Gee, the Ahnuldbots are upset with "Conan the Republican"? Does this mean they'll stop shoving phony "fiscally conservative" RINOs down our throats?
Posted on 05/19/2011 9:49:59 AM PDT by SmithL
Sacramento anti-tax advocate Ted Costa looks back at the events he set in motion when he helped kick off California's historic gubernatorial recall in 2003 - culminating in the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger - with more than a little disgust.
"He's betrayed the people who supported him from Day One," said Costa of the former GOP governor, who this week acknowledged betraying wife Maria Shriver by having an affair and an out-of-wedlock child with a housekeeper more than a decade ago. "I don't know why people are shocked."
Melanie Morgan, the former KSFO conservative talk show host who was dubbed the "Mother of the Recall," is also angry. "He squandered his marriage and the good will of the people of California," Morgan said. "And now, he's squandered any legacy."
The anger of leaders in the recall of then-Gov. Gray Davis, which turned Schwarzenegger from an aging action hero into a state political leader, dramatizes the ripple effects of the sordid scandal that has rocked California.
New revelations surfaced on Wednesday, when the New York Times reported that Schwarzenegger helped his family's longtime housekeeper and the mother of the child, Mildred Patricia Baena, buy a home in Bakersfield last year.
The tawdry tale of infidelity - besides having deep personal impacts on Schwarzenegger's family - has rocked conservative activists around the state. Many of them were involved in the effort to organize and raise money for the recall election.
"It's really despicable," said Jon Fleischman, who publishes the popular Flashreport.org website and who was a supporter of the 2003 recall. Conservatives, he said, are now appalled at Schwarzenegger's record, both personal and political. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No, it's you who has the short memory. Those "good" initiatives were vetted here carefully. They were a ruse.
The choice in the 2003 recall was not Arnold vs. Tom McClintock. It was Arnold or Gray or Bustamante. Would you rather have those two?
That's because you were dumb enough to buy the story. McClintock would have beaten Bustamante one-on-one or if conservatives had actually voted their preferences. The last Gallup poll before the recall proves it. Arnold took as many votes from the Democrats as he did from Republicans.
Here is the last USA Today/CNN/GALLUP poll before the recall.
"6. If the choice were between Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat and Tom McClintock, the Republican, who would you be more likely to vote for: Cruz Bustamante or Tom McClintock?"
September 25-27
Registered Voters
McClintock 49%
Bustamante 42%
Probable Voters
McClintock 56%
Bustamante 37%
The Germanator.
With benefit of hindsight, I admit I should have voted for McClintock (who was my, and FReepers’, preference anyway), instead of voting for Schwarzenegger as a form of “Bustamante prevention.”
Now, that is not to say that McClintock would have won, for sure. But even if Bustamante won, he would have done so poorly, hiked taxes and spending so rapidly (even compared to the Sperminator), that I HOPE even California’s wacky-left electorate would have placed the blame on the Democrats, where it belongs. (As things are, with a RINO as gov from 03-10, the voters think that “Republicans” were in charge.)
It’s a painful lesson.
Gee, the Ahnuldbots are upset with "Conan the Republican"? Does this mean they'll stop shoving phony "fiscally conservative" RINOs down our throats?
People get the government they deserve. In California’s case, Schwartzenegger is about as good as we deserve. He’s a symptom of the electorate, not the problem.
That said, if anyone had any stars in their eyes that Arnold was some kind of rock ribbed, fire breathing conservative, then you were betrayed all right. By your own brain.
They also have a poor memory about what the ballot said. It didn't ask voters "Grey Davis or Bustamante or Arnold?" The ballot actually had a two step process that ensured Davis would have been recalled whether or not the Austrian socialist was running:
=======================================================
Question #1: Shall Governor Gray Davis be recalled? YES or NO
Question #2: IF he is recalled, who should his replacement be? (135 choices)
================================================
The recall process was on track just fine til Ahnuld and his borg drones hijacked the spotlight and ensured the "frontrunner" to replace Davis was someone even worse.
Nonsense. To "win" a closet plan to grow spending is no victory in anybody's book. All it gets you is the blame for the failure of liberal policies. Witness how Arnold is being blamed for the deficit, and rightly so. His failures led directly to Brown. That gutless weasel Arnold was so busy handing crooked favors to his backers he never wielded a veto pen like he should have lest he be exposed for being hip-deep in pay for play games. Needless to say, this "love child surprise" is no surprise to anybody.
I admire him but McClintock has also lost every statewide race he has run.
Another ruse: "He can't win." Well he almost did win the controller's race, despite being outspent 5:1 and even when the party was stabbing him in the back. He would have won the recall the Pete Wilson gang tried to stop. When they couldn't stop it, they then tossed in Bob White's half-trained stooge at the last second.
Yeah, "He can't win," when "we" shaft him.
You moron RINOS pretend that only moderates can win. You have been telling us since before Reagan beat George Christopher. You tell conservatives to fall in line for your closet fascist or else, and when you lose it's all our fault. What the hell do you expect us to do after forty years of lies? Every time the GOP base nominates a conservative candidate you "moderates" do everything possible to shaft him. It cuts both ways turkey, and we've had it with your BS, especially after what Team Wilson and Gerry Parsky did to Bill Simon. You "won" all right, with Pete Wilson and then Arnold. Both times you assured us that incrementalism would work. You wrecked this State in the process.
You pulled the same crap with both Bush presidencies, and in both instances they turned a successful conservative backlash into financial ruin and defeat.
Congratulations.
Sorry, but Arnold was simply being Arnold. I think betrayal is too strong a word for what should have been expected. Its like being surprised when a Kennedy cheats on their spouse... Well duh...
Unlike you, some of us do our homework:
Another baseless assertion.
I have taken the time to read the LAO's analysis of Prop. 76, as should you. It isn't the picture you are presenting here.
First, after all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from both the governor and the legislature about how the appropriations process is too constrained by voter mandates, Prop. 76 does virtually nothing to undo Prop 98. In fact, it effectively borrows the money from deferred Prop. 98 payments by stretching out the repayment for fifteen years. Why not just abolish it and restore budget authority to the legislature so that they can be held accountable for spending?
Second, Prop 76 does try to restore Prop 42 funding, but given that Proposition 42 IS ALREADY law, why do we need to do anything but either have our gutless grovelnator line-veto the legislative budget or sue to restore the principal of using gas tax funding to be ONLY for road construction and maintenance as the law requires? If the governor, as chief LEO, can’t enforce the law now, what good is yet another ballot proposition mandating the same thing but deferring implementation for another two years? The reality is that the governor is just as complicit in these illegal transfers and proposes to legalize them as is the legislature.
The case is similar with regard to other “loans” against special funds.
HERE is the LAO’s analysis of fiscal impact (emphasis mine):
Given these circumstances, the impact of the proposed spending limit on the 2006 07 budget would depend in large part on how the state addresses the structural shortfall during 2005 06 and 2006 07 budgets. If the budget imbalances are eliminated through significant ongoing expenditure reductions, then the proposed limit would not have a major impact on allowable spending levels in 2006 07. However, if the shortfalls are not addressed in this manner, then the proposed limit could constrain spending in 2006 07.
In other words, all Arnold has accomplished so far in two years is to have deferred the date when we hit the wall to 2006-7 while increasing the interest payments (so much for “cut up the credit card”). What in the hell makes you believe that spending will be cut in 2006-7? If all Arnold has done is to borrow and defer, what makes you believe he will have the courage to ENFORCE Prop. 76 when all he has to do is sign a tax increase that he has already threatened to do if Prop. 76 doesn't pass?
All indications so far are that he hasn’t got the guts.
But that isn’t the only problem with Prop 76. Back to the LAO’s analysis:
During periods of accelerating revenue growth (such as often occurs during the early stages of a business expansion), the limit could constrain spending below what otherwise could occur. This is because the three-year average revenue growth would be lower than the budget-year revenue growth.
During periods of decelerating revenue growth or revenue declines (such as often occurs during recessions) this limit could allow more spending than could be supported by annual revenues. This is because the average revenue growth would be higher than the budget-year revenue growth.
IOW, when times are good (and the pain is less), Prop. 76 cuts spending. When times are bad it INCREASES spending over what we have now. Given that government spending is what hampers recover from spending, given that the President’s tax cut is what got us out of the 2001 recession, is increasing spending during recessions what you really want FO?
But does Prop. 76 really cut spending in high revenue years? Back to the LAO:
In years in which revenues increased sharply, the elimination of the maintenance factor provisions would result in less growth in the minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education than would be the case under current law. (The Legislature could, however, choose to raise funding for schools by overappropriating the minimum guarantee.)
In short, the legislature could over-ride the spending limits of Prop. 76 and build in yet MORE structural expenditures which is EXACTLY what Davis did to get us into the fiscal mess we are in today.
But, couldn’t the legislature cut those “one time increases”? Prop. 76 says no:
In years in which revenues fell, however, Test 3 would no longer be operative, and thus the minimum guarantee would not be reduced automatically. This could result in higher funding for K-14 education in certain years. (The Legislature, however, could still reduce K-14 education funding through suspension, and Proposition 98 would also be subject to gubernatorial reductions that could occur under the circumstances discussed above.)
If K-14 funding were not reduced during revenue downturns, more of the solutions to any budget shortfall would need to come from either (1) deeper spending reductions to non-Proposition 98 programs or (2) new revenues to cover budgetary imbalances.
Proposition 76 thus contains structural means to force tax increases while accomplishing little to reduce spending. It isn’t even as tight as were the Gann spending limits that are STILL ON THE BOOKS.
Some “solution.” I read McClintock’s support for this proposition as payback for his support in his re-election campaign for State Senate and for Lieutenant Governor. He'll let the current charade go on and hopes to come in to clean up the mess at a later date.
I voted for McClintock...
Now we must watch out for the Gingrinch who'll try to baffle 'em with his bull (BLEEP)(rhymes with spit) if he can't actually dazzle 'em with his blinding brilliance!!!
Reliable conservatives should be fought for and supported till the last dog is hung in each and every election!!!
Yes, take no prisioners and yes, test their integrity and yes, keep your memories long and let's always help each other maintain loyalty to those least likely to disappoint after being elected!!!
Anything else is setting all conservatives up for one disaster after another!!!
Note my new tagline...
>> “He’s betrayed the people who supported him from Day One,” said Costa of the former GOP governor.
I seriously doubt betrayal was on his mind at the time.
Get over yourself Costa. Schwarzenegger’s a fool, but you sound ridiculous.
>> I voted for McClintock...
McClintock’s great. I recall his frustration with the goofy attraction to Schwarzenegger’s star power.
Do we think Henry Hyde, especially, but Strom Thurmond as well, are exceptions to that rule? I don’t know, just asking. It seems to apply to Aaron Burr, but what about Henry Clay?
Well now, you’ve hit upon the real difficulty with being a person of principles and also practicing politics.
A principled politician is the ideal. The reality is horrifying but that shouldn’t mean we, the voters and citizens of this nation, should despair.
We must keep voting into office decent, principled men and women into public office. Not all will succumb to the blandishments of corruption. Some will, hopefully most will not. If we give up, Satan wins and we lose our liberties.
I guess my hope is that Hyde repented, Thurmond repented; Toon on the other hand obviously never did.
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.