CA Governor Davis to hold news conference at 6:30 pm easten

The short answer to your question is, he views the role of government, especially its taxing, spending and regulatory functions, as properly being much more narrow, more limited, than do Democrats.

I'll give you the taxing and regulatory functions part of your argument, but not the spending part. He does not have a narrow or limited view of government spending in any way, shape, or form. He is as wide eyed a liberal as any loony lefty in California when it comes to what and how much government spends money on. And the only conclusion that can be drawn from his recent comments regarding spending is that he wants MORE spending on MORE things.

Since you mentioned Bloomberg: Okay, true, he's disappointed conservatives by hiking taxes. No bones about that. But would you prefer that Bloomberg's Democrat opponent had won? How much would taxes have been jacked up in that event?

Had his Rat opponent won, taxes would have been raised by the same amount, to a little more or a little less. The only tax I can think of that may have been different is the cigarette tax.

Conservatives are disappointed in him because they actually had expectations about him in some way resembling a republican. Bloomberg is a true RINO. He was a democrat up until just days before filing for the GOP primary. He knew that he stood no chance in the RAT primary of getting the nomination so he switched parties to virtually assure himself of the nomination and have a real shot at winning.

It's noble that you are so pure ideologically that someone like Schwarzenegger, who isn't so pure, is to be persona non grata, even in a state in which Republican wins, particularly by conservative Republicans, are quite rare. Noble, but unlikely to result in very many wins at the ballot box.

The bottom line for me is that, although I'd ideologically prefer McClintock, I believe that he only has about a 40-50% of winning (and that's in a Schwarzenegger- and Feinstein-free recall). Tempting, but I'm risk-averse by nature, and I personally would rather take what I see as a 67% chance of Schwarzenegger's winning. Yes, there's a big trade-off.

I am far from ideologically pure (as those who claim to be would define it) and disagree with what could be called "the majority" of conservatives on many, many issues. Especially those who post here. Arnold is not persona non grata with me.

I believe that Arnold is most likely to win in a landslide. Barring the coming smear campaign working.

My point in all of these Arnold posts, as stated in the beginning is not to attack Arnold, nor his positions (though he thus far has refused to tell us what they are and has refused to answer any policy or position questions), but to try and keep conservatives focused on what Arnold is. A very liberal 'republican'. As your comment on Bloomberg, I want to make sure that conservatives and republicans both in California and across the country do not get their hopes up as to how Arnold will try and govern and what policies and positions he will advocate for while governor. If conservatives get their hopes up that Arnold is Reagan II (as some are proclaiming him to be), they will be more than disappointed. They will be devestated.

I am just trying to prepare those who envision him as the savior of the GOP and one who will become a driving force in the conservative movement. Arnold will be neither. He will be an absolute and total disappointment on a scale that is hard to imagine.

Arnold is a liberal. If someone posted a transcript of his comments on government and spending the comments would be attacked as those of a crazy left winger. Imagine the outrage that would be directed at a Rat candidate for governor or president who said "we have to provide everything for the people." Or, "I will make the decision for the people." People here would be going ape shit! Calling the candidate a socialist, and the thread would be hundreds of posts long with these comments.

And the reality of the matter, as you know and have pointed out is that no "pure conservative" can win in California. Thats the facts. So to hope for, campaign for, and only vote for such candidates is an absolute waste of time for the foreseeable and distant future. Arnold, while a flaming liberal on many matters, including fiscal policy, may be only slightly better than the wild eyed solicialists that are the California Rat Party and its elected officials. And when I say slightly, I mean an eye lash worth.

And people have pointed out that Simon, who is a conservative came within 5 points of beating Davis. Big Deal! It was against Davis. Had he been runing against anything approaching a competent governor he would have lost by 30%. Conservatives can not win out there and it is going to take many many years, or decades even to start to turn that around. Those who think Arnold is the start of that process are living in Fantasy Land.

Again, I have nothing against Arnold supporters and his voters. I am just trying to be a voice or reason in respects to preparing them for the massive let down that is sure to happen when he does not govern in the fashion that they think he will.

I don't think it's fair to conclude (although certainly it is fair to worry) that Arnold's recent broad statements convey his intent to increase state government outlays. He may simply refer to a better allocation of what already is being spent.

It's almost an academic dispute, though, if he wins, because as a practical matter state spending CANNOT increase substantially (overall) next year. Not without tax hikes -- and there is no way Arnold is going to go for that, esp. after his talk about stopping, and reversing, the "job drain" (my term) to which Davis and his leftist Legislature have subjected the once-Golden state.

The only positive thing that could happen from an Arnold governorship is the prospect of an improving business environment. The problem is that he supports and promotes the very things that have turned it into an unfriendly state for businesses.

Not to mention that he is going to have to deal with the California legislature. They will not be interested in the least in helping him in any respect with regardes to those issues. Especially if he does try to scale back the workmans comp program. No way they will go for that. And I suspect that the California population will not get behind Arnold to an extent that the legislature will be forced to act. Gridlock will be massive.

Though Gridlock is a good thing.

LOL!

Especially if he does try to scale back the workmans comp program. No way they will go for that. And I suspect that the California population will not get behind Arnold to an extent that the legislature will be forced to act.

See, one reason I slightly prefer Arnold over McClintock is that Arnold has the charisma and media savvy to really USE that bully pulpit, as no governor in decades has done. (Say what you will otherwise about Davis, Wilson, Deukmejian ... they were NOT good retail politicians.) He would develop a campaign to pressure the wackos in the Legislature to adopt sensible reforms; he knows how to get a simple message out loud and clear. People will pick up the phone (to call and pester their legislators) for Arnold. And if the Legislature still won't heel, he has the savvy to put resolutions on the ballot to override them.

I am hopeful that Arnold or whoever is elected (-- notice I am starting to catch myself ASSUMING Davis will be dumped?) will seek to put the following constitutional amendments on the ballot ASAP:
-- Colorado-style cap on spending growth (limited to growth in population and the rate of inflation, so "real, per capita" spending is frozen);
-- anti-gerrymandering (and one-time re-districting) measure. This was tried in 1990 and shot down by, guess who? the Left, including the Sierra Club (an act which occasioned my departure from that increasingly wack-job group);
-- change to a two-years-at-a-time budget, to be passed by the summer in even-numbered (election) years;
-- slightly increase number of terms permitted in the term-limits law.