Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"

Long Beach Press-Telegram ^ | 9-28 | Long Beach Press-Telegram

[ambrose]

Long Beach Press Telegram

Recall Davis, elect Arnold

Oct. 7: Schwarzenegger has the right ideas to begin repairing California.

Saturday, September 27, 2003 - Gov. Gray Davis is a career government bureaucrat who ascended too high. His shameless pandering to campaign contributors, obsessive micromanagement and extreme timidity toward any type of risk- taking served him well on his rise to the top, in various No. 2 positions, but those same qualities proved disastrous once Davis was elected to govern, a job that requires leadership.

His tenure in office has been marked with one leadership failure after another. First there was the energy crisis, which he didn't create but handled terribly. Then there was the state budget: After promising to manage the state's record surplus responsibly, Davis did the exact opposite and, along with the Legislature, turned the surplus into the largest deficit California has ever known. His recent flip-flop on the illegal immigrant driver's license issue showed all Californians what Sacramento observers have noted for some time: Davis will do anything for a vote (or, for that mater, a campaign contribution).

The only area in which Davis has shown some consistency is in his odious campaign strategies. He wins by viciously attacking opponents and then offering himself as the better choice.

Davis faces a recall election on Oct. 7 for which despite his vehement protests to the contrary he alone must accept blame.

True, the recall campaign was supported initially by a partisan opponent who had designs on the office; however, 1.6 million Californians signed petitions in a legitimate expression of anger and frustration that has crossed all party lines.

California needs leadership, not a bumbling, self-interested bureaucrat who clearly cannot handle the challenges that come with the governor's office. The Press-Telegram strongly urges a yes vote on the Oct. 7 recall.

***

The next question in any recall discussion is, if not Davis, then who? That's a tougher decision for many Californians, and the Press-Telegram editorial board as well. We've wrestled with it for many weeks as the recall campaign has taken shape, and five leading candidates emerged from the pack.

Eliminating some of the contenders was easy, starting with Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, another political chameleon who will be firmly planted in the back pocket of Indian gaming and other special interests that have contributed millions to his campaign. Just as worrisome is how, on the campaign trail, Bustamante has repeatedly lied about the cause of California's budget crisis, which he'd be called upon to solve. A Bustamante administration would bring three more years of the same special-interest pandering, deflected blame, damaging legislation and fiscal mismanagement that we've had in the past five.

Tougher was state Sen. Tom McClintock, a savvy veteran whose knowledge of California's budget is impeccable. When it comes to fiscal policy, McClintock has all the right ideas. His commitment to his principles, which are solidly conservative, is admirable. But McClintock's problem, ironically, is that his commitment to principle is too rigid to allow for any compromise, and he's become a marginalized outsider in the Capitol. He is not a consensus-builder. At best he would bring a veto stamp to much of the dangerous legislation being passed through the Legislature these days, and that's good, but not good enough.

Though Peter Camejo and Arianna Huffington are two bright, intelligent people (Huffington did a poor job of demonstrating that in Wednesday's debate), we don't believe they have what it takes to govern.

Which leads us to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

We were initially uncomfortable with the idea of having a movie star (an action movie star, at that), former bodybuilder and political novice in the governor's office. But as we looked past his image to examine Schwarzenegger's ideas about the type of change he could bring to California, he began to appear more and more as the best choice to replace Davis.

First for economic reasons: Schwarzenegger's fiscal ideas are close to McClintock's, but he'd have more ability to implement them. Schwarzenegger has effectively communicated a solid understanding of the failed policies that are costing Californians their jobs and sending businesses fleeing to other states. He's in favor of workers' compensation reform and a constitutional balanced- budget amendment.

Such an amendment, which would limit state spending growth to inflation and population increases, would force the state to act responsibly with its money, instead of running multi-billion dollar deficits and passing debt on to future generations. The measure wouldn't stand a chance in the Legislature, but Schwarzenegger would appeal directly to voters, in a positive sense, to push for an initiative. Same with the insidious redistricting that has created safe seats in the Legislature, gridlocked Sacramento and made special-interests even more powerful: Schwarzenegger favors an independent panel, which would be a major improvement, and has promised to do whatever he can to make it happen. No other candidate, realistically, could see that through.

Schwarzenegger's moderate- to-liberal stand on social issues is more in sync with the majority of Californians. He wouldn't, for example, stand in the way of medical marijuana reform, domestic partnerships or stem-cell research.

He is an aggressive supporter of education, and we're confident that would be reflected in his fiscal decisions.

Finally, Schwarzenegger's celebrity and star power would be an asset. For once, TV cameras wouldn't leave Sacramento when the election is over they'd stay because people would be interested in following a Schwarzenegger administration. Important issues that are often seen as mundane, like workers' compensation and budget matters, would actually command air time along with car chases and celebrity weddings.

Yes, Schwarzenegger is an untested political novice, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Davis was one of the most politically experienced governors California has ever had, and where did that get us?

California has a lot to lose by retaining Davis or electing panderer-in-waiting Cruz Bustamante. No good can come from either choice. On the other hand, the state has nothing to lose, and a lot to gain, by electing Schwarzenegger.

[MindFire]

You are too much. trying to imply i want a leftist to win??? WRONG. YOU are the one who's voting for a pro-homo marriage, pro-abortion pro gun control, socialist, soft-on-illegal FREAK! And yet you have the unmitigated GALL to dare say that us mcClintock supporters are ''useful idiots''?



YOU are the leftists!! as i said before. will swarzenegger-lovers please explain your world view, what you believe in. because all i've seen him stand for, is, as i said before, degeneracy.



And by the way, i was NOT ''playing the role of God'. Just giving the church teaching. and i also said i know this isnt a religious site. but since the 3 candidates claim the title of "Catholic". it is therefore appropriate to mention their discrepancies.


BTW The reason i havent spent time bashing Cruz is because i assume everyone here already knows how awful he is. to me this is a battle between a principled candidate (Tom) and arnold.
A battle for the repub. party. once the party takes a sharp left turn, and still wins, they will NEVER have to answer to the conservatives again. because they wont need them! THAT is why an arnold victory would be a loss for conservative republicans.



by the way. Cruz, when asked about mecha at the LA PRESS club debate, answered 'just like i belong to the catholic church and yet be pro-choice, i dont always agree with an organizations stances'. he thinks the church is just some 'organization' or 'club' where rules are optional? he is sadly, SADLY mistaken and will be judged by God for his actions. and P.S.: if you mock religion that once again proves you're not conservative. Conservatives respect religion., they don't have disdain for it.

[My2Cents]

Congratulations!

Your post has been nominated as one of today's MOST OUTRAGEOUS COMMENTS for your suggestion that Arnold's supporters are toxic poison, and degenerate godless filth! You'll be thrilled to know that your comment will be added to the Hall of Shame, comprised of other shrill comments by McClintock's increasingly desperate supporters, such as:

-- Posts (plural) that proclaim that "if you vote for Arnold, you're not a Christian."

-- An admission that some are creating an "enemies list" of sorts made up of the FR screen names who support Arnold, and of organizations that support him, intended to be a list of people and groups who have proven themselves "unreliable."

-- A suggestion that there needs to be a "true conservative" challenge to President Bush for the nomination, so McClintock should run against him in the primaries. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990293/posts), and an outright endorsement of McClintock as presidential material (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/990718/posts?page=13#13)

-- A suspicion about Darrell Issa's claim that McClintock made a promise to him that his candidacy would not damage the chances of electing a Republican in the recall, because Issa is "a terrorist sympathizer." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990452/posts?page=246#246)

-- The comment that "Arnold wants to use your tax dollars to slaughter unborn children," along with the corresponding comment that Arnold's supporters are "babykillers." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990641/posts?page=81#81)

-- The suggestion that Arnold is a rapist/woman-hater who is not only like Bill Clinton, but "Arnold IS Bill Clinton!" And in an encore performance, the claim that Arnold's supporters have become Clinton as well. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990490/posts?page=36#36)

-- The wish, because of White House involvement in encouraging candidates who can actually win, that "With any luck, Karl Rove will be in prison in fairly short order." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990793/posts?page=12#12)

-- One's hope that he will lose his job and that the entire California economy will tank, simply to embarrass Governor Schwartzenegger. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990490/posts?page=26#26)

-- The declaration that it would be better having Bustamante as governor than Arnold. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/990839/posts?page=63#63), and for an encore performance of the same theme (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/990839/posts?page=69#69)

-- Not to be outdone, the claim that it would be better to keep Gray Davis as governor than to have Arnold! (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/990606/posts?page=26#26)

-- The suggestion that Arnold is a piece of human excrement. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/990718/posts?page=20#20)

[My2Cents]

leave the republican party, (rid us of their toxic poison, PLEASE!) and go lie with Davis, Cruz

Read my previous post. It's McClintock's supporters who are opting to vote for Bustamante and against the recall.

BTW, throw some water on that "mindfire" of yours.

[RichInOC]

BTW, throw some water on that "mindfire" of yours.

I didn't realize I was thinking that loudly. [grin]

Seriously, I'm worried. That poor kid's head's going to explode next Tuesday.

[strela]

You are too much. trying to imply i want a leftist to win???

Actually, I implied no such thing. But if the shoe fits ...

YOU are the one who's voting for a pro-homo marriage, pro-abortion pro gun control, socialist, soft-on-illegal FREAK!

Wrong-o again. I don't live in California.

(You're on a roll - keep going).

And yet you have the unmitigated GALL to dare say that us mcClintock supporters are ''useful idiots''?

Now that sounds like something I would say. Yes, you are useful idiots.

as i said before. will swarzenegger-lovers please explain your world view, what you believe in.

"A conservative candidate who can win" is a good start.

And by the way, i was NOT ''playing the role of God'.

Presuming to damn other people to Hell as you did certainly qualifies as "speaking for God" where I come from.

Just giving the church teaching.

So you are a religious leader and/or hold office in the Church then? Which post do you hold?

The reason i havent spent time bashing Cruz is because i assume everyone here already knows how awful he is. to me this is a battle between a principled candidate (Tom) and arnold.

Actually, I never asked why you have thus far failed to criticize Cruz Bustamante in any way. Thanks for volunteering that information though, and that you believe that the Republican is actually worse than the Democrat.

once the party takes a sharp left turn, and still wins, they will NEVER have to answer to the conservatives again. because they wont need them!

We don't need you now. We don't recruit from bunkers or John Birch Society meetings.

he is sadly, SADLY mistaken and will be judged by God for his actions.

Ah, here we go again - presuming to speak for God. Do you dress up at home in bedsheets and put on one of those fake-o cotton beards when you "speak" for God? And, do you do the full monty Charlton Heston intonation? Sounds like you're ready for Halloween to me.

P.S.: if you mock religion that once again proves you're not conservative. Conservatives respect religion., they don't have disdain for it.

So if I mock you, I mock religion. So how long have you been a legend in your own mind?

[MindFire]

first of all, you misrepresented what i said and misquoted me. I did NOT say that
'Arnold's supporters are toxic poison, and degenerate godless filth!'



i said that those stances / (non-)values, and so called beliefs of Arnold and the RINOs are toxic poison to a potentially wholesome party, that the stances represent godlessness, etc. I DID say that Cruz and arnold are godless, and i explained that numerous times and i stick to it!!



by the way. most of the quotes you
pasted are accurate. we do need a more conservative president. or are you mesmerized by George Bush also? Do you think George Bush senior was ultra conservative too? LOL. Yikes. I suppose you think Extending the Clinton-feinstein gun ban is wonderful, right. Open borders are pee-chee. Joining UNESCO is the best thing he ever did, according to you,. right? Do you have any idea what UNESCO even is. good grief. Yes i would absolutely vote for Tom over george bush. No contest!!



Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alan keyes, Tom Tancredo, Tom McClintock. these are what's called "Conservative principled men'. Christian constitutionalists. or do you have disdain for all of them too? is your last name Rove or Kristol by any chance? LOL!! Yikes.

[ambrose]

In fact, you wind up repelling people who might otherwise support your cause. But that's just me.

Another good line.....

---

I learned these lines by watching you, okay?!

[AmishDude]

By the way. what all these code words mean, like Bump, bing, ping, or whatever! is that some secret language or what.

How about troll? Zot? Viking Kittens?

[BobS]

KickAss Arnold thread. Now I'll try to read the smackdowns:)

[MindFire]

'Strela', you havent told me in what way is arnold conservative. i have given you dozens of reasons how he is not. forget about the religious aspects, for a minute (since a candidates moral stances (or in this case complete lack of them) seem to matter zero to you.. what about the gun control issue and immigration issue?



explain the following. are you


1. NO on 54
2. NO on SB60 referendum
3. Do you 'really believe Prop 187 has been quote 'decided by the courts and is time to move on'? LOL (if so, please get an education on it.) Are you even FROM California? do you have any idea what prop 187 was? anyone who claims it was 'decided by the courts' is either dumb as a box of rocks, and gets their news from Entertainment tonight®, or they're purposely lying.



By the way. arnies Father in law employs the head of MALDEF, and supports them 100%. . i suppose youve never heard of them either. sigh.



as far as your line "We don't need you now. We don't recruit from bunkers or John Birch Society meetings."



if you dont need the true right, then why are you shaking in your boots about Toms 'spoiler' votes?
You have obviously bought into the lie and villification of JBS. which the mainstream media has fed to you. this site is a leftists DREAM. So many people in this post call themselves conservative but have disdain for conservatism. what a shame.

[novice2]

Thanks for trying to calm things down around here. Arnold's supporters, and I am one, are in the lead and should be more civil. I, for one, appreciate you posting the editorial - not helpful to McC - but important news which should have been shared.

[strela]

I'll be more than happy to answer all of your questions if you'll answer two of mine.

1. With 9/11, the 2000 elections, and all the incredible events that have shaped our political history in the past few years, how is it that you just now found out about FreeRepublic on September 16, 2003? As the self-described "Republican not in name only" that you claim to be, I find it very interesting that the only opinions you have posted here to date have had to do with the California recall election.

2. You started posting at around 3 this morning, and you have posts all the way through to the present (1:04 PM). As somebody who presumes to condemn others to Hell for voting for a political candidate, when if at all did you yourself find the time to go to church today?

News/Activism | posts by MindFire

#110: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: strela
110 posted on 09/28/2003 1:04 PM CDT by MindFire

#106: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: My2Cents
106 posted on 09/28/2003 12:50 PM CDT by MindFire

#101: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: strela
101 posted on 09/28/2003 12:32 PM CDT by MindFire

#77: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: capt. norm
77 posted on 09/28/2003 5:22 AM CDT by MindFire

#71: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: who
71 posted on 09/28/2003 5:05 AM CDT by MindFire

#44: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: ambrose
44 posted on 09/28/2003 4:30 AM CDT by MindFire

#37: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: ambrose
37 posted on 09/28/2003 4:17 AM CDT by MindFire

#34: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: FairOpinion
34 posted on 09/28/2003 4:07 AM CDT by MindFire

#31: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: Texasforever
31 posted on 09/28/2003 4:01 AM CDT by MindFire

#28: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: FairOpinion
28 posted on 09/28/2003 3:56 AM CDT by MindFire

#21: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: anyone
21 posted on 09/28/2003 3:41 AM CDT by MindFire

#19: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: goldstategop
19 posted on 09/28/2003 3:28 AM CDT by MindFire

#16: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: ambrose
16 posted on 09/28/2003 3:15 AM CDT by MindFire

#8: Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial: "Recall Davis, elect Arnold"
To: ambrose
8 posted on 09/28/2003 2:59 AM CDT by MindFire

[Hildy]

Ambrose, you're kind of Conservatism is in the minority in California. Once you accept that, maybe you can start acting from a place of realism.

[MindFire]

Why is it fair for me to be required to answer YOUR questions first, when i asked my questions of you first?

anyway i will oblige. Its nice(?) to know you track my every post.


No i havent been posting for 8 hours straight LOL. I had a late night , posted some replies last night, went to sleep, then got up and came on to check this post again, since it was so compelling. please forgive me for participating.


I will go to Mass tonight; I'm a night person not a morning person.


as far as this website, to be honest i havd never even heard of freerepublic until a few weeks ago, i came across it by accident while doing a google search on the recall.
Not every conservative is a freerepublic participant, you know. But i do like this site and have told many people about it. many of you are very interesting and informed conservatives. I like this forum.





okay. now answer my arnie/illegal questions!

[strela]

Why is it fair for me to be required to answer YOUR questions first, when i asked my questions of you first?

Apparently you thought it was "fair", for you attempted to do so. You still haven't answered my question about how it is that the only material you have posted has been about the California recall election. But, I have to hand out at least a C for effort.

Its nice(?) to know you track my every post.

Easy to do.

No i havent been posting for 8 hours straight ...

I never said you had been. I provided the post times I found, and they clearly show that you've been a busy little poster today on this one topic. We look forward to you not disappearing after October 7 and expounding on your views on other subjects besides the California recall election.

I will go to Mass tonight; I'm a night person not a morning person.

Good for you!

as far as this website, to be honest i havd never even heard of freerepublic until a few weeks ago, i came across it by accident while doing a google search on the recall. Not every conservative is a freerepublic participant, you know. But i do like this site and have told many people about it. many of you are very interesting and informed conservatives. I like this forum.

Fair enough. Thank you.

okay. now answer my arnie/illegal questions!

You can find the answers to most of the questions you posted earlier at http://www.joinarnold.com . As for Schwarzenegger's father-in-law's participation/hiring of individuals, that seems to be a matter between his father-in-law and those individuals, doesn't it? Or, are you one of those "the sins of the father" types?

[MindFire]

Oh crap.. are you KIDDING me? i would never darken the feet of my internet browser by logging onto that propagandist tripe go arnold.


i asked YOU 3 questions. don't refer me to that garbage!



1. PROP 54
2. SB60 REF.
3. 187


i'll be waiting! or, do you write for the arnold site? if not, answer the questions yourself. Hey, wait a minute. do you refer the actual debating for someone else (aka a puppetmaster) to write your answers for you? if so, no wonder you're an arnie fan, lol!!


he needs his handlers to write his positions out, also. which is why he's too gutless to take part in even one spontaneous debate. 'ask david dreier or pete wilson what i think. they know all the pesky details. lets just say i will 'CLEAN HAUSE' CLEAN HAUSE, taxed for your coffee, taxed for yer newspaper, taxed on your gasoline, i will KLEAN HAUSE. KEAN HAUSE IN KALI-FERNOA. YA YA YA!



lmao!

[BillyBoy]

"Recall Lenin, elect Stalin"

Not to worry, ANYONE is beter than Lenin (unless they're Lenin's Deputy Premire)

[onyx]

Excellent posts by both of you.

[Texasforever]

dont dare even try to paint ME as a leftist when YOU are the one who's PROUDLY licking the boots of a pro-abortionist, soft on illegals, homo-marriage gay adoption gun control socialist! WHAT A JOKE!!!

You are the caricature of a conservative. There are only 2 possibilities concerning you, you are a liberal acting out the liberal definition of a conservative or you are just plain nuts.

[Kay Soze]

Great post!

I wish with all my heart that McClintok was elect able- heck i'd forgive his taking money from foreign sovereign nations to save a few babies.

But he cannot.

I simply don’t understand how if arnie withdrew those votes from RINOS, Liberals or Democrat Lites would ever go to McClintock.