Replies

This article is a great summary of the basic argument for Arnold, and liberalism in the GOP in general - incoherent, inconsistent, and naive, full of obfuscations and implausibly rosy scenarios, and the general attitude that conservatives can forget about having a voice in public policy.
Balderdash.

Show me the error of this author's ways.

Please start with THIS critical passage:

"...Abortion. Tom would prohibit first-trimester abortion, while Arnold would not.
If you think Tom can persuade Justices Kennedy and O'Connor to overturn Roe v. Wade, and can then persuade the California legislature to exercise its new-found power to prohibit first trimester abortions, then Tom McClintock is definitely your man.
Otherwise, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between Tom and Arnold on the issue of abortion..."

How is he "incoherent, inconsistent, and naive, full of obfuscations and implausibly rosy scenarios" here?

The fact that he leads that section as "practical" comparison , and then summarizes an issue listed beneath it asserted to have no practical application, for example?

The article is pure propoganda with no semantic content other than "Tom drop out now!" This is not obvious to you?

If you think Tom can persuade Justices Kennedy and O'Connor to overturn Roe v. Wade, and can then persuade the California legislature to exercise its new-found power to prohibit first trimester abortions, then Tom McClintock is definitely your man.

Maybe he cannot pursuade the justices, but he would have vetoed the bill to "protect the sancity of a woman's right to choose" in the State of CA signed by Davis.