[George W. Bush]

McClintock’s problem is not so much that he’s unknown but that Californians know about him and have rejected his candidacy time and again.

McClintock got 49.5% in his last race. He was not previously as well known.

Even if Arnie wins, it will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for conservatives.

I'd prefer to let Cali simmer under Dim management if we can't elect a conservative. They really haven't suffered enough yet to make a real change in voting habits. They need to understand that voting for liberals is exactly what got Cali into this mess.

McC or nothing. I see no reason for conservatives to vote for a liberal of either party.

[Dog Gone]

I don't think it really matters too much who is elected. If it's Bustamante, the state continues its freefall to hell.

If it's McClintock, the Republicans get the blame as the state continues its freefall to hell. His election wouldn't change the legislature, and that's where the real problem in state finances is, anyway. He'll just be a convenient new excuse for the states' liberal media to blame.

Arnold might be more effective as an outsider with no real ties to either party. Then again, he might be a disaster. But he has no political career to be ruined, so the GOP can certainly disavow him if things continue the way they are.

But the way I see it, a Democrat governor won't fix the problem, and a Republican governor can't.

I'm leaning towards Arnold (not that I get to vote) but I'm not convinced that it makes much difference.

[Spyder]

I'd prefer to let Cali simmer under Dim management if we can't elect a conservative.

And thanks to your type we got 8 years of Clinton and still had to fight like @#$% to avoid Gore. "Simmering" never works - once the RATs are in control, they take things way farther to the left than we ever have a chance of reversing.