Posted on 04/29/2006 9:00:08 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Since you don't understand the legislative process or how a bill becomes a law,(based on your silly statement above) it would be a waste of time then for me to explain what Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian did when faced with similarly overwhelmingly Democrat legislatures.
Does it guide him in how he drives his car? or raises his kids? or orders at a restaurant? Because it sure doesn't guide him in how he governs, which is what we elected him to do. Wouldn't it be great if he would step aside and then travel the state giving conservative speeches, and let someone run who would actually GOVERN as a conservative?
Attempting to carry on in the tradition of Gray Dufas.
Have a good weekend.
Anyone who admires the acumen of Jimmy Carter is highly suspect.
Isn't he involved in George Soros money too somewhere? Or am I mistaken?
"Isn't he involved in George Soros money too somewhere? Or am I mistaken?"
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Probably the same way its been done for decades.
Give people something to vote FOR and you'll have a better chance.Year Elected Vote % Repub Regis % 1966 Ronald Reagan 57.6% 40.2% 1970 Ronald Reagan 52.8% 39.8% 1982 George Deukmejian 50.6% 34.9% 1986 George Deukmejian 61.0% 38.3% 1990 Pete Wilson 48.7% 39.3% 1994 Pete Wilson 55.3% 37.2% 2003 Arnold Schwarzenegger 48.6% 35.2%
You left out John Kerry. ;)
-----
True! And that is an egregious oversight!!! My bad!!
PPIC seems to be basing this "fact" on what people say, not how they vote. Statistics do not support this "fact" in gubernatorial races.
Year Elected Party % of Vote | Registration Percent
| Repub Democ All Other
1966 Reagan Rep 57.6% | 40.2% 56.6% 3.2%
1970 Reagan Rep 52.8% | 39.8% 54.9% 5.2%
1974 Brown Dem 50.1% | 36.0% 56.6% 7.4%
1978 Brown Dem 56.0% | 34.2% 56.6% 9.2%
1982 Deukmejian Rep 50.6% | 34.9% 53.2% 11.9%
1986 Deukmejian Rep 61.0% | 38.3% 50.8% 10.9%
1990 Wilson Rep 48.7% | 39.3% 49.5% 11.2%
1994 Wilson Rep 55.3% | 37.2% 49.0% 13.8%
1998 Davis Dem 58.0% | 35.5% 46.7% 17.8%
2002 Davis Dem 47.3% | 35.2% 44.6% 20.2%
2003 Schwarzenegger Rep 48.6% | 35.2% 44.6% 20.2%
Nice straw man, will you be putting a hat on him too?
Arnold is seeking the nomination of a party. It is his responsibility to ACT like a member fo that Party. It's not too much to ask.
Gosh I missed that part. Do you have any names? I made a lot of noise and I have a loud voice. I voted and so did everyone I know.
The people who stayed home were the busy average people who were never given any sense of urgency to go vote for some pretty arcane concepts in an unscheduled election. Blame the bearer of the message, not the citizens minding their own business.
You just made my point for me: the ONLY way a candidate can get elected in CA statewide, if he appeals to OTHER voters ( Dems and Independents), IN ADDITION TO Republicans.
The discussion was about the Republicans nominating someone so conservative, who wouldn't even get all the Republican votes, and would get NO Dem or Independent votes -- hence he is clearly UNELECTABLE.
The kind of Republicans, such as Wilson and Schwarzenegger, who actually can get elected in CA, because they can get some independent and Dem votes, are being constantly bashed by people claiming to be conservatives.
WRONG! Schwarzenegger campaigned and gained popularity on a CONSERVATIVE platform of CUTTING SPENDING, getting Special Interests out of Sacramento, cutting the size of Government (blowing up boxes), etc.
Instead of actually doing this, he has morphed into a liberal to the point it is hard to distinguish him from his supposed opponents. Deukmejian and Reagan did not do this and they won by bigger percentages than either Wilson or Schwarzenegger.
Again: Give people something to vote FOR and you'll have a better chance. Abandoning the Republican platform for the big-spend, big-borrow, pro-gun-control, pro-GLBT, pro-abort, liberal judicial appointments, big-green agenda is NOT the way to reform California. He may win, but conservatives and Republicans gain little.
"the big-spend, big-borrow, pro-gun-control, pro-GLBT, pro-abort, liberal judicial appointments, big-green agenda "
===
There you go again, MISREPRESENTING Arnold's positions.
Arnold VETOED the homosexual marriage bill, he vetoed the drivers licenses for illegals bill, he promoted Prop. 76, to reign in spending (which YOU voted AGAINST), he appointed over 50% Republican judges, his environmental agenda is based on voluntary cooperation, instead of mandatory one, as that of the Democrats, Arnold also prevented the Dems from raising taxes.
Both Angelides and Westly are on record saying that they WILL SIGN a bill giving drivers licenses to illegals, WILL SIGN a bill for homosexual marriage, WILL sign a bill to make environmental compliance mandatory, both are FOR raising taxes, and increasing spending "for the children".
So let's see, which is more in line with conservative principles, Arnold or the Dems.
It's pretty clear.
So why are you still advocating voting AGAINST Arnold, which WILL RESULT in a DEM getting elected with the above platform?
ROFL! Your blind allegiance is predictable, but you fail to acknowledge the facts.
Arnold VETOED the homosexual marriage bill, he vetoed the drivers licenses for illegals bill,
He passed the most progressive GLBT legislation this state has seen with special rights for gays in property taxes, pensions and other--and of course the Unruh Civil Rights Bill. Who needs marriage when they get all the special rights anyway?
he promoted Prop. 76, to reign in spending (which YOU voted AGAINST),
It did not reign in spending -- it authorized even MORE borrowing.
he appointed over 50% Republican judges
When 80-90% is the normal expectation, I wouldn't tout this as a plus, FO. More GLBTers on the bench, along with Villaraigosa's sister, personal injury lawyers, defense attorneys, etc.
his environmental agenda is based on voluntary cooperation, instead of mandatory one, as that of the Democrats, Arnold also prevented the Dems from raising taxes.
That is laughable! His $3 Billion dollar solar roofs plan is voluntary? How about those hydrogen highways? You mean I won't have to pay taxes or fees on my power bill to subsidize this cr@p? His program for global warming is not voluntary--it is moving to a cap and trade program with his "voluntary" guidelines being a basis for new legislation.
So why are you still advocating voting AGAINST Arnold...
I am not advocating against Arnold. I am advocating FOR the Republican platform and Conservatism. I believe that elected representatives should be held accountable to the platform on which they ran and the party to which they chose to associate themselves with. When they act like a liberal and govern like a democrat, I will speak out. If Republicans don't hold their politicians accountable, who will, the Democrats? I think not.
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.