Posted on 09/08/2006 11:40:12 PM PDT by goldstategop
Answer: Because Republican partisans are very, very confused by the changes their party is undergoing in California. They associate conservative values with the traditional Republican Party and are in denial about the changes occuring in their party.
Question: Why do Republican partisans want conservatives to help them elect a liberal.
Answer: Because he's a Republican liberal.
Question: Aren't Republican partisans concerned that their aims will advance liberalism.
Answer: No, they just want to win. They don't consider consequences imposed by a Republican to be negative, even if liberal.
Question: Is it true that life under a Democrat governor will be worse for Californians than under a Republican governor.
Answer: That depends on the governing philosophy of the elected official. Under Gray Davis Californians endured higher taxes, larger government and less personal freedoms than under Pete Wilson. But the same is true when comparing Schwarzenegger to Davis.
Which brings us back to Reality...
Arnold vs. Phil
Son: But mom I know you told me and I'm not. I'm in the middle, closer to the shallow end.
Mom: Anywhere in that pool that you can't touch the bottom with your toe and still breath, is the deep end.
Such is the dilemma presented by two liberals. Republican partisan are complacent regarding the danger, even when they're in over their heads.
Too bad you "True Conservatives" were complacent during the Special Election.
Abortion, Unions,...Y'all were a no show and cost this state greatly.
The technique is called argumentum ad nauseam. It is based on the notion that a lie, repeated often and forcibly, gains the legitimacy of truth.
Many conservatives did exercise their franchise. They simply voted against bad legislation. Prop 68 was an excellent example of an attempt to indemnify cronies and delay logical consequences until after 2010. The largest plurality of nay sayers were Democrat partisans but the next largest was conservative Republicans.
Show me the percentage of registered Repub voters that voted.
Why no mention of the anti union and anti abortion props?
You kept silent then, too.
Bitterness doesn't win elections or change minds or laws. Ask "Pro-Arnold" McClintock or Reagan.
Curious defense. Scuttling the ship to prevent it from falling into enemy hands?
Why no mention of the anti union and anti abortion props
75 wasn't used as a whip by angry CAGOP partisans after their richly deserved humiliation in 2005 and 73 was not part of the big four. Both 74 and 75 were legitimate issues. 74, a local matter, not anti union, may have survived if it had not been promoted by the Austrian. Many influential Democrats on local school boards were in favor of 74 but the CAGOP simply poisioned the water with them or us and gave these public servants no room to wiggle.
"Pro-Arnold" Reagan.
Living or dead?
I said "Pro-Arnold" McClintock, as you know. Word twist often?
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.