Are you a troll? The Conservative wing has had its day again and again here in California. Most recently it produced inept campaigner Bill Simon whose defeat all but forced this cost recall effort. It's produced other steller, "winning" candidates as well. What? They didn't win? Arnold won. He's pro-choice with limits: he supports a ban on partial birth abortion and supports parental notification. The former has been passed in Congress and had a spotty record in court challenges. The later has failed in the courts. I'm pro-life but accept there are limits to what can be accomplished and realize there are more immediately pressing concerns in California, with many of whom I'm at odds on the issue of abortion. He has some tolerance for gays. There are many gays in California and should be, imho, treated as full and equal citizens like any other California resident. I'm not familiar with any particular "agenda" he has in mind for a gay constituency. He's for negotiating with the Federal gov't to actually live up to its role as protector of our borders. He's for requiring Indian Casinos (who have won *big* with the CA voters since the late 90's) to pay a fair share. He's opposed to drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. He's a fiscal conservative according to Tom McClintock, Bill Simon, Darrel Issa and others. He wants an independent audit of the budget. He's *for* spending triggers (such as was built into his "after school program" bill which was passed by the CA voters in 2002). He's opposed to raising taxes but understands there are times where they can be necessary (he pointed to emergency revenue to repair earthquake damage as an example). What is it about Arnold and a centrist-right Republican *winning* in California that scares you so? Is it his having married into a Kennedy family? Are you really just bent on proving the cliche that Huffington suggested in the debate--that Republicans are obsessed about sexual matters? He's not even sworn in yet. Shouldn't we wait for *particulars* on actual policies before condemning him? As long as his social agenda is constrained by his mandate to fix the fiscal and, related, infrastructural mess here in California I don't see a problem. No, I'm not worried about him being hamstrung by a Paula Jones-type legal case from those so-called accusers. Most of those were anonymous sources. You can't defend against that and you really have to ignore it. The latest accusation has been smartly debunked with the true cameraman and one other witness having come forward. There was also the common sense of the "victim" having chosen to work again for Arnold just three years after the first alleged incident. One of the other named accusers was put forth by an Democratic operative with an allegation so old as to be impossible to contend with. In total, these allegations (so far as I've heard) are not within a statute of limitations, thin on details, legally moot and little more than smears by a desperate and dying administration and its friends. Again: Specifically, what is it that makes you hate this victory--he'll be the only Republican in the CA executive branch, btw--so much?