Ah, I see that we are not wanted here.
(read the tagline on #20)
Take a look:
Adoption rights for gays... same as Davis Willing to tax... same as Davis Loves abortion... same as Davis Likes illegals... same as Davis Against 2nd Amendment rights... same as Davis
What does a conservative lose by choosing to keep Davis rather than voting for (R)nold?
(R)nold advisors include Warren Buffet, 2 Kennedys - what advice could these people give him as governor that would possibly benefit conservatives in any way whatsoever?
There's everything to gain for a conservative to choose McClintock on the ballot and no on the recall.
First, by voting McClintock, they can cast a ballot for something they actually believe in. (They don't have to live with themselves having voted for a pro-baby-murder candidate, for instance.)
Also, from a conservative point of view, CA gets an executive no worse than what it already has, doesn't risk compounding the error with either (R)nold nor Busty, and the sitting governor would be dogmeat for any credible candidate in 2006.
The show of conservative strength would make the CA GOP, and perhaps the national party and/or other state parties understand that conservativism needs to be respected if the GOP wants to win. Since this is the philosophical root of the party, it is a very reasonable demand, but it is not negotiable.
This would put conservatives in the strongest possible position, within the GOP itself AND within the electorate as a whole, to advance an articulate, competent, conservative who can win votes from the electorate by persuasion, as is the tradition of the United States of America.
This method is a proven success, at all points on the political spectrum. Those who believe in something and are able to articulate it well sway the most votes.
All selling out for 3 years of very limited executive power can do is lay the blame for California's disaster at the feet of the GOP. It's not worth it.