Posted on 10/08/2003 7:10:21 AM PDT by Rabid Dog
As many of you know this has been a local, regional, national news and views thread. I want to thank all of you that have respected its intent. When I first started this thead, I was on the fence between Arnold and Tom. Within a week, it became clear that Tom was the man I could respect and support.
Within a month it became clear that the CA G.O.P. was not an organization I could respect and support and so I have switched parties and will be changing my screen name to Rabid Dog.
Tomorrow I am entering Freeper Detox and will be drying out for a week or so but am looking foward to discussing the changes in California under the leadership of our new governor - ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER!!
He may need it someday if he opts ro run for the US Senate.
The fact he got 13% may be symbolic, too. 13.. hmmm? 13 .. nyahhh,, no coincidence, huh?
Have a good one. I have bills to pay and a cat to fleadip. ;-)
I wish the new Governor all the best in a difficult job.
You're trying to win an unwinnable argument and, whether consciously or not, are trying to change the subject. The initial point was my rather narrow one, contradicting a post asserting that Cruz and Arnold had "virtually identical" positions on the issues. I said that the men might have similar positions on "social issues," but their stated positions on taxes were hugely different -- and, thus, that the "virtually identical" language was a big overstatement.
Now you're trying to say that you get to assume Arnold will break his promise, and break it so thoroughgoingly that he will put in place a tax approach "virtually identical" to what Cruz PROMISED to do.
Sorry, you don't get to assume that. You can doubt Arnold from here to Sunday, and I'm sure you do. But there's hardly a "virtual identity" (on taxes) between a candidate who PROMISES to raise taxes and one who promises NOT to, albeit with what you surely characterize as loopholes. This lack of "virtual identity" simply is not reasonably debatable, unless your view of "virtual" is different than mine.
What you appear to want is to debate what you predict Arnold WILL do. What's to debate? You're very confident he'll cave and raise taxes. Of your confidence therein, I have no doubt. I am hoping that you're wrong, even if I can't be without fear that you may prove right. (Heck knows we'd not have "caving" to worry about with McClintock in there.)
Do you mean Independent, as in the American Independent Party (a CA party affiliated with the Constitution Party or seomthing), or decline-to-state, which is no party? "Independent" on the voter registration form means the AIP.
If you are Independent, then that is your party and you cannot vote in the GOP primaries. If you are decline-to-state, you can request the partisan ballot of any party that is willing to accept your vote. In March 2002, the Republicans, Democrats, and two minor parties allowed CA's no-party voters to vote the ballots of those parties. Decline-to-state voters don't get to vote for the central committee members.
The national GOP might have different views on the modified open primary for choosing the party's Presidential candidate.
I took your words at face value. You are putting words into my mouth.
Arnold made no promise, remember? You are therefore assuming he won't raise taxes without proof.
Sorry, you don't get to assume that. You can doubt Arnold from here to Sunday, and I'm sure you do. But there's hardly a "virtual identity" (on taxes) between a candidate who PROMISES to raise taxes and one who promises NOT to, albeit with what you surely characterize as loopholes. This lack of "virtual identity" simply is not reasonably debatable, unless your view of "virtual" is different than mine.
I'm not assuming anything. As I have said, many times including this thread, one has to judge Arnold by what he does and what he puts in writing. He has taken on many of Pete Wilson's advisors, precisely the people who raised taxes under nearly identical circumstances. He has committed to enormous spending on costly environmental programs with arguable benefit that are also very destructive to the economic base of this State.
Because those observations have that support of fact, it is you who stands upon assertion that Arnold represents anything diffent.
I considered switching to GOP last year because I was interested in the RLC platform. I didn't want to reregister, though, because I like the anonymity (in public records) of not having any party affiliation.
Good luck with whatever decision you make!
You're referring to the thread reporting that Dick Riordan said, on FOX TV this morning, that Arnold should raise internet taxes. (I do not know what Riordan actually said or in what context.) In the same thread, we are told that Riordan soon thereafter said, "I should have kept my mouth shut."
Of course, you are entitled to worry that Riordan has "inside info" and that his comments constitute an unintended spilling of Arnold's true intent. Maybe, but it's still a pretty big guess. To assert it as FACT rather than opinion is baldly disingenous.
Optimists are no less entitled to assert that Riordan was just popping his mouth off and that his comments in no way presage a tax hike. (Tangent: I can't see ANY state government taxing internet sales -- successfully, anyway -- without a uniform agreement (or federal law) to do so in all states that HAVE a sales tax.)
I have my FEARS about the former interpretation, but for now fall more into the latter. (BTW, are you under the impression that I'm some rah-rah Arnold supporter who professes NO doubt AT ALL about his fiscal-policy course in the years ahead??) As I posted hours ago in the thread to which you triumphantly linked:
____W-E-S-T-E-R-N_____U-N-I-O-N____ TO: HON RICHARD RIORDAN, LOS ANGELES, CA
FM: A SCHWARZENEGGER, SACRAMENTO
DEAR DICK STOP
RE YOUR COMMENT THIS AM ON FOX THAT I SHOULD RAISE TAXES STOP
YOU'RE NOT HELPING STOP
---END MESSAGE----
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.