Alright, who let McCain out this time? LOL.
>> Well, as a CEO, you have to be compassionate, as well as a governor you have to be compassionate. But we need to run the State of California just a bit more like a business. This is not energetic and efficient government. This is a government that is not spending the taxpayers' money well at all. And what has happened is people become convinced either you have to cut services or raise taxes. And no one, until very recently, thanks to those propositions last week, is talking about how can we run this government more efficiently. And I'll give you a couple of examples. We've got to cut the bureaucracy. There's 345,000 people that work for the state. We should eliminate 10 percent of that. We've got to look at deploying technology to deliver the same services at lower cost. And I know this can be done. <<
Damn. Reads EXACTLY like an Arnold interview from 2003. This gal really has the gubernator's talking points down good. Too bad it's just campaign rhetoric.
>> I have a lot of respect for Governor Schwarzenegger. He's done a number of good things <<
What was all that talking about "rebranding" and a "new" GOP? This is why the Illinois GOP lost in 2002, because their candidate Jim Ryan refused to repudiate crooked ultra RINO Governor George Ryan. Arnold has been a failure, California GOP. Time to face up to it.
>> And my belief is, actually, we can lead our way out of this, but it's going to take a very different approach. <<
Then why do you keep repeating his campaign platform from 2003? ?"Cut, cut, cut, eliminate the bureaucracy -- but we can't cite examples cuz we have all these important government programs for the little children. We can't hurt the children!"
>> Well, John, to start with, Judge Sotomayor should be judged on her qualifications and whether she is suited to be a Supreme Court justice and on nothing else. <<
Too bad the RATs don't play by those rules, John. Remind me again why two dozen of them fought John Robert's nomination tooth-and-nail? I coulda sworn he had excellent qualifications.
>> You're right, the Hispanic -- Latino vote is very important. We've been losing it. We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to public office. We have to make it clear that in our desire to secure the border, it is not an anti-Latino attitude that we have. And we have to welcome them into our party. <<
I would agree with the basic premise McCain is making here... the GOP has done a lousy job bringing Hispanics into the fold and should run more Hispanics. Provided, of course, they're "judged on their qualifications" as McCain noted earlier -- and NOT simply because they're available and have an "R" next to their name (it was that kind of thinking that caused conservatives on this board to rally around empty suit affirmative-action pick Mel Martinez for the Senate). But overall we should have a lot more Hispanic candidates given the number of large Hispanic areas in the country. Too bad the type of Hispanics who would make good leaders are not the kinds that John McCain has been supporting.
>> I haven't said that. But I agree with John. You know, I actually went to college with Judge Sotomayor. And she is very well qualified, from an academic point of view. << <<
Hmmm. I suppose judging her solely from an "academic" point of view, I would agree with this statement... but that's like saying Timothy Leary is "well qualified" from an academic point of view to be Secretary of Health, and Dr. Kevorkian is "well qualified" from an academic point of view to be surgeon general.
>> I did vote yes on Proposition 8. I am pro-civil union, but against gay marriage. <<
Sorta like saying that you're pro-meatless diet, but against vegetarianism. What's the difference except the name it's called? Seems to me that government-sanctioned "civil unions" would be defacto marriages.
>> I agree with Governor Schwarzenegger. <<
Ghost of Ronald Reagan: "Now there you go again, Ms. 'New GOP' "
>> No. I believe it should be decided within the states. And we should respect that. And the Defense of Marriage Act that the Congress passed some years ago articulated that exact position. <<
McCain's pretty much taking the Ron Paul/Fred Thompson position here, which I disagree with. The fact these activist judges at the "state" level keep overriding "the will of the people" in their respective states, is why the federal government must take action. Of course I don't expect a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman will get the necessary threshold it needs to pass, but the mere serious threat of such a constitutional amendment making it way thur the process should stop the "gay marriage" bandwagon in its tracks. Social conservatives pretty much did the same thing back in the 1890s when Utah was trying to get the country to accept polygamy, and the continued threat of constitutional amendments to ban it and throw Utah out of the union caused them to back down and accept the traditional definition of marriage. Liberals hate to admit it, but there's a clear example where the people trying to "expand" the rights of "consenting adults" were clearly on the wrong side of history. Unless we want to pretend polygamous marriages are all hip and trendy and mainstream in the 21st century.
>> We have to put our fiscal house in order. And in many ways, the vote of last week is a forcing function for the legislature, the governor and the people of California to put in place a government we can afford. And while it's tempting to think about asking the federal government to bail out California, it's the wrong thing, because we can't kick the can down the road to another year, another generation. We've got to solve our problems now. And, by the way, I think it's a pretty bad precedent, because if California has their hand out, there's, you know, 30 or 40 other states that, while they are not as big as California, they face similar challenges. And I think there's only so much the government can do. And my personal point of view is the federal government is overextended by a remarkable amount. And this is the last thing the federal government needs to be involved in. <<
You know, she's making a lot of sense here. Unfortunately I agree tend to think it's just campaign rhetoric and she'll flip-flop on this at the first opportunity if she's Governor. I actually believed Bush about his campaign pledge to veto McCain-Feingold, too.
>> Look, I think that what Meg Whitman does is what other governor Republicans have done in other states, but especially here -- a successful role model for young people, a person who will give them hope and confidence that they will get the state out of this fiscal mess and restore it to its greatness. <<
Arnold has done that in California? Have I entered some alternate universe where things are all roses and sunshine and Arnie's enjoying a 90% approval rating with a $80 billion surplus?
>> Well, it's a very serious issue. And you're right, immigration is a federal issue. It is not a state issue. <<
We, they got that one right. We can be thankful that most of the "states rights" types who want to punt abortion and gay marriage back to the states don't want to "leave it up to California" to deal with the criminal invasion of millions of people.
>> But as the governor of the largest state of California, what should happen, Governor Schwarzenegger today should make sure that his point of view is well-known in Washington. We absolutely have to secure this border. What is going on in San Diego is just remarkable, the level of violence and what's happening there. So we have to secure the border. We have to put more people there. And I would be thinking very hard about what can we do to shore up the situation in the border right now. <<
How long have Republican candidates been saying this? Probably going back to the 70s. I quote Tommy Thompson's Iowa Caucus speech - "Don't say it, DO IT!!!" Actions speak louder than words.