Posted on 11/09/2006 8:02:20 AM PST by SmithL
Whatever pitched partisan battles might be looming in Washington, D.C., Tuesday's election was a victory for collaboration over confrontation in California, as the state voted overwhelmingly to give a second term to a celebrity chief executive who has redefined what it means to govern from the center.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's landslide victory and the approval of his package of proposals to rebuild the state's public works showed that in the Golden State, voters will value and reward politicians who reach out and work with their opposition rather than trying to run them over in pursuit of total policy victories.
Schwarzenegger was leading Democrat Phil Angelides by more than 16 percentage points with only the late absentee vote still to be counted Wednesday.
Propositions 1A through 1E, which he shepherded onto the ballot, all passed by large margins in a year when voters cast a skeptical eye on most other propositions put before them.
Schwarzenegger's victory was sweeping. He carried 51 of the state's 58 counties, with Angelides winning a plurality in five and a majority in only two: San Francisco and Alameda, the state's liberal strongholds.
Schwarzenegger won big along the coast and bigger inland. He did well in the cities and demolished Angelides in the suburbs and rural areas.
According to exit polls, Schwarzenegger won among men, women and everybody more than 30 years old. He won among all income groups except those making less than $30,000 a year. And he won among all but the least educated, as Angelides managed to eke out a victory only among high school dropouts. Schwarzenegger even showed strength among ethnic minorities, winning 27 percent of the black vote, 39 percent among Latinos and 62 percent of the Asian American electorate.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
That's like saying a "win for maybe".
Being a centrist, doesn't mean you are a centrist on every issue. It means on some things you lean to the right, and others you lean to the left.
So Libertarians sign multi-billion dollar bills to research embryonic stem cells when private enterprise isn't vaguely interested???
Centrism is not a good way to live a life or govern.
Yes, libertarians would research embryonic stem cells; but hope that the funding would come from outside sources--however if we had to balance whether to research with funding against not researching we'd probably choose the former as Arnold did.
I don't recall Margaret Thatcher doing anything to outlaw abortion in the UK.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by traffic from both sides." Margaret Thatcher
That's not libertarianism....that's liberalism.
Spending tax money on research that millions oppose and that has shown so little economic progress that private business isn't even interested.
That's corporate welfare for bio-techs.
Although this is not a statewide victory, I'm happy to report a landslide win for a conservative mayor in our very liberal enclave of Chula Vista, the second largest city in San Diego County.
Cheryl Cox beat incumbent, corrupt Steve Padilla with her no nonsense Margaret Thatcheresque campaign, displaying the incredible good will she has garnered both toward, and from, this city for many years.
This is HUGE for us.
McClintock did pretty well given that he was running against Garamendi who was one of the strongest candidates of the bunch (except maybe Jerry Brown just on name recognition.)
There is no tradeoff between researching with funding and not researching. No one is banning researching (certainly not in California). But they have to pay for it with their own dime, just like the libertarian position ought to be.
Arnold just created another big government-funded sink for money because he could buy some people's favor with it.
Do that and we lose.
Can you say "President Guiliani"?
Thank you - it is amazingly scary what people consider "centrist" these days.
Don't they consider Hillary a "centrist" anymore?
:>)
Arnold engineered his 'victory' by keeping his distance from his party and it's slate, by promoting ballot initiatives likely to garner union and Democrat support, and (of prime importance) being an easy choice for the least qualified voters in the nation. Apologies to my friends and neighbors here in the Golden State but the facts speak for themselves.
I think Arnold's mostly Libertarian, just as the state is mostly libertarian, but he makes exceptions for certain things that are popular with the electorate. I don't think there are any politicians in the land who won't do that.
So he's libertarian but for stem cell and environmentalism, a position I think is taken by many, many Californians.
I'd call him the politician California deserves. He tried a more aggressive program, and he worked very hard for that program, but the voters rejected it. So he scraped himself off the floor, figured out what he could do to become more palatable to voters, and did it.
I suppose I'll be branded a liberal over here, but I have to admire the guy. He was pushed down and he bounced right back. That's a sign of a masterfully competent fellow, whatever you may think of his current program.
If the voters don't want conservative principles, then giving them conservative principles just means losses. Tom McClintock found that out, apparently, and I feel bad for a good man. I think maybe you need someone as pragmatic as Arnold to run California.
Thoughts?
D
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.