From all reports I've heard, the man is squeaky clean. Unless the opposition wants to doctor a photo of the Scotsman wearing a dress (kilt) with a topless, big-tittied woman sitting atop his shoulders ?
"Are you a California voter and have fund memories of Tennessee or you're just like most of us an interested onlooker?"
Nope, I'm in Tennessee, but as I've repeated ad infinitum, a large chunk of my family is out there, and I'm also more then well-versed on the average Californian on its political history, and other states as well, which is why I'm able to offer some insights others might not know about.
"One gripe I have against my fellow Republicans is the fact that we have a problem with incrementalism. (that's a huge shock going from ultra liberal to loyal conservative in one bite) We know it's the right thing, but does the majority of voters who managed to vote for Davis believe this? The democrats have mastered that ability. They don't go for the whole enchilada, they set their goal and piecemeal it until they have what they've gone after--whether good or bad."
Incremantalism is fine -- if you have the time to do it. Since the concept of a GOP majority in the California legislature in the last 40 years is nearly a pipe dream, the few times we've had the chance, we pretty much would have to shove the whole enchilada through (remember the first days of the 104th Congress in 1995 ?). The 'Rats as of late haven't resorted to incrementalism in Sacramento, but the whole friggin' hog. I'm not sure what they're worried about, it's not as if Ah-nold will stop their radical agenda, be it social or economic.
"You might just be right in thinking that a staunch conservative Republican could win now, but if not, we will have gambled and lost again. I'm of the mind that if Arnold has a snow ball chance of winning, why not take the best and viable candidates and place them in his administration. Working together to accomplish the goal for California. You do have to deal with the issue that Bill Simon was not able to gain the majority when he had the chance and McClintock is probably the best candidate but very little known, from all that I've heard."
It sounds reasonable enough, but there's some flaws here. If by saying that if we run "another Conservative" and they lose, we shouldn't do that again, then what about all of the plethora of liberal RINOs that have been run in the last 2 decades that have lost ? After seeing Ed Zschau, John Seymour, Michael Huffington, Matt Fong (who started out moderate but went completely RINO), and Tom Campbell run one losing campaign after another, why on earth would we want to run one more RINO (as examples of Senate candidates ?). Regarding Ah-nold putting McClintock types in his administration, the question is why would Ah-nold want to or why would McClintock want to join ? Ah-nold's entire agenda is at odds with the Republican Party (the reason why he wants to lure business back to CA is to pay for more subsidies of day care and the black hole known as public ed), so that makes as much sense for McClintock to join that group as for the late Jorge Mas Canosa to have served as Fidel Castro's personal bodyguard. As for Bill Simon not gaining the majority, all he had to do, as with this recall, is win a plurality. Simon never lost because of ideas, but because of a shoddy fall campaign, which has been also repeated ad infinitum. The only people you'll see in an Ah-nold administration are destructive party-killing RINO apostate elitists like Tricky Dick Riordan, Brooks Firestone, and Gerry Parsky, the "Three Stooges" of the Republican Establishment Left.
"Don't knock everybody that has smoked dope in their early years(no I'm not advocating legalizing marijuana). Some tried cigarettes, others tried alcohol or stronger drugs, many of us tried reefer. Despite your moral standards many of us made it through those years without losing our minds. And have become fine, upstanding citizens."
At least some have.