Posted on 07/02/2005 2:33:57 PM PDT by calcowgirl
"Candidate Party Votes Percent
* Tom McClintock Republican 226,225 61.0%
Paul Joseph Graber Democratic 144,800 39.0% "
This is in McC's own district, NOT statewide, you kind of forgot to mention that.
McC's chances of winning in a CA state election are less than me or you winning the latest Mega Millions lottery, which is about 1 in 280 million.
As it is, we'll either have Arnold for another four years or a Democrat now that the voters are getting sick of Arnold's ineffective duplicity. Either outcome drives the conservative base out of State.
As predicted.
Carry_Okie: "Actually, I would prefer that Davis were still governor."
====
OK. Here it is, but now I forgot who was the one who kept claiming I lied, when I said that I've seen posts from purportedly conservative posters who actually said on this board, that they preferred a Democrat to Schwarzenegger.
I must save this link, with the proof, for the next time someone will bring it up.
You must be paid very well.
Sure, Teddy Kennedy send me a nice fat check, about as fat, as he is, every week. (/SARCASM)
No, here it isn't and you are lying. You have repeatedly posted that there are posters here who would have preferred BUSTAMANTE to Schwarzenegger, which you have been unable to prove.
Or, based on prior behavior, you will quote it out of context.
You are (intentionally?) missing the point: Davis would have had overwhelming opposition. Arnold does the same thing, or worse, and you cheer or remain silent.
Once again, here is CATO's latest take, today:
Gov. Schwarzenegger was elected governor after promising to combat job-destroying regulation. Now he is proposing controls far more stringent than anything advanced by local Democrats.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
You're right California Republicans should have voted for McClintock.
I think a lot of success in life is looking at our mistakes and not making them in the future. The idea of electing a 'moderate', does not work for the real goal which is advancing our own ideas.
Also when you already have a guy who you know with certainty is good, stick with him.
"who would have preferred BUSTAMANTE to Schwarzenegger, which you have been unable to prove."
Just give it time, someone will slip again, sooner or later and this time I will keep the links. :)
I think Californians are delusional on this subject. The last time I was there the pollution was so bad I had to buy sinus medicine. I had lunch with the governor's wife, and she said that everyone is sick. I came and went from a state with clean air. They pass laws trying to tell Detroit what to do, but they won't change their own behavior to adapt to their own geography.
Here's a clue: Nobody who operates from principles makes such mistakes, because their posts represent their honest opinions and are not for calculated effect (as are yours).
You've been busted again. I wish I had kept count and just tacked links onto a bookmarked thread so that people could see them all in one place. I just didn't believe that anybody could be so willfully quixotic. It must pay well.
Arnold may be a believer, but politically, the only reason to say this is because you think constituents want you to.
The upshot may provide symbolism in another way - in that it may provide an illustration that these CO2 emissions reductions plans are simply painful and ludicrous.
When real economic pain sets in and the reductions never materialize (as will likely occur), it will defuse this issue somewhat nationally, and marginalize its supporters.
California may as well be the proving ground, and the rad libs there may as well be the ones to bear the burden of futility.
The only honest response from a true believer, who would probably insist that we need to eliminate non-natural CO2 entirely (in order to neutralize climate effects), would be a proposal to ban sutomotive transport and industry worldwide. Because that's the only target which would sastify the arguments of the alarmists (not that they would personally ever be satisfied).
The only honest answer is renovating the global infrastructure to acommodate some nonfossil power and/or total global economic meltdown. I am sure there would be major repercussions on ecosystems, etc. if were to witness the latter. The only current answer to the former is nuke power, and lots of it.
The Euros have already gone through this, with many unable to meet even modest emissions goals. Once that happens domestically, there may some more sanity and reality brought into the discussion.
Actually I think I said all the variations, because I have seen all the variations, people saying they preferred "Democrats", Davis or Bustamante.
I'll just watch and wait...
===
And regarding your preference of Davis, I guess you see no difference, between Davis signing a LAW, to force car manufacturers abide by impossible standards,
(see my post 19 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435447/posts?page=19#19
and Arnold issuing a NONBINDING executive order, which is merely a "goal", basically doing nothing, except giving lip service to the issue, while he is doing real things, which helps CA business.
"Schwarzenegger has simply signed a nonbinding executive order, which seeks to reduce the state's greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels in 15 years through various means, including tailpipe restrictions already in place and increased reliance on renewable energy such as wind and solar power."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p01s02-usgn.html
Would be more rational if Rinold was trying to cut emissions to improve the quality of life, in California's major cities.
Nope. It's about money for globalist investors who also pay heavily for poilitical campaigns. They want to tax carbon in industrialized countries and invest the money in the developing world.
San Diego Union-Tribune, June 2, 2005
This week, the state Assembly passed legislation that would require a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. Also, the lawmaker who in 2002 authored legislation that will force automakers to produce cleaner cars says industry may be the next target.You haven't forgotten about Arnold pushing through the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, have you? While you waited until it was already passed to voice any opposition, I am wondering why you don't take that as a lesson and speak out against this one now. Instead, I see you making excuses for it, trying to imply that it is only a target, ya di ya di ya. That, in itself, is telling.Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, plans to rework her AB 32 to implement the governor's initiative and perhaps establish pollution limits on stationary sources, much like her law targeting cars. "The vision seems to be there," she said of the governor's directive. "Now we need specifics, enforceability and accountability."
You have no links because it didn't happen. Give it up. This BS is so transparent.
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.