[Brian Allen]

It's nice that Mr McJeffords-Perot is a "conservative."

But we're engaged in an election campaign so it's better that ARNOLD IS A REPUBLICAN!

And it's wrenching to see "principled-conservativism's" useful idiots -- having already given US eight years of Peking's squalidly-white-house-squatting-and-bemanuring "man" in Washington -- now working so damned hard, at such a frenzied pace -- and with such mouth-flecked ardor -- as once again they all lemming-like line up in their mindless rush to fullfil Joe Stalin's prophesy for him.

To buy the rope.

And to condemn Californians to suffer under Mexico City's "man" in Sacremento, Herr KKKuz BustaMENCHA.

God save California from such men.

And God save My America.

[novacation]

"ARNOLD IS A REPUBLICAN" Did you read the article? I didn't like the cheap shot about his father, but the rest was pretty good.Do you really believe that Arnold is a robot also?I do. He is more robot than republican.

[Tamzee]

And God Save my America

Bump!

[MeekOneGOP]

Thinking of voting for McClintock instead of for Arnold ?? (post #544) ...

Cruz 'for me everything, for you, nada da** thing' Bustamante ...

Separated at birth ?? ...

[brownie]

I believe the question in the FR CA recall debate can be summed up as follows:

principle vs. pragmatism

I understand, to an extent, the Arnold supporters position, that it is sometimes better to be pragmatic and win, then principled and lose. I believe most McClintock supporters understand this position to some extent as well.

Thus, I think the real debate here is just how much principle it is alright to sacrifice in order to "win."

For instance, if Arnold truly ran as, and sounded like, and surrounded himself with, fiscal conservatives, and was believable that he would not raise taxes and would cut spending, I think most conservatives (not all) would be willing to be pragmatic and vote for Arnold.

Or, in the alternative, if Arnold was fairly conservative on social issues (immigration, gun control, abortion) and was "moderate" on tax and spending, I think most conservatives (again, not all) would be pragmatic and support him.

However, neither above scenario is true. Arnold has surrounded himself with liberals (both democrat and republican), with only Schultz as a token conservative. Arnold's statements have either been directly opposite of the conservative agenda, or made his support of the conservative agenda questionable, or even outright insulted conservatives. I have repeatedly asked several FR posters to elaborate any single policy stance Arnold has taken to earn conservative support. Literally, all I have heard back is that a) according to these people, McClintock cannot win; b) Arnold can win; and c) bustamante must not win.

To me, as a well educated conservative who has participated in politics and followed politics for some time, I do not see that as a convincing argument for conservative support. I do not see why pragmatism dictates support for Arnold. Pragmatism would dictate supporting a candidate who disagrees with you on some issues, but agrees on some other, important issues. I have yet to agree with Arnold on any issue - save his statement that he would not raise taxes, except in an emergency. Considering that this is the same Rhetoric used by Pete Wilson (Arnold's "mentor") during his first campaign, before Wilson won, declared the budget crisis an emergency, and raised taxes, I am fairly confident that Arnold will raise CA taxes, while increasing spending, increasing regulations, limiting gun rights, and expanding illegal immigrant rights.

So, the question remains, how much principle do we sell to get a "win." Some believe that no principle is too important to comporomise and that an "R" win is all that matters. Others think certain principles must never be compromised for any reason. I'm somewhere in the middle, believing you have to look at the whole package, i.e., what you get for what you give up. I just do not see conservatives getting anything whatsoever from Arnold.

Conservatives voting for Arnold, in my estimation, will mean - loosing any influence in the CA republican party; a significant leftward tilt in the CA republican party and possibly the national party; no solutions for CA, whose troubles will then be laid at the feet of the CA republican party; and, despite wishful thinking, no help for G.W. Bush in the presidential election.

In the end, it does not seem pragmatic to me for conservatives to support Arnold. It seems the opposite.

Now, all of the Arnold supporters can (and probably will) call me names, say that I really want Bustamonte to win, say that McClintock is a loser and selfish, and that I am a fanatical conservative that does not know how to compromise. That simply is not the case. My take on this is based on an analysis of the facts at hand, the pros and cons of compromising to support Arnold. Weighing these, my belief is that support for Arnold would do more damage than good for the GOP and CA. Now, you may disagree with my analysis, but that does not mean I am naive or an idiot, or that I am incapable of compromise or pragmatism, or even that I am a closet liberal, rooting for Bustamante.

With that said, I invite others to explain to me why I should change my mind - however, I will state that I do not find the following "arguments" persuasive

a) McClintock cannot win (so what, that does not mean that conservatives should support Arnold)
b) Arnold can win (so what, that is not an argument for conservatives to support Arnold, see above); or
c) Bustamante will win unless conservatives vote for Arnold (I'm not really sure this is a compelling argument - see my comments above).

In the past, I have participated in the flame-type name-calling emails on this issue, which both sides (in my opinion) are equally guilty of. I am attempting not to participate in that from here out.