Replies

Then I can understand you siding with Arnold on his social liberal stances, but I'm having a tough time figuring out why you'd agree with his bond issue and inability to restrain growth of government.

First of all, Arnold has not only restricted the growth of government, but indeed cut it back.

As far as Arnold's social libertarian positions, yes I agree with them. I don't think government should be anywhere it doesn't need to be. Let society sort out its social issues, that's why they're social issues to begin with. I'm not a big fan of allowing a small segment of society impose their views on everyone else. Regardless of what those views may be. I have a lot of personally held beliefs that I would never try to force on others. That is authoritarianism, and it has no place among a free people in a pluralistic society.

Regarding the bond, I am a realist and a pragmatist first. We had a serious problem that had to be rectified. It is unfortunate that after years of big government Democrat control that it had to come to that. The work that Governor Schwarzenegger is doing is helping to bring California into economic recovery. This is supply-side principles at work. Grow the economy, and this bond measure will be easier for California to swallow. The other alternative was to allow further decline until California was in such a hole that it could never grow its way back to prosperity.

One of the reasons I opposed McClintock is that this is what he wanted to do. He wanted to "punish" Californians for being bad liberals. Let the state go insolvent and sink into oblivion - that'll teach 'em.