Replies

So, this is what 'the horns of a dilemma' is really all about. On the one hand the less conservative candidate, that it appears likely can win the election on the Republican ticket, is living in opposition to his professed religious strictures, and the other Republican candidate, who is less likely to win the election because of the hard, liberal hearts of California voters, appears more conservative, especially on the issue of abortion. So, if a Californian votes for the pro-life candidate, the liberal pro-choice candidate will win and the situation is likely to deteriorate if the elected liberal reads his election as a mandate (that liberalized California wants abortion on demand protected and 'sanctified'). On the other horn, if the conservative voter votes for a less conservative Republican and he wins, the voter is stamped as compromising principles. [That last is a low trick to shame conservatives, IMHO, in this particular election struggle. It is somewhat despicable to trot that out as a last ditch effort to manipulate California Republican voters because it rings of insincerity and exploits the issue of 'life for the little ones' when the election is not going to change abortion status in California merely because Tom might become governor. But let's move on to another perspective.]

The argument being put forward to shame Catholics and religious folk into voting only for McClintock because of the pro-life issue might get more votes for McClintock, but will it be sufficient to get him elected? On the other hand, is there any likelihood that Arnold would alter his pro-choice position, softening his stance to work toward reducing the use of abortion in California? I know one thing, it is a toss up with Arnold, but with Bustamove, you know darn well that liberal is never going to change his spots.

Glad I don't live in California! The liberalized left coast is hard at work trying to change their governor and save the state economically, but they don't appear to care much about liberal evils such as abortion on demand.

Maybe there's another approach that can decide the choice of Arnold or Tom ... we can disregard Bustamove as a choice for governor with the people this 'abortion/Catholic' approach is aimed at. What is the job qualification status of the two men? Oh, you say Tom has experience in California politics and running government but Arnold is starting from scratch, relying more heavily on advisors than Tom would be? Well, there's your answer: vote for the more qualified conservative candidate and pray enough of your fellow Californians can vote according to that job qualifications perspective. After all, Cruz will be an extension of Greyout, you can bet on that, so why not select an alternative approach to California management with a candidate who is more qualified? The pro-choice/pro-life angle need not even enter into the choice, in this case. Now if we're talking clinton or Schumer, or Leahy or Boxer or Harkin, well, that's a cut and dried life issue choice.