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 ...
Yes, I think it was bitterness and some revenge that kept him in there.
Even then he was SO weak as a state candidate that Arnold still won.
That behavior makes me question what goes on inside of the McClintock head and how can we EVER trust him?
You ain't daddy.
"I'm not quite sure, but I wonder if Tom is being served very well here, really.
He's not running against Arnold, he's running WITH him, isn't he?"
===
An EXCELLENT point! Arnold and Tom let bygones be bygones, and joined forces: Arnold campaigned for McClintock for his re-election, raising him lots of much needed funds, McClintock campaigned with Arnold for the reform propositions and now he is running for Lt. Governor, where he only has a chance if Arnold gets re-elected.
But remember, the same people who are now proclaiming that McC is eligible for sainthood and should run for governor, were saying nastier things about him, than any of the rest of us put together, ever, accusing him of being bought, because he suggested that the reform propositions were good for CA. None of us ever questioned his integrity, only his electability or judgment.
This just shows again, that some people don't care about Tom McClintock, they are just trying to use him to split the conservative base, to help a Dem get elected governor.
Sweetie, what you "get" could fill a thimble. What you don't could fill a stadium.
Yep, he hasn't the stuff to come out on top in this state, I agree.
"accountability measures," ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Ha Ha Ha!!! 10,000 comedians are out of work and you're still tryin!!! (very trying according to you mother!!!)(No, I can't ping her cause I don't know her scream name!)
I remember this.
My take was that he was moving the "focus" to Arnold in doing so. I've seen this done before.
Sorry, pop. I think that might by my doing. :-(
No proof, no evidence. How do you expect the rest of us to take your positions seriously when you continue to use simple opinion and no hard concrete facts ?
Apparently, your bias is showing again. McClintock's favorable ratings matched Schwarzenegger's and his unfavorable ratings are much, much lower.
Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of [NAME], or have you never heard of this person?
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Favorable Unfavorable Never heard of No opinion
% % % %
Probable Voters
2003 Sep 25-27 63 30 * 7
* Less than 0.5%
Tom McClintock
Favorable Unfavorable Never heard of No opinion
% % % %
Probable Voters
2003 Sep 25-27 62 20 4 14
Cruz Bustamante
Favorable Unfavorable Never heard of No opinion
% % % %
Probable Voters
2003 Sep 25-27 37 54 3 6
Making flat and unqualified statements about that which we do not know for certain to be true, as to motives, is one road to facilitating rancor in the ranks, of which this thread has exhibited a more than ample supply.
I myself have a bias in favor of folks of all views running for office, in order to try to advance those views. It is what makes the public square work, and what gives it strength and legitimacy.
NO, Arnold HAD ALL the focus as the potential winner, the issue became why was McClintock staying in to split the conservative vote in favor of the one Democrat running.
Read Fair Opinion's stuff below linking previous FR discussions.
Take a chill pill! I'd hate ta see ya blow 6 or 7 years of successful trolling without gittin zotted!!!
""Sure, I am liberal" -- Fair Opinion, 1/13/2006
I will continue to enlighten our fellow FReepers as to your liberal anti-Conservative agenda."
====
You are continuing to lie, which is nothing new. You know you are lying, that's why you don't give the link and my full post. I already pointed this out to you in my post 314, yet you are continuing your pathetic attempt to smear me, because you can't win an argument with me based on facts and logic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557792/posts?page=314#314
Posted by FairOpinion to fieldmarshaldj
On News/Activism 01/14/2006 4:17:29 PM PST · 314 of 349
I was referring to your nonsense of running around and posting that I said I was a liberal, totally out of context, and you carefully avoided giving the link, so other can't find out the truth.
For anyone who took you seriously even for a moment, HERE IS MY POST on another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1557792/posts?page=211#211
To: dalereed
Sure, I am liberal, because I prefer moderate Republicans to socialist Democrats, unlike some who loudly keep proclaiming how conservative they are who work AGAINST Republicans and basically call ALL Republicans "RINO"-s and it turns out they prefer to have socialist Democrats elected. So who is the liberal, hm?
11 posted on 01/13/2006 8:45:51 PM PST by FairOpinion
He was sandbagged in 1994 by none other than Pete Wilson. He was the highest vote-getter of ANY Republican in 2002 in the state of California. I guess if he suffered "defections" in the latter, the rest of the GOP ticket suffered mass-desertions. No, the real truth is that Democrats and Independents crossed over to support McClintock in 2002, a fact that just boils your liberal blood.
I don't think that was a overly "genuine" risk. Bustamante cooked his own goose -- on a nationwide level, already with his "past assertions and affiliations". But yes, it was a risk. From my pov, the risk was "how much hidden money in those "closets", did Dems have to "get out" or "manuever" the vote. Dems assessed correctly, IMHO, to re-direct some of those amounts elsewhere after the Bustamante "flap". Then! McClintock went for his feint. Which, IM Assessment threw more votes into the Arnold category. And remind you -- we are talking about voters, regardless of political identity -- who voted in majority FOR Props 187, Ron Unz's init, "the marriage" as one-man-one-woman" init, and 209. (off the top my head, forgive me, I can't recall the init numbers affirmatively, and don't wish to get them wrong -- these were good inits.)
"The socialist democraps are for the most part more conservative than the so called "moderate republicans"
====
Thank you for helping us understand what YOUR meaning of "conservative" is.
#331 - The truth.
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.