IS IT TIME FOR AN "ARNOLD-TOM WIN/WIN DEAL" (?) OK. THEN HERE'S HOW....

Free Republic site ^ | 27 September 2003 | AmericanInTokyo

[Scott from the Left Coast]

The fly in your ointment here is the appointing authority. Governors are loathe to compromise this particular authority, because it is the area where they have the most power and can actually have the greatest impact on a government. A Governor's power is greatest right here, and is much diluted in other areas (budget and legislation).

It would be a huge cession of power (and an arrangement like this might well be an unconstitutional delegation), which would neuter a Governor where his impact is most profound.

No one with the hubris to actually run seriously for Governor would consider ceding this authority.

You'll have to come up with something else...perhaps related to policy and budget instead.

[GOP_1900AD]

RWWC.... Excellent tag line!

[glennaro]

I agree that some ideas of RINOs are of the Left -- and some are quite unacceptable to the majority of conservative voters. I do not agree, my friend, that all RINO positions (compromises, really) are unacceptably bad, nor do I think all RINOs are out to destroy the Right. I think Arnold is a good person and is not out to destroy our party or to harm our principles, despite his positions on some conservative issues.

[cake_crumb]

What tax increases is he proposing to level on you?

That damage control statement was totally uncalled for. I was pushing McClintock in every forum and every political discourse I could get into while you were getting those petitions signed.

I'm being realistic. NOBODY can fix CA's problems overnight, especially with the entire legislature so far out in left field they're in danger of falling out of the earth's atmosphere unless they hug a tree. THEY will thwart ANY initiative as long as a Republican is in office, and WHICHEVER Republican is elected, he WILL be the whipping boy of all parties.

Save the vitriol for someone else.

[EGPWS]

Benefits - A Republican governor and a de-railing, to some extent, of the radical Democrat/liberal agenda.

de-railing "to some extent" is an understandable motive but when has it ever been an asset to common sense conservative thinking in the past?

[John Valentine]

I've been here since 1998. You showed up in 2001. Who is infiltrating who?

By he way, you may NOT consider this post to represent agreement with your puerile and incomplete classifications of freepers that don't agree with you.

Once I unwrap the tinfoil off your posts, I do not find evidence of conservative thought.

I find a nuthatch in full throat.

[knews_hound]

IMHO this is the current situation.

Arnold is within striking distance of outright plurality, Cruz and Tom are on cruise control, waiting for Gray Davis's patented last minute hit piece to hit the airwaves.

I have watched this man in politics since he worked for the Moonbeam and it is his standard MO.

When it arrives, even if later proven untrue, is the other shoe that everyone is waiting to drop. All the men in the race (which includes Huffington) know it is coming.

Tom is basing his future on the fallout being bad enough to be able to pick up the slack and beat Cruz.

Cruz on the otherhand is flipping a coin, hoping that the disgust in Davis remains high enough to still slip in.

As much as many of us here would like, Tom will never, EVER, win the state. He is one of us after all. With the entrenched press corps and hostile legislature, he would be a one termer, if not recalled himself by one manufactured scandal or another, on the off chance he managed to slip into the seat.

The fact is, with nearly the entire state in the Republician grasp GEOGRAPHICALLY, the Population is staunchly Democratic, with regristration running far and above the Republician numbers. It is a FACT, not arguable. If you doubt this, I can only refer you to the last presidential election.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3a//images.search.yahoo.com/search/images%3fc=fullcov%26ei=UTF-8%26p=2000%2belection%2bmap%2bcalifornia&h=563&w=807&imgurl=www.polidata.org/en2000/cy00p4cb.gif&name=cy00p4cb.gif&p=2000+election+map+california&rurl=http://www.polidata.org/en2000/default.htm&no=2&tt=3

It was never close. Looking at the map, it is clear that with most of the population centered on the coast, the Dems will easily win any election contested by a conservative such as Tom. With allies like the LA Times, SF Cron and the SD Union, all of which serve the population centers of the state and will go all out to defeat Tom, or anyone like him.

Pointing at Reagan is a fond memory, we are in new times. In the 70's, when I first voted for Reagan, we lived in a different era. Nostalgia is great, but I like to live in the NOW.
If Reagan were to run today, he would be eaten alive. The 24 hour news cycle combined with the creepy preference the media has for outright manufacturing "news" would, IMHO, doom him.

Go ahead, flame away. I am confident in my conservative credentials and will yield to no one in my defence of them.
I am however an old observer of California politics and I call them as I see them. Living in a conservative area of the state like the Sacramento suburbs as I do, can make you loose sight of the fact that the era of huge numbers of Aerospace workers and construction workers has passed to one of service industry employees and internet hucksters.

All that being said, I, like many others are keeping our options open.

Cheers,

knews hound

[LisaAnne]

Discussion ping

[Kevin OMalley]

That's pretty funny. That depiction is very close to how the average social conservative views Rnuld. We don't see that Bustamonte would be much worse than someone who bends on principle -- eventually he'd bend on the fiscal principles, too, and raise taxes. An example is Wilson.

What I am trying to see is how the average centrist sees the social conservative. Why can't we just bend on such & such principle and support the clear front-runner? For self-designaged centrists, the principles aren't as important as the win.

I think it won't hurt Tom to stay in the race, even if he does become a spoiler. California has had lots of millionaires coming & going, trying for various spots, but a few years later no one remembers them. A classic example was (Mr.) Huffington. Rnuld is just the latest rich country club RINO, but this time it's someone with clear celebrity, causing many middle-of-the-road Republicans to be starstruck. Those same salivating centrists will soon forget "whoever it was that lost". Tom will be around for many years after Rnuld rides off into the sunset in the case of a loss, and he'll be around as the voice of social conservatives in the case of a win. It doesn't hurt Tom to stay in.

On the personal side, I can see why some have given up on Rnuld because we are the "right wing crazies" that he feels compelled to insult rather than cooperate with. We can sense that he will not follow through on certain things that Tom would, such as immigration. 58% of Californians voted in Prop 187, but according to Weintraub, what happened with the litigation to stop it was that Pete Wilson appealed a court judgment on behalf of the state's voters. Then Gray Davis, who had opposed 187, took office, and took over as defendant. So you had opponents of proposition 187 on one side and opponents of 187 on the other. It was doomed. If Rnuld wins, he won't pick up the reins on Prop 187 where he should, and if Tom wins, he would pick up the reins. This is just one example.

[Quix]

SOME EXCELLENT IDEAS.

However, I suspect that Arnold may well be able to beat Davis and ZurC Aztlan regardless of what Tom McEgo does.

Even if that were NOT so, your list of concessions/agreements on Arnold's part seems wayyyyyy out of balance in terms of what he has to give up vs what Tom has to give up. I think it should be much, much more balanced to be effective and have a chance of doing the good you well outline.

Great effort. I hope you send a copy to Arnold's camp via email. But you might seriously consider making it more balanced, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING Arnold's recent rise in the polls--at least some.

[cake_crumb]

"RINOs are themselves completely of the Left. They are either duped via the gov - media complex, or, are pro business anti conservative economic anarchists, or, are truly Leftists, on a mission to destroy the Right from within."

TODD??

[jwalsh07]

If, and that's a big if, I lived in California, I wouldn't be able to vote for a Republican or anybody else that favored taking my money to use for abortions.

That would be one of those lines I wouldn't cross. Until then my view was I'd support McClintock up to the last minute and then go with Arnold if the polls showed him in trouble.

Of course none of this matters since I live in Ct except to AS who should do his best to avoid making his views on taking money from taxpayers to fund abortions well known.

[CheneyChick]

Bookmark Bump - "I'll be back."

[glennaro]

Thanks for your clarification. De-railing, however temporary and however effective, the Democrat/liberal/left (pardon the redundancy) agenda most assuredly does not replace conservative thinking. Rather, the motive has value in allowing us to focus on advancing our principles rather than being on the defensive 24/7.

Admittedly, not all moderate conservatives are dedicated to and effective at doing so.

[EGPWS]

THEY will thwart ANY initiative as long as a Republican is in office, and WHICHEVER Republican is elected, he WILL be the whipping boy of all parties.

So California is beyond hope? Or are you pleased with the direction your state is taking?

You, cake_crumb, give the impression that all is lost, and without a "liberal" in power California can't maintain.

[glennaro]

Point taken. Thanks.

[Burr5]

This idea has probably already been posited in the zillions of responses you've generated, but just in case, I'll point out MY long-held idea:

Tom and Arnold should meet and come to the following agreement:

We look at the last poll to come out within the last five days before the election. Whoever is behind commits to withdrawing and throwing their full support behind the other.

This saves the state from Cruise! Boost-a-Monte-Carlo, and makes whoever rises to the top look like a mature problem-solver.

[Russell Scott]

Arnold supports global government BIG TIME! He has been attending Bohemian Grove meetings for twenty years. When Arnold says he is "for the people", those people he is talking about are the elite globalists. If you want a guy like that running California, go for it. But expect a huge flood of illegals, and more taxing and spending than ever.

Below is a link to a website with some interesting videos for you to check out on the Bohemian Grove. This makes it clear why Arnold is an environmental wacko as well.

Bohemian Grove Web Site

[EGPWS]

Rather, the motive has value in allowing us to focus on advancing our principles rather than being on the defensive 24/7.

Isn't that motive, that you profess, an opinion? Could you substantiate it a little more?

I can do the same with my conservative values however I think it a mute issue considering CA's debacle presently.

[L.N. Smithee]

Are you saying I should I vote for Tom Arnold?

I have grudging respect for Tom Arnold. Look at how much work he's gotten despite being virtually talentless.