CA Voter Guide - No Arnold either?

Rabid Republican

[Rabid Dog]

Just received my voter guide - knew Tom McClintock wasn't going to be listed - but I don't see Arnold either. Or Mary Cary or Gary Coleman? What's going on??

[Rabid Dog]

Hope this isn't a repeat post.

[Rabid Dog]

Also does anyone know about Prop. 53? I never even heard of it.

[RightWhale]

What? No Ahnold? Did his campaign also screw up? There was a major election guide screwup in Alaska last time; entire zipcodes got mailed to oblivion, clerical error. Twice. Kind of makes one wonder.

[dighton]

Is this "voter guide" from the State of California, or from some other entity?

[byteback]

Prop53 guide

[Roscoe]

Schwarzenegger refused to accept the limits, so his statement won't appear.

[Rabid Dog]

Not to worry - Bustamante is in the guide!

[Roscoe]

http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Candidates/List.aspx?view=intention&sort=RACE&session=2003

[Rabid Dog]

Good job - that is what is says on page 8. "Under this law, any candidate for governor who accepted the voluntary expenditure limit of $10,624,000, had an opportunity to purchase a statement, not to exceed 250 words, in the California Voter Information Guide. UB and Bustamante both accepted the limit.

Larry Flynt's is pretty funny - "I can do a better job at balancing the budget than those pinhead bureaucrats in Sacramento."

[TheAngryClam]

No- you have to accept some severely restrictive spending limits and other assorted campaign finance garbage to get into the voter guide.

[polyiguana]

But McClintock later tried to get his way back into the pamphlet, claiming he didn't fill out the form correctly.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34356

[Rabid Dog]

Ventura - it's in So. Cal.

[donmeaker]

Don't worry, I found AS on the ballot. number 59 in my precinct. Tom is there too, but could you vote for a guy who admits that he can't fill out a simple form correctly?

[Rabid Dog]

Thanks for the link. Here's an excerpt:

When McClintock discovered the consequences of his choice, he amended his form and refiled it one day before the Aug. 9 deadline. But the secretary of state's office refused to accept it, contending the rules prohibit amendments, although this is not indicated anywhere on the form.

But McClintock insists this technicality is superceded by his First Amendment right to communicate his platform to the voters.

"Here you have a candidate willing to take what they say they want – which is the spending cap – and they are saying you can't do it because he didn't fill out his form right," Stoos said.

The strategist explained McClintock's argument is the state must make reasonable accommodations, "especially when dealing with First Amendment speech."

Ackerman made that point in Sacramento County's superior court Tuesday, but Judge Gail Ohanesian, after initially indicating favor toward McClintock's position, ruled against him.

The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled Thursday McClintock had the right to amend his form, but it did not see evidence the document was turned in on time. Due to a mixup, the court did not receive a faxed copy of McClintock's form, which shows he submitted it to the secretary of state's office before the deadline.

When McClintock's team turned in the evidence to the superior court, the court refused to accept it, for reasons unknown to Ackerman and Stoos.

[TheAngryClam]

That doesn't change what I said. The only reason you felt compelled to add that "but" is because you're an Arnold shill.

[Roscoe]

Tom is gaining, Schwarzenegger is fading. Drives 'em crazy.

[TheAngryClam]

Durn right.

Just wait- state GOP convention is this coming weekend. Tom's coming in with the momentum too.

Let's hope he corners Arnold in the hall.

[Roscoe]

He could give Schwarzenegger a copy of the party platform.

The Platform of the California Republican Party

The Sanctity of Life

We note Thomas Jefferson's sentiment that "the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government," and that the United States Constitution guarantees no one "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The CRP affirms its support for the protection of innocent human life at every stage, from the pre-born to the elderly, the infirm and the disabled.

As the Party for Life, we stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion for sex selection. We oppose the heinous practice commonly known as partial-birth abortion and urge the State Legislature, the Congress and President to pass legislation to ban this procedure. To restore to the states the right to determine the abortion issue, we support the reversal of Roe V. Wade.

[Brilliant]

Why the HELL are Californians willing to allow a piece of campaign literature to be paid for at public expense, but it omits the number one candidate? Have they gone looney? (Whooops. I guess that implies they weren't to begin with).