Posted on 08/09/2003 2:18:40 PM PDT by Hal1950
Arnold Schwarzenegger Would Get 25% of the Vote If Californians Voted Today
California voters would remove Governor Gray Davis from office and replace him with Arnold Schwarzenegger by a 19 percentage-point margin if the election were held today, according to a TIME/CNN Poll.
Schwarzenegger leads Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamanate, his closest competitor, by a 25%-to-15% margin. Trailing were State Sen. Tom McClintock (9%), former candidate for governor Bill Simon (7%) and (tied with 4%) Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, columnist Arianna Huffington, and former Major League Baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein beat Schwarzenegger to replace Davis, 22 percent to 20 percent, if she had been a candidate, according to to TIME/CNN survey.
But California voters are not convinced that the Austrian-born action hero is capable of governing the state: 45% think he is, but many (55%) think he isn't capable (39%) or are unsure (16%). Schwarzenegger is not perceived as falling into any ideological camp: more see him as "moderate" (40%) than either conservative (23%) or "liberal" (19%).
The TIME/CNN Poll, conducted Aug. 8, surveyed 508 registered California voters by telephone. The margin of error is +/- 4.3%.
Developing...
That's nice. So why is Arnold talking up nothing more than funding his social spending? There's no talk of cutting taxes (which would bring back business that's fleeing); no talk of addressing the electric contracts that guarantee ridiculously high energy prices (another thing that's causing business to flee); and no talk whatsoever of eliminating the horrific burden of state-sponsored eco-terrorism done in the name of "environmental impact assessments."
Where's Arnie's positions on those issues? For that matter, where's his positions on anything? For all we've seen thus far, everyone is speaking for Schwarzenegger but Schwarzenegger himself.
FACT TWO Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has vouched for the fact that Arnold is against Partial-Birth Abortion and stands up for the Boy Scouts on allowing them to maintain their membership qualifications without being hurt. No, Arnold is not as socially conservative as some of us would like, but he's not Hillary Clinton either.
Okay, I'll give a pass on the abortion and gay issue. All the same, can you dispute the FACT that Arnold is anti-Second Amendment? I think you'll be hard-pressed to do so. That is one issue I will never give a pass on.
CONCLUSION If you want to go with McClintock or Simon, and possibly prevent one of the most popular people on Earth, the embodiment of the American Dream, from being Governor of California and saving that state from total economic and cultural ruin, fine.
CONCLUSION: If you want to support a candidate who does not support cutting taxes and services to balance the budget, much less support our Constitutional Rights, then you're getting what you vote for.
We will know exactly who to blame when Cruz Bustamante is sworn in as Governor.
And we'll know exactly who to blame when Schwarzenegger proves himself to be nothing more than Davis Lite.
-Jay
Some will do exactly that, no doubt. But their votes on Question #2 won't be counted. According to the applicable law, a "yes" or "no" vote must be cast on the recall question; otherwise, the vote on the second question will not be counted.
Another bit of intrigue in a unique situation.
I like what Rush has to say but he won't accept any other view than strict anti abortion. The choice here is clear...Cruz, Ahnold or vote for principle as a protest. If all one cares about is abortion then they are no Conservative, just a simple minded single issue voter, because real Conservatives would vote for lower taxes and pro business policy as well. These are just like the Howard Dean folks that would rather scream and whine than vote for someone electable.
Why not just admit that you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
(Gee, and all the RINO supporters say I'm rude. Sheesh...)
You think that Davis is a fiscal Conservative like Arnold?
Considering that all Arnold's platform has amounted to thus far is seeking to finance his pet Prop 49 with taxpayer funds. You call that being a "fiscal conservative"? I call it anything but.
Here's a tip - read Free to Choose and then come back after you realize that Davis doesn't follow those principles.
Here's a tip: read the Constitution of the United States of America and come back to me on why you support a candidate who DOESN'T support our least-popular RIGHTS.
-Jay
Against gun control? Look into it sir.
Against partial birth abortion? He IS a self professed proponent of "abortion" as chopped up as the issue is politically.
From nearby, it looks like you Californians have some soul searching to do.
Dealing with the liberal assembly will be near impossible, something I don't think McClintock or Simon can manage. If Arnold would let it be known he'd use the line item veto, I'd feel better.
From nearby, it looks like you Californians have some soul searching to do.
Dealing with the liberal assembly will be near impossible, something I don't think McClintock or Simon can manage. If Arnold would let it be known he'd use the line item veto, I'd feel better.
Lame, Lame, Lame. I'm sure you're educated enough on the issues to know that prop 49 doesn't require new taxes and is just a change in the funding priorities for the Education budget. Any additional spending would be from growth in the state's general fund starting in 2004-2005 (which doesn't appear likely).
You argue like a Democrat using phony logic and assuming that the rest of us don't actually read.
How many RINOs are there in the Republican Senate majority?
I was here in 1999 and 2000. Everyone seems to think they have a right to demand get out of the race in the name of the Party.
They were telling Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, and Gary Bauer out in late-1999 to support Bush when he had won nothing.
Indeed, one has to wonder why we bother with primaries and conventions. Why don't we just let conventional wisdom choose all of our nominees and then we can go and vote for our annointed candidates.
Do you believe seriously that every movement and every idea in this party should bow before the annointed one and let him ascend peacefully.
Should those who treasure the second amendment see their sacred right to defend themselves and their families pillaged by gun grabbers? Shall those who care about the unborn vote for someone who ears are deaf to the cries of the innocent?
Are we all to cow before you and your mighty wisdom or do you acknowledge a right to dissent? Do we have a right to feel that maybe the best thing to do isn't to put a pretty face on the ballot, but a man we know who has a core of principles, ideals, and values which are more in the line with the ideas of the founders?
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.