Replies

Yes, it's possible people will be stupid enough to expect him to fix Grey's economic messes overnight,

Preparing the battlefield with DAMAGE CONTROL cake_crumb? I think the thing I was referring to is the TAX INCREASES HE WILL LEVEL ON ME DESPITE HIS HALF HANDED TALK OF NOT DOING SO. Too bad, I respect you from the past on here. The adversity of this campaign has a way of clarifying things though I suppose.

All of that is an empty intellectual exercise because when Busty wins, he'll get a pass just like with the "N" word, illegal campaign donations which he refuses to return and of course his continuing support for Aztlan/MECha.

(R)nold is blathering about "Amnesty" even on his offical website, I frankly don't see that big of a difference between the two on immigration or even Aid to the children of Illegals. Then again he voted for 187 with his Wilson, so he gets to be on both sides of it. Are you aware that when Cruz was in the Leg that he voted against one of the other attempts at Illegal drivers license. Guess he wanted to be on both sides too. Lot of that going on with these 2.

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.

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.