New York City had Rudy who had many liberal ideas and conservative. He worked good for his city and left his office knowing the job in honor. The governor of NY is a liberal republican.
The democrats need to be stopped before they can do irreversible harm to our jobs, economy, business, citizenship, education, and medical care and infrastructure.
There is a strong possibility someone like Arnold could work just as well for California. McClintock would be magnificent, but it is getting the predominant left-wing in this State to see his truth and ability.
Here is what I would just guess is the McClintock angle. He does not get a lot of press exposure to showcase his positions, so he is used to being kicked around by liberal opponents, including liberal (R)s in his own party. This goes back years and has nothing to do with Arnold.
It's not necessarily wrong to have a sympathetic ear for Indians in California. Like Indians everywhere else (Oklahoma, for example?) Indians in California have been traditionally on the receiving end of policies in which the end result-- sorry, don't know how to put this in polite terms-- is genocide and disenfranchisement from whatever rights they had left on the (scrawny, small) reservations. This policy has extended on through to the present in California, where Indians with valid treaties have gone to court against special interests (on the order of PG&E, landholders) and the courts have come down with decisions that are fantastically contorted to avoid the treaty obligations and favor the big corporate landowners. More Indian tribes have yet to be recognized although by law stretching back in time to the late 1880s, they should be recognized. The problem is land. Much of the land that should have gone to the Indian tribes by federal law instead went to settlers or big corporations, and now that land is worth millions or billions, so honoring old treaties is not cheap.
The right thing to do imhp is to take a step back and look at things from all points of view, including the Indian point of view. They were here before everyone else, and most of them got ripped off, killed, or both, in the process of settlement of the state (Mexican and Anglo).
McClintock needs face time on TV. His campaign theme is fiscal responsibility. Most rational folks (though I don't about FR anymore these days ;-) are inclined to agree that McClintock's fiscal policies are the strong medicine the state government needs to get back on track, or at least he comes closest to the medicine that is called for. But the obstacle has been, and probably continues to be, exposure. Exposure costs big $$$.
Reports are that McClintock apparently has extended a friendly hand to Indians for many, many years. I am not sure that is particularly wrong. What most folks here-- especially out-of-staters-- do not seem to comprehend is that the laws governing Indians has changed drastically in the last few years. A proposition passed a few years ago gave recognized Indian tribes the right to set up casinos. Another law (?) also recently passed (? -- someone more informed is welcome to fill in the gaps and specifics here) creates a huge hole in the campaign finance laws which excludes Indian tribes from rules that all other organizations follow. The political power of Indian tribes has increased dramatically in the last few years. This creates a disparity and dynamic and eddies of power which simply are likely to be unique to California. In such a situation, comparing California to any other state is simply not justifiable IMHO. So here is the situation-- Tom's support for Indians apparently has remained constant regardless of whether they were dirt poor or they had newfound political and economic power. Now he's getting ragged for -- yet again -- being consistent in his support of Indians, and also getting ragged for taking money that can be used -- finally -- to bring exposure of his policies to the broad masses of Californians who wonder if they will wake up some day to a bankrupt government. At the same time, the one guy (Arnold) who could easily bring publicity to the specifics that McClintock has been championing for years, has consistently avoided appearing on the same stage with McClintock, up to, through, and past the Republican convention.
From a fiscal conservative perspective, Arnold is no different from the Democrats since the Democrats do the very same thing-- avoid debate, hog publicity, and duck and weave every time the question of specifics come up.
This leaves unaddressed the problems of unrecognized Indian tribes, who are still disenfranchised from the state and federal perspective.
Sorry for the length, but I don't think the situation is as simple as the Arnold supporters, especially out-of-state Arnold supporters, presume it to be.