Your talking points don't and won't work!
Tried to do what? Advance the cause of conservatism? Let's take each Prop individually:
Prop 74: A partisan attempt to provide fiscal relief for local government. What did the Wilsonegger gang do? Instead of presenting the issue factually, explaining it features and benefits rationally, the gang stooped to a pattern familiar to this forum when addressed by Republican partisans. They introduced personal vitriol into the discussion, essentially classifying all teachers, regardless of principles, as their enemy.
Prop 75: The only ideological pure, conservative issue of the four. No attempt was made to explain the benefit of personal choice. Again, the personal vitriol that the gang introduced into the campaign erased the proposition's benefit. Personal freedom to pursue a personal goal, taken directly from the Bill of Rights.
Prop 76: An issue more liberal than conservative accomplishing immediate, personal gain for a select few at an unwarranted expense to the taxpayers. Even conservatives voted against this turkey.
Prop 77: A pure, moderate, ideological issue. Prop 77 advanced the cause of moderation through a clever partisan wrinkle. It was neither conservative nor, strictly speaking, non partisan. It favored neither party yet it favored both, exclusively.
To come to this forum and present that the four propositions which the gang pitched were conservative and that their failure was a failure of conservatives to exercise their franchise is both disingenuous and not supported by fact.
Not true. The guv was screwed by the inept advisors around him, not conservatives. Remember the firestorm over leaving widows and orphans out of public employee pension reform? How about the genius that screwed-up the wording of the redistricting measure? Face it, the guv is all show and no go. Now he is caving into the CTA, and every other liberal lobby known to Sacremento.
Tell me this, smart CA guy. Were we better off with a (D) guv who was held in check by a conservative minority or are we better off with a (R) guv that cuts backroom deals with the liberals, apoints liberal judges, and then gets the party to heap scorn on those who dare stand for principle?
You and others talk about results...you try to scare us conservatives with the "your electing a dem" boogieman arguement. This is crap. Arnold blew it, and set the conservative cause back at least five years. IMHO, we were better off letting the dems screw the State up then supporting a liberal (R) under the banner of "win at all costs." Like the waspman stated, by giving the dems the opportunity to complete the screw job they started, it ensures that voters know who blame. Asking for blind allegiance to a party that is morally bankrupt is insulting to anyone of integrity! Don't come to me asking for $ or looking for a volunteer to walk precincts for this guv!