Posted on 08/20/2003 12:39:12 PM PDT by annyokie
Arnold speaks out.
I checked USNewswire, nothing. I can't remember the name of the official web site. (I am going off caffeine today so am really tired.) Do you know?
Neither is Bustamente. This recall is about fiscal policy, not homo marriages, abortion clinics and weaponry. Every complaint you have about Arnold also applies even more so to Culisimo bustamente. So what is your point?
If you persist in savaging Arnold (BTW: like that first name thing he's got going?) and peeling off votes from him for McClintock (a very fine man - who has no chance of winning IMHO) Culisimo bustamente wins. You might as well vote to keep grayout. It has the same effect and result. In a time like this, any change, even an incremental baby-step change is preferable.
They spoke like conservatives, but then acted like moderates.
Arnold speaks like a moderate but acts like a conservative.
I am turning in early tonight.
deport, if you find it later tonight, leave me a ping. Otherwise, I will look for it early in the morning. Thanks for all the links and information. Good night!
Tom doesn't get the "Big Picture" 8-?
Oh, that's a good one.
PS Baghdad Bob Mulholland now on H&C ... :-\
Bustamante is a Democrat. Arnold is a "Republican", though he doesn't seem to believe in many "Republican" views, such as pro-family issues. I do not like to elect fake Republicans. This is the same reason I (and the VAST majority of us) supported Bill Simon over Richard Riordan.
If you persist in savaging Arnold and peeling off votes from him for McClintock (a very fine man - who has no chance of winning IMHO) Culisimo bustamente wins.
First of all, that is complete speculation. At this point in the race, no one has any assurance the Schwarzenegger can even beat the Democratic machine, assuming they show up to vote.
You might as well vote to keep grayout. It has the same effect and result. In a time like this, any change, even an incremental baby-step change is preferable.
I would rather have a correctly-labeled liberal in office. If that is selfish, I apologize. Giving up most of our principles just to win an election is just plain stupid.
Tell me, if Schwarzenegger's party label was Democrat instead of Republican, with the same liberal social views like being pro-abortion and gay special rights, but was against raising taxes (but not necessarily for cutting them), would you recommend that I vote for him over a conservative Republican, just to keep a more liberal, pro-tax hike Democrat from winning?
Also, do we really want to move our party further to the Left?
And, if defeatists like many on this board, who have chosen the liberal Republican over the conservatives, "just to win" the election, will standing on conservative principles even be attempted in the future?
Do we even trust in our conservative ideology and belief structure any more? Or have we given up on core issues that, in the past, we would have NEVER compromised?
Just food for thought.
If you are trying to convince me that Warren Buffett is an idiot, a moron, and someone who can drive good people away from a candidate, you will have no argument from me. Buffett's involvement has me backing McClintock at this time.
But if you are saying that Arnold has not been pretty clear in his opinion on Prop. 13, I disagree.
No I would not. I would go for the conservative republican. However, this election is unique in that there was no primary to unify behind a single candidate; second, the time frame is extraordinarily short as far as major office elections go. I believe that our mutually shared goals would be better served by getting a RINO elected than having a true conservative get his ass kicked. We arrived at this speudo-socialist utopia via 30 years of incrementalism. As bitter to you as it may sound, it's likely to take several years of incrementalism to get out of it. Demanding the whole loaf now may sound like the morally superior position, but if we do that, we lose. It is that simple.
Also, do we really want to move our party further to the Left?
No, we have to move our party into a position of authority. Arnold is just one man, but right now, in this situation, I believe he represents our best strategic shot. If McClintock were elected he would face years of the most bellicose BS imaginable from the state legislature. Worse, the first time he "caved", choosing compromised progress over dead-in-the-water drifting, I suspect people here would rage then as well. Things have to be possible.
And, if defeatists like many on this board, who have chosen the liberal Republican over the conservatives, "just to win" the election, will standing on conservative principles even be attempted in the future?
I am hardly a "defeatist", and I resent the adhominim attack label. And I freely admit that I would support a less than perfect candidate "just to win" (duhhh).
Do we even trust in our conservative ideology and belief structure any more? Or have we given up on core issues that, in the past, we would have NEVER compromised?
We lost in the past. The thing to remember is that social movement is both cyclical and of long amplitude (as compared to our life span) The 1910 - 1929 era, in many ways, would make even a liberal blush. Great hardship (depression, WW2) forged the character of the conservative ideals you espouse - and with good reason: they are great ideals. Arnold would give a pleasing face to a movement that desperately needs it in CA. Just because he's elected doesn't mean he shapes conservative opinion. I believe it would be enough isf a certain percentage of californians thought he did though, for a while. BTW: the "never compromised" mentioned above is so much romantic idealizing. Plenty of ideals have been compromised then espoused by all political flavors since the beginning of politics. This is no time to be polite and chaste. This is a time to fight like hell and leave em for dead.
Just food for thought.
Consider it chewed, not swallowed.
The Field Poll out tonight (for what it's worth; they look like they've finally obliterated the outlier they released earlier this week) shows the race -- Arnold-23%, Boostataxes-18%, and nobody else above 4%. 33% undecided, whom I'd wager are prone to vote Republican, but their waiting on the race to develop. So, to be brutally candid, McClintock has lost half his support over the past week. He was around 8% last week in some poll; today, not above 4%. It's a race between Arnold and Bust-the-Treasury, as you said.
I hope Arnold gets it together and demolishes Davis.
Then I hope he implements a conservative agenda. Because if we let up the pressure to do just that, the Golden State spenders will drive California further into the Pacific.
I think he could go one better,, something along the lines of: 'Proposition 13 doesn't go far enough. Its tendency to create inequalities in taxes for new property values is a discouragement to California's economic growth. We need to actually set the limits to property valuation across the board.'
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.