>>>The legality or illegality of abortion itself does not, however.
Another definition of largesse is an "extremely liberal generosity of spirit". That clearly defines what we have today. An arm of the federal government, specifically, the Supreme Court, have taken that generousity of spirit and through their 1973 decision, sanctioned the killing of unborn human life. You pro-aborts are something else.
>>>You have still failed to demonstrate how Arnold advocates a "liberal" agenda.
Wrong. I've given you specifics. If you choose to ignore the details I supplied, there's not much I can do about it.
>>>Arnold is more conservative than the previous governor and the state legislature. Arnold's positions are more conservative than current California state law. So how is he advancing liberalism?
Politically, Arnold is left of center. When you start out on the political left and move towards the center, thats called being less liberal, not more conservative. If you can't grasp that simple example of logic, you're in bigger trouble then I thought. Two issues that define liberalism, are abortion and the RKBA. Arnold is in sync with both. He's pro-choice, he supports extension of the AWB and he's not ambiguious about either issue. Arnold also has no intention of cutting income taxes or reducing spending. Once again, he's increased the budget by $4 billion. Nuff said.
>>>Your problem I think is that you construe anything which is not stringently conservative as being "liberal".
There is a broad middle between the two, and this is where Arnold sits on social issues. Arnold is right in the mainstream of Californians, as well as the mainstream of the GOP.
The American political spectrum is diverse, but the political center isn't as big as you think. If you call yourself a conservative, you're probably a Republican or independent. If you call yourself a liberal, you're probably a Democrat. There are exceptions though. Moderates exist on both sides and wishy washy centrists are smack in the middle.
I don't mean to repeat myself, but you leave me no choice. On social issues Arnold calls himself a "social liberal". Period. Now, that may place Arnold in the mainstream of Californians, but out here in fly over country, Arnold's way left of the mainstream.
>>>For someone who claims to know so much about Reagan, you sure lack an appreciation for his respect and ability for compromise.
Again, I have to repeat myself. Reagan compromised as a last resort and never sold out his principles. Reagan was always a principled conservative and a pragmatic politico.
>>>Arnold gives conservatives 80% of what they want...
Bull. 25% at best and that's being generous.
>>>Arnold's personal economic heroes are Milton Friedman and Adam Smith, just like Ronald Reagan.
Reagan followed the teachings of Smith and the advice of Friedman. Arnold pays lip service to both and nothing more.
Neo-liberalism?!
Never heard Reagan called a neo-liberal. Reagan was a traditional conservative and a republican.
>>>Arnold's abortion stance is right in line with the very law that Ronald Reagan signed into being as governor of California. You will have to clear up this matter of cognative dissonance before you proceed any further. How can you use Ronald Reagan's name as a blunt object to bash others over the head for supporting the very laws Reagan signed?
First off, there is no inconsistency. Ronald Reagan moved on. His position on abortion developed over the years. From the second half of the 1970`s, until his recent death, Reagan was a strong pro-lifer. You're attempt to equate a position Reagan took prior to Roe V Wade and apply it in todays reality, is pure historical revisonism.
I've come to the conclusion, you're a smart aleck and not the brightest bulb in the pack either.
This figure is floated by several of you moderates and, quite frankly, is bull. Heck, my favorite politician out there right now is Ron Paul and I don't even agree with HIM 80% of the time. I think a more accurate figure for Arnold would be about 35%.