[ken5050]

In your post, Bib..you called yourself a conservative...I KNOW you are indeed one, yet you did not address the issue/question of social conservatives vs. fiscal conservatives.....Arnold ain't a social conservative..he's waaaay outside most of the GOP.....look..if "choice" is the deciding factor for the Dems..then "life" has to be taht for the GOP..no tent is that big.....and is we make compromises to move the ball..then we get,and deserve, what happened to the ECUSA......they got where they are by slowly eroding everything they used to stand for...

[BibChr]

Well, at least thanks for not coming out and calling me a RINO! (c;

No, it sounds as if I share your convictions and concerns. My position has indeed changed over the years. After my wife and I voted for Pete Wilson, and he was such an aggressive pro-abort, trying to take the party to that position, we never wanted to vote for a pro-abort again. It is a despicable, indefensible position.

So, whether I've "grown" or "lost it," you will judge. Here's my thinking, trying not to repeat what I already said.

Losers neither pass good budgets nor laws, nor veto bad budgets nor laws.

I want to help the person win who will veto the most bad budgest and laws, and pass the most good budgets and laws.

IN MOST ELECTIONS (NOTE: *not* primaries), I have two major choices. I have to pick which of those will do what I just outlined.

THIS IS AN ELECTION, NOT A PRIMARY.

At present, it is likeliest that Bustamonte or Shwarzenegger will win.

My question to me and you: which of those will veto the most bad budgets and laws, and pass the most good budgets and laws?

We know B will be bad all across the board.

S is simply an unknown, POLITICALLY, except that he supports Prop 13, which is a plus.

As to the rest... that's what my essay is about!

Help any?

Sincerely,
Dan