Posted on 09/22/2004 7:31:32 PM PDT by JackelopeBreeder
CBG;;; I detest folks like you who can not see the writing on the wall. any sane person would have vetoed this bill anyway. You are nothing more than a troll in posting that, imo, to label someone a hater is a pretty low blow , imo.
Thanks for posting your little call-out as it shows the level quite a few of the Gub's supporters sunk too in the last couple of elections as well. You folks really don't like dissenting views, do ya?
You obviously do not like to dwell in the deep areas of issues but rather relish taking passing pot shots at folks who refuse to be intimidated by you and those of your ilk and demeanor.
Norm, Norm, Norm...
ya gotta ignore the out-of-state hit & runners...LMAO
The Michigan Moron doesn't live, work or pay taxes here so do like the rest of us do and ignore the idiot...
Have a great weekend, Marine!
Gonna be some great baseball & football this weekend!!!
Go Dodgers & Raiders!!!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Great News!!!
Norm, stop it. You make me laugh so hard I'm wetting my depends. What I am calling you and your boyz out on is your distain for an outstanding governor. What I was doing is showin that no matter what, you find fault in him or find reason not to give him credit. Continue that political attitude and you'll always be the little boy with his face against the candy store window.
it's spelled disdain, di'stain man was clinton.
You are correct. I do not like his policies, his agenda or his cohorts in the shadows ( in a supposed Open Govt ), other than that Arnie is a great guy but he does not belong in politics, he's nothing more than a hand puppet , imo., and sadly, hand puppets have never won an Oscar before or likely ever will. Maybe he'll receive a Lifetime Moderate Marionette Award someday if he keeps pushing 'his' agenda. ;-)
And for that, I'm a hater? LOL
Too bad folks like you who seem intelligent don't want to do a little research yourself, but rather choose to ridicule those who do.. makes onewonder what your agenda IS? ;-) I think I already know, and now, so do a whole bunch of other folks. Ain't the internet grand 8-?
It's almost nappy time, isn't it? I hear depends make a nice pillow too. :-)
Obviously.
He's going to screw a lot of people to please a few extremist eco-Nutcases.
Nonsense. He's pleasing the people who FUND the eco-nutcases. Big developers who can afford to manage the system, banks, investors who want the public to shell out buckets of money for water, hydrocarbon energy companies who don't want to see all that fuel converted to electricity, major agribusiness... you know, the same people who financed his run for governor. They also funded Gray Davis and have NO loyalty to the Republican Party, unless something is in it for them.
The people who will get screwed are small developers, small business, small landowners... you know, the people who form the conservative base of the Republican Party.
Congratulations.
...and you have my heartfelt sympathy for not getting Bustamante in. Better luck next time.
That silly belief, both at the time and to this day is not only trite, but sophomoric! Time to shed that old wives tale, don't you think?
Now, in a more serious vein... The news coverage of this has been really muted. Beside the fact that the tiny group of activists/fanatics had the signing ceremony out in the woods along the Bear River with NO prior announcement of the "undisclosed location!"
I actually think they were really gettin scared of a FREEP!!! (the danged cowards)
I like you, but that was a cheap shot. Mark was a McClintock - not a Bustamante - supporter, as I'm sure you know.
Neither California nor the Nation can afford to continue electing these big-government socialists like Arnold who call themselves republicans in order to get elected.
To continue to vote for these people not only carries us all further down the Road to Serfdom (a little more slowly, perhaps), but discredits the ideals of the opposition party.
Listen you two. I'm sick to death of the bull ---- from your side on this one.
Yes, I like you guys too, but I'm not going to sit here and take insults from the likes of Mark on this. His 'Congratulation' was his way of sticking the knife in one more time.
I CANNOT HELP THE FACT, THAT MC CLINTOCK ONLY GOT 14% OF THE VOTE. 14% + 1 WOULD STILL BE A LOSS.
You can't change that and I can't change that. That's enough on this subject. Do you get it?
After Mc Clintock stuck to his guns and pulled in 14%, that didn't leave a whole lot of Republican votes out there, and I refused to take a chance.
We can either pull together on other projects, or you guys can continue to act like children for another year.
Home run SW. Let's see what you can do when you get really fired up...
Insult? Schwarzenegger's victory was something for which you worked long and hard. It's a knife you handed to Arnold when you chose to believe his fuzzy bull, which he has since deftly plunged on numerous occasions. It's not my doing. Had Arnold proved to be a fiscal conservative, had he not derailed the workman's comp initiative, had he not increased spending and forced local government to raise taxes, had he not chosen to bypass open government, had he not destroyed the constitutional protection against borrowing, had he not hidden the size of the current deficit ala Bray Davis, you would be laughing at my foolishness and be right to do so. I am acknowledging the accountability for your lack of discernment in studying Arnold before making you choices, by pointing out the facts, if not reminding you of your conduct in the process and that you were warned. As to insults, I don't call your posts stupid, insane, a "jihad," or idiotic. That's your style, not mine, as the posters on the list above will ruefully attest.
Meanwhile, the only argument of which you seem capable is that had conservatives not supported Arnold, Bustamante would have won. That is patently false but since you justified your choices thereby one can hardly fault your consistency, late polling data to the contrary.
Schwarzenegger won on the strength of Democrats who couldn't support Bustamante, GOP moderates, and conservatives who fell for the "because he can win" belief, based upon a campaign of fear that eminated from the New Majority crooks that gave us Nixon (you do remember that debacle?). Instead of letting Schwarzenegger take votes from Bustamante, only to be defeated by conservatives who significantly outnumber Republican moderates, you fell for that campaign of fear, telling us that Schwarzenegger represented an incremental step back toward Republican governance, all immediate historical evidence and indications from Arnold's written policies to the contrary. After years of successful conservatives, "moderates" gave us Wilson, which led directly to Gray Davis. If the incrementalism you have suggested Schwarzenegger represented worked, that never would have happened. Instead, those same "moderates" stabbed their own conservative candidate in the back in the person of Bill Simon, accompanied by many here on FR.
Apparently you don't understand that the RINOs will never allow conservatives to be successful and have done everything possible for over forty years to derail conservative candidates (see hosing Kaloogian for Bill Jones and then abandoning him for a contemporary case). For you to have supported Arnold when there was a clear alternative shows that you don't understand either the history or the mechanics within the corporate Republican establishment.
You fell for that bogus fear mongering and for that you are accountable. I told you and FairOpinion at that time that I would hold you to it in the interest of showing you how destructive Arnold would be (your predictions to the contrary) and seeing to it that you never do something like supporting Arnold again unless there was NO other choice (as is the case in the presidential election). You had no idea how bad Arnold would be and didn't listen to those who tried to educate you, believing that it was only blind partisanship. It wasn't; it was the voice of hard experience, research, analysis, personal knowledge of Arnold's character (or lack thereof), and hard polling data.
You underestimate yourself. This is still a nation of self-government and we DO get the government we deserve. Instead of fighting for conservative principles you chose to fight anyone who would challenge your compromise and discounted all evidence that pointed to what Arnold would really do. I know for a fact that the conservative pols in this state were watching FR to see if the conservative grass roots could be convinced to break for Arnold in order to secure the governorship. The likes of you and FairOpinion were instrumental in that regard with your relentless browbeating, attacks on McClintock, and the baseless assertion that Arnold would at least do SOMETHING to get spending under control. After weeks of such relentless browbeating, Chris Cox et al. broke for Arnold. The rest is history.
You got what you wanted, and the list of Arnold's leftist moves and efforts to thwart real reforms is growing (such as in workman's comp). I promise you, we may see more of a net leftward turn in Sacramento and more significant marginalization of conservatives under Arnold than we would have seen even under Bustamentalcase, who would have been stymied by the lack of votes to get a budget, an envigorated the referendum and recall process (you can bet that if he signed another SB60 after a referendum he would have been hosed), AND rekindled interest in conservative government. Until you admit that it was a mistake to support Schwarzenegger, you can look forward to more evidence of that mistake.
>>>Beside the fact that the tiny group of activists/fanatics had the signing ceremony out in the woods along the Bear River
Is that where they had it?? Amazing! 'Cowards' is correct.
Insult? Schwarzenegger's victory was something for which you worked long and hard
Mark, you have evidently severed all contact with reality. Let's review my support for Schwarzenegger one more time. Why not waste another half-hour on this subject with you?
I contributed no money to Schwarzenegger's efforts. I did not attend any of his campaign rallies. I did not attend any protests on his behalf. I wrote no letters and made no phone calls to encourage friends, family members or associates to vote for him. Oh yes, I didn't go on the radio or do television interviews either.
On the forum I stated that I would vote for McClintock if he could get his numbers up. I did not advocate people finalizing their vote for Schwarzenegger until the absentee ballots started being cast, and it was fairly certain that McClintock couldn't get much more than 10-12% of the vote.
Is it any wonder I question your honesty? You should be ashamed of yourself.
I had counted on supporting McClintock early on. Then the Drudge smear campaign was put into play, all the McClintock supporters on the forum bought into it, and soon I couldn't tell them from the Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee and SFGate. All along I had thought Bustamante would be the guy to take down, but no, Schwarzenegger was the guy you folks decided to key on.
I wouldn't have said one word in support of Schwarzenegger if you pinheads hadn't gone berzerk. Frankly, I don't like it when democrats like Kerry, Edwards, Carvile, Ann Lewis, Lanny Davis and the nations major media outlets trash our political figures. I know it causes you great consternation, but I don't like it when our side uses the same tactics. When the Republican leadership called Buchanan the next Hitler, it angered me. When you guys tried to bring Schwarzenegger down with Davis supporting operatives, I refused to play along.
It would be interesting to review the several months worth of posts before last year's election. It's my take that anti-Schwarzenegger posts outnumbered anti-Bustamante posts three or four to one here. I realize you find that appropriate. I find it absolutely amazing, and yes disgusting.
It's a knife you handed to Arnold when you chose to believe his fuzzy bull, which he has since deftly plunged on numerous occasions.
Yes Mark, my single vote handed a knife to Schwarzenegger. Nobody could ever say you're over the top could they?
As for my believing 'his fuzzy bull', I have explained my position many times on this forum. That you still don't know it, is a very poor reflection on you. You have appeared on most of the threads where I posted my views, but you still ramble on as if your comprehension skills were non-existant. You attempt to smear me as a brainless nitwit fan of Schwarzenegger's who was blinded by his noteriety. You know damn well, I recognized Schwarzenegger for what he was. I also recognized that McClintock didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. Even now you lament my vote, like a six year old who's been told they can't go to a friend's birthday party, due to a family conflict in schedules. A year later and you're still pouting.
It's not my doing.
I think you're a little confused Mark. I didn't make the claim that it was your fault.
Had Arnold proved to be a fiscal conservative, had he not derailed the workman's comp initiative, had he not increased spending and forced local government to raise taxes, had he not chosen to bypass open government, had he not destroyed the constitutional protection against borrowing, had he not hidden the size of the current deficit ala Bray Davis, you would be laughing at my foolishness and be right to do so.
In some aspects, I agree with your comments regarding fiscal conservancy as they relate to Schwarzenegger. I believe his budget had too much fat in it. As you and others have pointed out, it's even higher than Davis' last budget. That is inexcusable. Where I differ with you, is when you start your hysterical routine regarding the budget deficits that were handed off to Schwarzenegger. You actually had the audacity to jump in on a thread a few weeks ago and claim that California only has a budget deficit of $10.7 billion. I told you that I'd respond, but Mark, if you're that ignorant of the facts as they relate to the State of California, what would be the point?
California today is running between a $20 and $35 billion dollar budget deficit. As near as I can tell, it's close to $30 billion, but it's hard to pin down. The Sacramento Bee is the only news source I could find that stated around March of 2004, that the deficit was $10.7 billion. I have no confidence in that figures for several reasons. The first reason is that the Sacramento Bee itself stated the budget deficit was $38 billion last summer. It and a number of other papers addressed a governor's conference where the governors were all aflutter about our $38 billion dollar budget deficit. Not Gray Davis, not the California democrat party, not Cruz Bustamante, not the democrat controlled legislature, not the democrat treasurer, not the liberal rags in the state, not one leftist entity stepped forward to dispute that $38 billion dollar deficit, with a democrat's neck on the line in the most populous state in the nation, and a Presidential election coming up the next fall.
Later in the year, sometime around October, a Schwarzenegger financial consultant quantified the budget deficit at a lower figure. I believe it was something like $20 billion, growing much larger by this summer due to legislation passed before Schwarzenegger took office.
Mark, you have caught yourself in a real paradox. If the Budget deficit is only $10.7 billion today, Schwarzenegger has done some kind of fantastic job to reduce it from $38 billion. If it truly is in the $30 billion dollar range, then your damnation of him for not paying it off immediately comes off as sophmoric grandstanding.
Once again you state that Schwarzenegger destroyed the constitutional protection against borrowing. Mark, we just covered what the budget deficit was around the summer of 2003. The state was running a $38 billion dollar budget deficit, and yet you blame Schwarzenegger for enabling the state to run budget deficits when he didn't take office until December of 2003. Technicly, you are correct. In the real world you're blowing smoke. Nobody was holding the state to the constitutional ban on budget deficits.
"...had he not hidden the size of the current budget deficit ala Gray Davis..." Mark, it seems that everyone but you were well aware of what the budget dificit was. Schwarzenegger didn't hide the size of it. Your attempt to damn him for doing so should be beneath you. The fact that that claim isn't beneath you, is why I have addressed you on a number of threads. I'm sick of the lies Mark. If you want to hit him with something factual, I'll more than likely join you. I will not join you in spreading falsehoods. I will not sit idly by and watch you post misleading comments. And you know, it's just plain stupid to do what you're doing Mark. There are several issues that merit criticism. Why you can't be satisifed to join in on those topics and leave the make-believe alone, escapes me.
With California running around a $25 to $30 billion dollar budget deficit, you were bent that Schwarzenegger put a bond before the electorate to cover short term bonds that were coming due, and also asked them to make it legal for him to run budget deficits. I don't know anyone who could cut between $34 and $39 billon out of the current budget, so that they could pay down the complete budget deficit immediately, but that was your take as you slammed him over it again and again.
California was running budget deficits. I don't like it. You don't like it. None of us like it. The fact is that to put the state government back on legal footing, Schwarzenegger had to either legitimize deficits, default on our obligations or chop 35 to 40% off our current 2004-05 budget.
Frankly, I think he did the right thing. I don't see much else that he could have done. And that's why your ludicrous statements on the subject fall flat with me.
I am acknowledging the accountability for your lack of discernment in studying Arnold before making you choices, by pointing out the facts, if not reminding you of your conduct in the process and that you were warned. As to insults, I don't call your posts stupid, insane, a "jihad," or idiotic. That's your style, not mine, as the posters on the list above will ruefully attest.
Well Mark, thanks for the laugh. I know you think you're scoring points here, but from my perspective I'll just say, I know you're trying.
Meanwhile, the only argument of which you seem capable is that had conservatives not supported Arnold, Bustamante would have won. That is patently false but since you justified your choices thereby one can hardly fault your consistency, late polling data to the contrary.
Let me see Mark, are you addressing the CNN/Los Angeles Times polls, or the Sacramento Bee polls, the Zogby polls, the AP polls? Which of these estemed polls did you place your faith in? I'd really like to know. I am rather surpised that you mention polls though, because I didn't see a poll all 2003, that showed McClintock getting more than 12%. Since you're big on polls, what did that tell you about Tom's chances?
Schwarzenegger won on the strength of Democrats who couldn't support Bustamante, GOP moderates, and conservatives who fell for the "because he can win" belief, based upon a campaign of fear that eminated from the New Majority crooks that gave us Nixon (you do remember that debacle?). Instead of letting Schwarzenegger take votes from Bustamante, only to be defeated by conservatives who significantly outnumber Republican moderates, you fell for that campaign of fear, telling us that Schwarzenegger represented an incremental step back toward Republican governance, all immediate historical evidence and indications from Arnold's written policies to the contrary. After years of successful conservatives, "moderates" gave us Wilson, which led directly to Gray Davis. If the incrementalism you have suggested Schwarzenegger represented worked, that never would have happened. Instead, those same "moderates" stabbed their own conservative candidate in the back in the person of Bill Simon, accompanied by many here on FR.
Mark, above you mentioned polls, so I'm going out on a limb here. Do you believe in them or don't you? You sure seemed to a minute ago when you wanted to damn me for voting for Schwarzenegger as if it was crystal clear Bustamante couldn't win. But when it comes to Tom being around 12% in the polls, you just sink into some sort of coma. Tom McClintock wasn't anywhere close to winning the election. I voted for Schwarzenegger to make sure at least part of what I supported would get done. This doesn't mean that I didn't see a very strong likelihood that there would be real downside to Schwarzenegger. I didn't vote for him just because of the 'R'. I voted for him because some 'R' things would get done. I'm sorry you can't grasp that concept.
For all intents and purposes, Tom McClintock was not a player on election day. That's reality, and I can't force you to accept it. It's still reality.
Apparently you don't understand that the RINOs will never allow conservatives to be successful and have done everything possible for over forty years to derail conservative candidates (see hosing Kaloogian for Bill Jones and then abandoning him for a contemporary case). For you to have supported Arnold when there was a clear alternative shows that you don't understand either the history or the mechanics within the corporate Republican establishment.
Thank you for the lecture. I don't disagree with your comments about RINOs, but to claim that a guy who pulled in 14% of the vote was a clear alternative, is just sad, even for you. 86% of the vote went for someone other than Tom. Rather close, don't you think. Tom was 20% behind the democrat candidate and 50% behind the RINO candidate. I'm sorry, but that was the reality headed into election day. It was the reality on election day. It is still the reality today.
Mark, you've really got to get off this 'corporate Repbulican establishment' kick, when talking to people who for the most part share the goals you have for our state and the nation, and actually buy into the 'corporate Republican establishment' concept you speak of. You may see yourself as a shining white knight, but understanding state and national political realities as I do, I can tell you that a man with 14% of the vote had no chance of being your or anyone else's savior on election day 2003.
Now if you can get him on the primary ballot in 2006, we might be talking a different ballgame. The fact was, that in a head to head, McClintock wasn't going to win. You claim to be a pretty savy guy when it comes to politics. Look Mark, part of being savy is accepting reality. When Schwarzenegger announced on the Leno show, I just hung my head and laughed. It was already over, and you guys didn't have the faculties to grasp it. That doesn't mean that I endorsed what happened, I just knew it was going to happen. I could have chosen to wail about it for years. I chose not to waste my time doing so.
You fell for that bogus fear mongering and for that you are accountable. I told you and FairOpinion at that time that I would hold you to it in the interest of showing you how destructive Arnold would be (your predictions to the contrary) and seeing to it that you never do something like supporting Arnold again unless there was NO other choice (as is the case in the presidential election).
If you wish to dilude yourself with the pipe dream that only you knew what Schwarzenegger was capable of, be my guest. I will correct you when you state that "I would hold you to it in the interest of showing you how destructive Arnold would be (your predictions to the contrary) and seeing to it that you never do something like supporting Arnold again unless there was NO other choice..."
Earth to Mark, a candidate with 14% of the vote is not an alternative. Continuing to claim that he was, just slams the door on any credibility you might claim to have. Once again for the record, I DID NOT PREDICT THAT ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER WOULD NOT DO A NUMBER OF THINGS I WOULD DETEST! My exact comments were, "Schwarzenegger will do some things that I like, and a number of things I will hate." So much for your accuracy in reporting. (once again)
You had no idea how bad Arnold would be and didn't listen to those who tried to educate you, believing that it was only blind partisanship. It wasn't; it was the voice of hard experience, research, analysis, personal knowledge of Arnold's character (or lack thereof), and hard polling data.
Mark, you are so full of hot air that I'm surprised you don't join Abner with the hot air balloons. You want to educate others with regard to politics, but can't grasp the concept of 14% of the vote, not being a viable chance for holding public office. "Blindly", is your term not mine. Good call. Let me get this straight, "experience, research, analysis, personal knowledge of Arnold's character (according to a buch of democrat political hacks, Drudge, LA Slimes, Sac Bee, et all) and hard polling data convinced you that McClintock was a viable alternative. Well bud, that's your story and you're sticking to it. You can have it.
You underestimate yourself. This is still a nation of self-government and we DO get the government we deserve. Instead of fighting for conservative principles you chose to fight anyone who would challenge your compromise and discounted all evidence that pointed to what Arnold would really do.
Well Mark, that sounds good, but it isn't really the truth is it. I was aware of what Arnold would probably do. I was also aware of what Bustamante would do. Tom wasn't going to be governor, and I voted for someone who might be. Yes I could have hissed and moaned more last fall. The outcome would have still been the same. The character assasination didn't work. You guys shilled for Bustamante, Davis, the state and national democrat party, but to no avail. I've already listed the fine alumnus you guys joined, Hillary's highest priced shills, but why bother. You'll never see it.
Just a hint for the future Mark. I'm sure a dynamic politico like you already knew this, but when it comes to politics, it's a good idea to sell your guy. You guys were shoveling all the road-apples you could, but nobody was buying them. Sadly, you never noticed.
I know for a fact that the conservative pols in this state were watching FR to see if the conservative grass roots could be convinced to break for Arnold in order to secure the governorship. The likes of you and FairOpinion were instrumental in that regard with your relentless browbeating, attacks on McClintock, and the baseless assertion that Arnold would at least do SOMETHING to get spending under control. After weeks of such relentless browbeating, Chris Cox et al. broke for Arnold. The rest is history.
Bud, you are one of the least informed, ingoramouses I have ever met. Congressman Drier was Schwarzenegger's campaign chair, and you think Chris Cox was waiting to see what I and FairOpinion were going to do before solidifying his position. Did you say somewhere on this thread that you wanted to impart knowledge to others? No, I must be dreaming. If you truly think Cox was waiting to see what I was going to do, I would like to urge you to seek medical help. This transcends normal political debate. Yes, I'm serious.
As for the falsehood that I browbeat McClintock relentlessly, it is disconcerting to watch a person I used to have respect for, experience a total melt down.
I'd like you to consider for a moment that I tried to be objective about McClintock. I had even favored him over Schwarzenegger. Then I had to sit by for six to eight weeks and watch you guys shill for Davis and company because they (unlike you) saw Schwarzenegger as the real threat. It was non-stop as you guys echoed the usual suspects who shill for the democrats constantly. Strangely (at least to me), it never dawned on you guys that it was these shameful leftists that were supplying much of what you were shoveling on the forum. No, for expediencies sake, you clamored for every morsel they spoon-fed you. Then you have the unmitigated gaul to tell me I'm the blind one. Sheesh!
My comments before the absentee ballots were being sent off, were that I didn't like what I saw regarding the character assasination regarding Schwarzenegger. One woman could come forward and say something bad, six could come forward and say something good. Of course the one was credibly, the six suspect. Every word reported by Drudge and the usual suspects true, every supportive comment by an associate of Schwarzenegger's false. Yes I objected to that. I also objected to people coming on and saying that driver's licenses for illegals was a done deal if Schwarzenegger got elected. This and other lies angered me.
Did I make a very few negative comments about McClintock before the absentee ballots started being caste? I probably did a very few. Your description of my actions bears absolutely no connection to reality. (Again)
You got what you wanted, and the list of Arnold's leftist moves and efforts to thwart real reforms is growing (such as in workman's comp).
Mark, what I wanted wasn't on the menu. I'm sorry you can't grasp that, but it's true. If you were more honest, you and I would agree a lot more. I don't like the watered down workman's comp deal, but if you think Davis or Bustamante were going to do something about it, you're just dead wrong. Wailing because we didn't get what you wanted, is stuped, when we wouldn't have gotten anything at all under other possibilities. Please don't waste my time talking about what wasn't possible. I'd like you to try to stick to reality.
I promise you, we may see more of a net leftward turn in Sacramento and more significant marginalization of conservatives under Arnold than we would have seen even under Bustamentalcase,
Mark, for a guy who hasn't exatly hit truth on the head with regard to my own actions, I'll take your promise for what it is, worthless. Bustamante, a menber of MECHA, a brown separatist orgainization, has at one time or another advocated California break away from the United States and become a separate nation. He never did disown that organiztion. He promised to increase taxes. Illegal Immigrants would already have California Driver's licenses. This natures conservancy that we are all angry about, would most certainly have been signed. Literally thousands of state appointments would have been filled by people who would like to see California break away from the Union. With a liberal (read that socialist) legislature, there is no limit to what Bustamante could have gotten away with. That you don't understand this, just baffles me.
Schwarzenegger is going to do things we don't like. Bustamante would have done nothing we like. Do I think Scwarzenegger is the right man for the job? No. What the hell can I do about the fact that the only alternative to him couldn't more than get 14% of the vote? You seek to flatter me so that you can make the claim that my opinion swayed the election. Man, you are one dilusional nut-job.
who would have been stymied by the lack of votes to get a budget,
I'm not sure these comments are what you meant, but it's what you wrote. I do not think Bustamante would be stymied in the budget process. Tell me who would be saying no to him over there.
an envigorated the referendum and recall process (you can bet that if he signed another SB60 after a referendum he would have been hosed),
I do not believe another recall would have been viable in the short term. If Bustamante were to have been elected, he would have served out the term. It would have taken a near act of God to get him out.
AND rekindled interest in conservative government.
...as the state moved ever closer to Aztlan. Unhugh.
Until you admit that it was a mistake to support Schwarzenegger, you can look forward to more evidence of that mistake.
If you can call what I did, "supporting Schwarzenegger", then it's no wonder McClintock only got 14% of the vote. You guys need a new definiation of support. Or perhaps it's only a new definition of truth that might see your posts on this subject approach the level of discourse that warrants a respectful response.
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.