"Silly" question, eh? Glad to see where your priorities lie. I'll ignore your crack about Bustamante supporters and type this slowly once again. It's a no-brainer, so please try to follow along:
Unless the referendum passes (and it will, despite Arnold's reluctance to endorse it), the d**n drivers' licenses get ISSUED TO ILLEGALS ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2004. If the referendum succeeds, the law is IMMEDIATELY STAYED UNTIL THE MARCH 2004 election and thus the licenses probably NEVER get issued, as the law will undoubtedly pass.
Now let's all try that again, together:
1. No referendum, DRIVER'S LICENSES TO ILLEGALS GET ISSUED.
2. Referendum passes, LAW STAYED, NO LICENSES ISSUED.
Arnold is AGAINST the referendum. Doing something about it AFTER election is TOO LATE, we only have a LIMITED TIME TO COLLECT THE SIGNATURES.
Sorry to shout for emphasis, but Good Lord, is that simple enough now??
CORRECTION: This is a typo. The licenses will be issued JANUARY 1, 2004...BTW, just in time to be used fraudulently in the March 2004 elections!
Sorry about the typo. I was so mad I couldn't see straight when I typed this. I'm outta here now. Enough exasperation for one night.
No, truthkeeper, Arnold isn't against the referendum; he just doesn't support it.
If he ever were to say that he was against the referendum, his supporters wouldn't be able to keep telling us how "strongly opposed" Arnold is to SB60.
It's a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. If he supports the referendum, he ticks off the liberals. If he opposes it, he ticks off the conservatives. He's got a win-win going by doing neither.