Replies

"Davis must go and Bustamante must not replace him - These are axiomatic and are the meeting point for all FReepers (and all right-thinking people). "

NOT SO! In the long run (through 11/04) we are much better off with Davis in place as governor. California, as a terrible example of ultra-left wing dem rule is an advantage in the 2004 national election. If Davis is replaced by an honest person, we don't have that contrast.

But, that is now out of our hands. Your analysis is sound. McClintock is doctrinally better, Arnold more likely to win. We will never convince the purists amongst us to support Arnold and so it is likely to Cruz will win. Not the worst thing that could happen so long as the brave Republicans in the legilature hold their ground.

And, we will have our chance should Nader be coaxed from protecting his considerable wealth to run and/or Sharpton, McKinney, Moseley-Braun, etc. have the bravery and guts to buck the dems' racial hatred and run a ticket.

we are much better off with Davis in place as governor

Perhaps I should have added this. You are right in one of two senses:

If California sinks into the Pacific and the dems are the Captain, they get the blame forever.
Response: I am ON that ship and don't want to drown for political gain. Also, if we can send Davis packing, California could again be an important state in the political world (at this point it is conceded as being Dem/Liberal and of no particular importance).
Bustmante is worse than Davis
Response: Yep, but we stil h ave to let the Left know they can't just run renegade like a bunch of French or Canadians spending money they don't have on social programs that are essentially vote-buying grabs. This one is painful for all right-thinking conservatives, but is a cost I think most would and will pay.