CA: Governor vows to do more to reach Latinos - In San Diego... campaigns for his ballot agenda

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | October 1, 2005 | John Marelius

[FairOpinion]

"We vote our conscience and accept the results."


===

But after seeing that time and time again the result is the election of Democrats, because you are splitting the Republican party -- the only viable alternative -- one would think you would wise up. It's either that, or it's deliberate. And you (CO) were the one who stated, that you would rather see Gray Davis be governor, than Arnold. I didn't. You'd rather cut off your nose to spite your face, which is your privilege, but the problem is that by your actions, all the rest of us in CA have to suffer under the Democrats, who destroy the stated. So by your actions, you are contributing to the destruction of CA, and I object to that, because I live here.

====

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)

===

Ronald Reagan:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

====
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527), The Prince :

"There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless. "

[NormsRevenge]

who is splitting the party?

lol

get lost, FO, you have finally gone off the deep end, imo..

[calcowgirl]

Well, answer me this: who is more conservative, someone who wants a Democrat elected, or someone who wants a Republican elected. And who is more conservative, someone who wants spending cuts, or someone who doesn't?

Well? People can add all the twisted reasonings, but the bottom line is as I said, is that they are helping the Dem agenda.

I would suggest that your support for Prop 57/58 helped the Dem agenda by allowing a continued structural imbalance in the budget and greater spending for the past two years. Your support, and that of Arnold and the CA GOP, of Proposition 78 is another example that shows the 'party line' is failing to even resemble a conservative agenda. Your absence of a response relative to your apparent support of GLBT legislation is also interesting to note. I find none of these things conservative.

Regarding your comment on wanting spending cuts, you apparently believe that Prop 76 deals only with cuts; it doesn't. For one thing, it defers yet more expenses into the future and authorizes issuance of new bonds (debt). A recent news report [see: Reform, rebuild ... repay - Schwarzenegger's vision involves trips to the bank ] exposed that the underlying plan for Prop 76 is to position the state for enormous new borrowing (10s of billions). The LAO report issued Friday on Prop 76 [see Proposition 76: Key Issues and Fiscal Effects or FR Thread], which I have only read quickly, highlights other issues. Your attempt to reduce this to "wanting spending cuts or not" is typical of the campaign soundbites that gave us the likes of Prop 57/58, Prop 71, etc.

[calcowgirl]

Consider this exchange, where you offer to refute my list of Arnold’s actions ...

Excerpt of exchange:

FairOpinion: I could prove every one of your assertions false and you would still keep posting it.

Carry_Okie: I have bookmarked this post. Go for it.

As of this time, a click on "view replies" results in: No replies

[Czar]

"But after seeing that time and time again the result is the election of Democrats, because you are splitting the Republican party -- the only viable alternative -- one would think you would wise up. It's either that, or it's deliberate. And you (CO) were the one who stated, that you would rather see Gray Davis be governor, than Arnold. I didn't. You'd rather cut off your nose to spite your face, which is your privilege, but the problem is that by your actions, all the rest of us in CA have to suffer under the Democrats, who destroy the stated. So by your actions, you are contributing to the destruction of CA, and I object to that, because I live here."

This tells us everything we need to know about you and your agenda. You are a member of the GOP Big Tent composed of RINOs, liberals and moderates. You admire people like Duf Sundheim, CRP Chairman, and long for the day when the "New Majority" here in the OC becomes the sole authority and controller of all things to do with the Republican party around here.

Ain't gonna happen. Ask those silk sock, country club, go-along-to-get-along pack of centrist compromisers how it's going for them. Not well.

You are no conservative, that's completely clear.

[Czar]

"A recent news report [see: Reform, rebuild ... repay - Schwarzenegger's vision involves trips to the bank ] exposed that the underlying plan for Prop 76 is to position the state for enormous new borrowing (10s of billions)...Your attempt to reduce this to "wanting spending cuts or not" is typical of the campaign soundbites that gave us the likes of Prop 57/58, Prop 71, etc."

Exactly so. Arnold intends to use #76 to launch a massive new "borrowthon" and, other than a few moderate (and safe) cosmetic reductions here and there, will cut nothing.

[calcowgirl]

Those who are splitting the party are those who consistently ignore the principles the party was built upon. Consider this dialogue with another one of your heroes from the Oct 4, 2003 Hannity and Colmes show during the heat of the Recall election:

CAL THOMAS: I want to know whether a lot of Republicans in California are compromising their principles, especially on social issues -- abortion, gay rights, some of these other things -- just for the sake of having somebody who wears a Republican label become governor of California? Does that bother you?

DAVID DREIER: Absolutely not, Cal. Absolutely not.

[Carry_Okie]

You are no conservative, that's completely clear.

She never pretended to be.

The hypocrisy of RINOs comes in when they demand flatly state that only their candidates can win, and, when a conservative wins the primary, they refuse to vote for their own Party. We saw that in the backstabbing Bill Simon got after conservatives had supported Pete Wilson.

[Amerigomag]

I'm especially sensitive to the mention of 'principles', as opposed to 'principals'.

Doodlelady thanks for catching that. I don't know if the spelling was a Freudian slip or simple typos but they were embarrassing mistakes which rendered my points mute.

[Amerigomag]

because you are splitting the Republican party -- the only viable alternative -- one would think you would wise up

Since I'm not a Republican Party loyalist splitting a party isn't part of my equation. In fact, if splitting a party brings the resultant party agenda closer to my values, and in this particular case closer to its own traditional values, then that's a bonus.

I don't know the implications of wise as used in the quoted context but there is a suggestion its use implies victorious and victory is in the eyes of the beholder, or in this case, the consequences of the victory.

I did not vote for Schwarzenegger in the recall and don't feel obligated to remain mute regarding his political meanderings. I may vote for Schwarzenegger in the next gubernatorial primary and the general election if, and only if, he comes closer to representing my values than any other gubernatorial candidate in those respective elections. Party registration, political viability, the alternatives if my chosen candidate fails and the wrath of party operatives are not important considerations in exercising my franchise.

At this point in Schwarzenegger's short tenure he is still part of the problem and not part of the solution. I applaud his apparent unwillingness to normalize illegal immigration. I overlook the few cases that suggest cronyism. I am not bothered by the misreprensentaions in his political speak; he is a politician and I expect nothing less. I remain uncomfortable with his mixed message on the institutionalization of homosexuality. I oppose his approach to government's role in our society and, of course, am almost diametrically opposed to his fiscal actions.

Separating Schwarzenegger's actions from his rhetoric is rather simple from my perspective. Schwarzenegger certainly talks my talk on many issues but his actions are often far removed from the perception he carefully crafts in his public presentations.

Reagan's explanation of the rewards of compromise was accurate but it doesn't apply to Schwarzenegger. Reagan mentions his satisfaction with 75% or 80% of his goals. In the case of Schwarzenegger, conservatives are closer to 5% or 10% theirs. These are not satisfactory accomplishments and they won't increase if Schwarzenegger were given unlimited authority. Schwarzenegger is simply a liberal, nurtured during his formative years in the post war European incubator of liberalism in reaction to the excesses of fascism, coxed into an active role in the Republican Party because of his celebrity by Bush 41 and strongly influenced by Schwarzenegger's own success in a capitalist system.

[Amerigomag]

which rendered my points mute. Or moot?

Well then it is obviously simple ignorance. Thanks and I apologize to you both for my obvious inattention to the efforts of my public school teachers.

[calcowgirl]

LOL... public school teachers. :-)

No need to apologize--the intent of your posts was clear and compelling.

[SierraWasp]

Hey! He's just trying the Clintonesque "Triangulation" technique in politics... Trying to rise above the partisan frey so he can pick his prey!!!

Trouble is... he ain't no danged good at it and he doesn't have the toe sucker advising him!!!

He's done!!! Put a fork in 'em!!! His "Reforms" are going the way of Jesse Ventura's "Reform" Party and he will soon follow the example of Jesse Ventura in a big huff with a big puff, cause he's not really the terminator... instead he's Puff the Magic Dragon... NOT!!!