[DoughtyOne]

I know you're going to think this is a snide pot-shot, and although I support Schwarzenegger, this does seem to be your best bet so here goes.

At 14% McClintock is dead meat. Whether you wish to face the fact or not, he is not going to be elected. Since most of you have already made it perfectly clear you'd rather have Bustamante than Schwarzenegger, I would suggest you folks vote "no", then Bustamante.

You'll definately prevent Schwarzenegger from being elected. Instead of just flirting with the idea by voting for Tom, just go ahead and vote for Cruz and sew up the decision and quit leaving it to chance.

I'll disagree with this, but I do believe it makes sense from the McClintock camp's perspective.

[Carry_Okie]

At 14% McClintock is dead meat. Whether you wish to face the fact or not, he is not going to be elected. Since most of you have already made it perfectly clear you'd rather have Bustamante than Schwarzenegger, I would suggest you folks vote "no", then Bustamante.

A cynical, sarcastic personal attack that totally avoided the real issue: will voting for Arnold benefit California Republicans?

I'm about half-way through analyzing his policy in detail and I can tell you that the answer on this issue is clearly, not. It may help investors on Wall Street and those big corporations that play both sides, but from what I read of what Mr. Kennedy produced, Arnold will be even more destructive to the California Republican base than Wilson or even Davis. It's a fact. What most people don't know or understand is the MASSIVE environmental damage that WILL result, whether the outcome is Davis, Bustamante, or Arnold.

I might throw McClintock right in with them for different reasons, but I don't really know where he stands on environmental issues. I'm hoping to influence him through his campaign and put a call in to his chief of staff this morning. I'd really like to get these issues into the public debate, rather than see this continued destrcutive demagoguery.