opinion? That was the one most touted by the GOP (I got at least 3 phone calls from Sundheim and multiple mailers from Arnold supporting this one). Were we supposed to support this socialistic albatross because the GOP said so? NO! I opposed it and "agitated" (your word) against it--and I'm proud of it!
I supported Props 73, 74, and 75 and stated such. Your attempts to paint conservatives on these threads as supporting the dem agenda is ludicrous. On the other hand, you sure don't seem at all bothered by all the pro-GLBT legislation that ARnold signed (calling the various bills "mere crumbs"). Who has the leftist agenda, here, FO?
Thank you very much, and blessings back at ya. :-D
If I knew nothing at all about your posting history, I'd be of a mind to agree with your nifty little quote. But since I don't believe you or your agenda, your quote is meaningless.
FairOpinion is laying it out as it has gone down in these threads, and continues to. Go ahead and spin.
That is not so, he seems to do what is best for McClintock and not what is best for the people. He burned lots of bridges in the Governor's race for sure.
There is especially the issue that he isn't that appealing to the voters state wide.
If he ever got out of the primary to be the nominee, I think he would have to hope the Democrat gets charged with rape of a minor to stand half a chance of winning.
He's also about as likable and Savage.
Are you talking about "mass appeal" in re a candidate?
Rhode Island is the most liberal state in the Union. They also elect a CONSERVATIVE Republican Governor. All these ridiculous pro-Ah-nold arguments as the "only one electable" is just that, baloney.
What is it you people have against Conservatives being elected to office in California ?
The liberals/Democrats have their hand in all the government employment and unions. They have massive abilities to get outrageous sums of money into their campaigns.
Obviously, they have some control of the state. The Legislature is killing us as one example.
The teacher's union is robbing the taxpayer blind and give no results, so there is lots of screwed up things in CA for sure.
Would you please post an URL, like cacowlgirl does for your citing as fact Herr Mr.Fieldmarshal-dj. ?
And by losing ground (marginal costs exceeding marginal benefits), where does that leave us now?
The CA economy needs priming. The recent flapnoodle over the solar energy debate? Does anyone besides me remember that President Bush has allocated funds for this? This means.. fed dollars are coming into CA, and with it, accountability measures. for one example.
Last I read, California is getting fewer dollars from the feds than before. Regardless, how are we "priming" the economy? By the state prolonging deficit spending and introducing new costly social programs? Locking up productive property by putting 1/5 of the State's land under conservancy (which will offer yet-to-be-defined new restrictions on use)? Increasing the minimum wage? Introducing new global warming regulations to further restrict productivity of individuals and businesses?
Or... are you saying we will "prime" the economy through subsidizing new business like solar and taxing citizens to subsidize stem-cell research? Or borrowing billions more for infrastructure? Your solution is to prime the economy through taxing (or collecting "fees") and borrowing funds to promote more government spending (or spending by taxpayer/ratepayer subsidized industry)?
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.