Arnold Schwarzenegger Would Get 25% of the Vote If Californians Voted Today

Drudge Report ^ | 9 August 2003

[Joe Hadenuf]

What state you in Ed? I noted your just another, to ashamed to post your state flag..It's OK if you don't want to say.

[cubreporter]

Well, I am against abortion but...there is nothing I can do about it nor anyone else. People who have abortions will have them anyway.

My problem number one is it is murdering a baby. People can argue with me until they are blue in the face but...that's the bottom line on that.

However, if someone chooses to have an abortion so be it. But...let them spend their OWN money to do it.

[cubreporter]

Well, I am against abortion but...there is nothing I can do about it nor anyone else. People who have abortions will have them anyway.

My problem number one is it is murdering a baby. People can argue with me until they are blue in the face but...that's the bottom line on that.

However, if someone chooses to have an abortion so be it. But...let them spend their OWN money to do it.

[Bonaparte]

Lots of unproven claims were made for prop 49 when it was on the ballot. University "studies" that tended to support the efficacy of before/after school programs were cited but not others. Claims were made about the cost-effectiveness too, with such figures as $3 saved for every $1 spent -- but with little explanation of how such figures were arrived at.

The California voters' evident willingness to engage in many costly social experiments put prop 49 on line, along with many other similar programs. I'm a long-term California resident/voter too and I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm for these "programs." I've seen way too many of them continue to proliferate -- right along with the crime rate, drug dealing, violence, drop-out rate, etc.

[Bonaparte]

"Would you care to address why Chris Cox supported it? Do you consider him a RINO?"

Of course not, MM. In fact Dana Rohrabacher supported it too, and he's no RINO either. Politicians support things for their own reasons, sometimes as a simple trade-off, other times because they may calculate that it's inevitable anyway and they at least want the least virulent strain to be approved by voters.

Hey, James Rogan is no RINO and he voted in favor of a gun control measure very unpopular with conservatives. He probably lost a few voters because of it but I never held it against him. Have you ever wondered why so very few congressional conservatives get perfect ACU scores year after year? Think there's a reason for that? At any rate, I can't answer for Chris Cox's or any other politicians' votes or policies, only my own.

[easonc52]

The California voters' evident willingness to engage in many costly social experiments put prop 49 on line, along with many other similar programs.

Thank you for your response.

As I have not lived in California for awhile, my main interest is in how things affect my family (and the rest of the country).

As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread (I know there are probably to many to read them all :-)), I tend to wait until I hear all the candidates' positions, before I get to excited one way or another.

I understand the candidates either have to make their positions on issues clear in the very near future (within a couple weeks), or there wouldn't be any sense in them even running.

[JohnnyZ]

Not a one issue Republican conservative -- never have been and never will be.

You would have a lot more credibility if you weren't suggesting opposition to Ahnold is a one-issue thing. It's clearly a many-issue problem. I believe he IS a fiscal conservative and thus not a RINO, but he is definitely liberal on a wide range of social issues. It is certainly reasonable for Republicans to support a Republican who agrees with all the Republican Party Platform like Tom McClintock rather than one who agrees with half the platform like Ahnold. Mocking conservatives for objecting to a social liberal belies the "let's-all-work-together-as-Republicans" philosophy you claim to profess.

The two are currently in 1st and 3rd place in the polls, if the above poll is to be believed. Arnold has never been elected to anything, McClintock has and has demonstrated strong conservative and crossover support statewide in 2002.

[onyx]

It's a statewide election, not a GOP primary. Mass appeal, 1 minute sound bites --- it's Arnold's to lose --- and Cruz's to win should Arnold stumble.

[HitmanLV]

Simon is a loser, plain and simple. He has a lot of nerve running after the electorate rejected him only a few months ago. amazing!

[JohnnyZ]

FACT THREE Even if Arnold was flaming Pro-Choice or flaming Pro-Life, there is not a thing he can do about abortion in California because changes on that issue can only be mandated on the federal level. Is this sinking in?

You are very ignorant of Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions. States can restrict abortion in the second and third trimesters, to varying degrees.

It's unlikely that Kalifornia could get together a legislature to go with a governor to pass restrictions on abortion. But that's how it's done, and I would advise you get YOUR facts straight before sending out tip sheets to others. Is THAT sinking in?

[PhiKapMom]

The people that posted back to me were one-issue voters -- if they were not I wouldn't have said that. There are two one issue voter groups on here that keep saying they will not vote if someone doesn't agree with them -- abortion and gun control.

What most don't realize is that the Liberal DemocRATs are pro-abortion and ardently pro-gun control.

In my mind to take either of those one issues and say they won't vote for a person because of that is wrong. Go on some of the initial threads and you will see the pro-life folks are only worried about abortion stance of Arnold. How much does a Governor have to do with abortion -- very little! Same people trashed Gov Racicot when he is pro-life but said as Governor he has to uphold the law. That is what we elect our officials to do -- uphold the law!

Now you know the reason for my comment! I put up with these same one issue people in 2000 and 2002 elections, when Gov Racicot was named to RNC chair and the list goes on. Not in the mood with so much at stake to listen to them now!

I have lived in California, have a daughter and friends there, and the chance of a conservative getting to become Governor is very slim. If Simon couldn't win against Davis when Davis was very beatable, no other conservative stands a chance.

California Republicans can either support Arnold who has a real chance to win or Bustamante will win in which case you have someone who could turn out to be worse than Davis when it comes to illegals and his dislike of any other group but Hispanics. You think immigration is bad in CA now, elect Bustamante and the floodgates open -- he wants CA part of Mexico!

[Bonaparte]

I agree absolutely. However, I do my "opposition research," and therefore factor in everything I learn about a candidate, not just what he says when he wants my vote. I look at his past published statements, speeches, votes, behavior (or misbehavior) and so forth.

My guess concerning AS's current lack of position statements and media evasions is that his handlers are waiting a bit longer to see how things shape up with the other candidates and how their internal polling reads. Then they'll select the position statements they believe are most advantageous for their client.

[JohnnyZ]

As you advance from your 22 years, you may become more pragmatic, too. I have.

Apparently you have "matured" into quite the dismissive jerk as well. I think Keyes2000mt would be well advised to avoid the transformation you're claiming. But what do I know, I'm only 23!

[PhiKapMom]

You really don't understand California politics if you are pushing McClintock! Whatever anyone's feelings, a conservative is not going to get elected in this race. A Republican moderate can win. Why do you think Davis wanted Simon in the general election? He knew he couldn't beat Riordan but he could beat Simon even though Davis was unliked pretty much by everyone.

Until Conservatives realize we cannot always elect Republican conservatives in some States, we will continue to lose!

This is no Republican primary -- this is winner take all and doesn't make a difference if you get 20% and no one else has that amount, you win.

That is why it is so important that Republicans not split their vote or you will get Bustamante who hates any minority and Anglos -- only likes Hispanics! He would be very bad for Californians!

[deport]

The California 'Do Over' is going to be fun to watch..... Reckon they can get their act together and at least elect someone other than a democrat?

I see the name calling already beginning and they hope to change peoples positions to their candidates.. Yep calling potential voters you'd like to see come to your side 'rinos', etc really is the way to win friends and influence ppl... It is going to be fun....

[JohnnyZ]

It's a statewide election, not a GOP primary. Mass appeal, 1 minute sound bites --- it's Arnold's to lose --- and Cruz's to win should Arnold stumble.

Give it another month and see. I would suspect that Simon is draining off part of McClintock's support, yet he still has 9%. In any case, there's no need for McClintock not to give it a shot. The Greens will be united behind Camejo as this is their best shot at a governorship as well, so those folks won't be voting Democrat.

[Moby Grape]

Rush and Morris are right...Arnold is a RHINO....His wife (Kennedy that she is) said today that Arnold would represent the DEMOCRATS of the state.....that is EXACTLY what California does NOT need.

[PhiKapMom]

You are so right! And we also know what group is famous on here for calling us and candidates they don't like RINO's. Seems a lot of screen names have changed. Maybe Howlin should pull out her list of all the names we have been called from time to time on here!

[onyx]

From everything I've heard and read about Tom McClintock --- he is a great man and a fabulous Republican --- and I think if it looks like Arnold has the only real chance of winning, that McClintock will throw his support to Arnold for the good of our party. But that's just my opinion.


BTW, I NOW BBQ with Sweet Baby Ray's Hot and Spicy!

[rolling_stone]

Clearly, you would prefer to kill those babies before they even have a chance to be born. I wouldn't. Their innocent lives are precious to me and I won't put a price on them. I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

They are precious to me also, but since we can't stop some people from overbreeding, abortion is a distasteful alternative to a larger welfare, criminal and liberal state..IMO.You are welcome to your opinion, I hope you have travelled near and far to see the real effects of overpopulation and unwanted children, including street urchins who grow up to be adults...

That said, the issue I was addressing was the relevance of abortion as a live issue in California, specifically, the taxpayer funding of same.

It's nice to have principles to not put a price on the "lives" of those who are aborted, but without state sponsored abortions, we will end up with more state sponsored and taxpayer financed parents and children...which evil is worse, unwanted aborted "babies" as you call them or unwanted grown up adults? of course we could resort to the age old practice of infantcide which is accepted in some cultures....I am not here to mandatorily pay for someone else's responsibilities, I may choose to do it on my own...if society cares to do it through charity it is one thing, but through forced payments for welfare and schools, I think not.. For those that want to oulaw abortion, make it tied to a law requiring those having children to be responsible for them...do away with welfare and let them fend for themselves like in other countries...