I was talking about supporting Arnold in an election cycle, specifically for the Special Election and this General.
Over and over, people were criticized for opposing leftist actions taken by the Governor. Had Gray Davis attempted half of this stuff, Republicans would have been up in arms! The exact time to criticize is before an election when they want your vote, not after when they no longer have any reason to pay attention.
If that's your belief then you should never criticize Arnold again as he won't stand for election again. I never said he was above criticism, I was just more willing to give him due credit and focus on the absolutely lunatic Dem opposition, the union thugs, etc. Arnold is and was a tool, responsive to outrages (car tax, driver's licenses for illegals, gay marriage, etc.), and by articulating reasons to oppose the mentally ill legislature (which was voted back despite miniscule approval ratings) it served our cause more than slashing at Arnold. Politicians, and Arnold as a creature of celebrity, are often motivated by desire for approval. That's your leverage with Arnold.
You see, my problem has been with what I see as an over-personalization of assault on Arnold rather than assault on policy, articulating why a policy is a fool's errand, etc. Even when he took the battle to the unions, somehow he just couldn't do anything right in many eyes around here. It's ridiculous and unhelpful!
I hit Bush hard but Bush claims to be a conservative and, honestly, the stakes are higher. Arnold has always run and acted as a populist, my expectations have been ever lower.
Where was that opposition going to come from, NJ??? The opposition was the very thing that you joined in stifling because it might "harm Arnold" (as you stated above).
False. I was aggressively critical of the bonds, *the proposals*, but not Arnold for agreeing to put them before the voters. Attacking him over that is a distraction. That was politics, let's debate proposals not personalities when it's the proposal on the ballot! Obviously there were more than a million people who agreed more bond debt was a bad idea and yet, somehow, our voice and view did not gel into an organized opposition to this or that particular bond.
I did not take the party's view that saying YES on just a few proposals was as strong as saying NO to the others. NO needs to be articulated and somehow it didn't materialize. That seems to have been a CAGOP strategy but in a nation of free political speech and free flow of finances, no one was kept from organizing opposition to this or that bond issue. Somehow it just didn't happen. I'm curious as to why. Twas it a conspiracy of silence by those who have money for such opposition campaigns?
Truthfully, I feel the bad bonds are more dangerous to our state's health than any particular political race.
I've learned a lot since the recall. I had hope for Arnold, I've been greatly disappointed. I had hope for McClintock and disturbed by his loss and, unlike you and many here don't blame Arnold for McClintock's loss. Somehow billionaire Poizner won, after all. McClintock failed to counter Garamendi's slanderous ads but, bottom line, it seems to me unless you can very nearly win in L.A., you're not going to win statewide.
How do we change the political culture of L.A.? Can we?
I love the idea of breaking the state because there's a hell of a lot more to this state than Los Angeles.
If you like the idea of splitting the state, look for a split along the ideological rift. Of the counties that voted Democrat, Los Angeles and seven counties in the San Francisco sphere would constitute one state. The remaining Democratic counties are not strongholds and would side with Republicans for lower taxes the new state would present.
Every prior attempt to split the state by a geological line has failed, and should as it would produce two Democratic states, one north and one south.