Politics...
So the Republicans abstained, and the Dems and McClintock voted AGAINST Arnold's proposal.
To: FairOpinion
Who was it that said McClintock is the new SoreLoserman?
2 posted on
12/06/2003 11:00:09 AM PST by
Wheee The People
(If this post doesn't make any sense, then it also doubles as a bump.)
To: FairOpinion
Politics...
So the Republicans abstained, and the Dems and McClintock voted AGAINST Arnold's proposal.
Won't really matter- only voters can approve this kind of bond issuance. The only difference is when- March 2004 or November 2004.
IMO, this mught just be wonderful. Now Arnold has lots of ammo to lay off, close down, cut back, and closely review each and every position, commission and it's members, ETC. It might be just exactly what will help Calif the most. Costs have to be cut, IMO, not just more bond floats.
9 posted on
12/06/2003 11:15:54 AM PST by
ridesthemiles
(ridesthemiles)
To: FairOpinion
Like someones tag line says, "socialism works just fine until you run out of someone elses money."
11 posted on
12/06/2003 11:21:26 AM PST by
freeangel
(freeangel)
To: FairOpinion
I'm not familiar with California legislature procedures. Is there some sort of strategery by abstaining versus voting for, or against? Maybe the Republicans are simply sitting on the sidelines and letting the Democrats and the Governator battle it out?
18 posted on
12/06/2003 11:48:56 AM PST by
Quicksilver
(FreeRepublic.com is show prep for Rush)
To: FairOpinion
The bond measure was bad policy, and McClintock had vowed to vote against it for that reason since Arnold proposed it.
26 posted on
12/06/2003 12:33:43 PM PST by
TheAngryClam
(Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson