Debate Terminates Arnold

The only problem I had with him going after Huffington is that I wish Schwarzenegger would have defended Bush when Huffington was blaming our problems on Bush (btw, I thought McClintock should have made some comment in defense of Bush as well).

You're forgetting the purpose of a debate. What Arianna did was to try to get them sidetracked. Neither Arnold nor Tom let himself be sidetracked. What Arnold told her was perfect.

Every time I see the more committed Arnold supporters make verbal or visual reference to the irrelevant fact that Tom's a bit cross-eyed, I reach for the "Tom" hole in my punch-card

In other words, "I'm just as knee-jerky as anyone."

I am the only candidate at this table who has signed a no-tax pledge. I am the only candidate at this table who supports Proposition 54 to stop the government from racially classifying every one of us. I'm the only candidate at this table that supports the California Republican Assembly's referendum to stop the bill that gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. I'm the only candidate at this table who's pro life. I'm the only candidate who supports the entire Bill of Rights, including our Second Amendment. And I'm the only candidate who for 20 years in the public arena has proposed and fought for precisely those fiscal forms that are desperately needed to straighten out this state's finances. Now, we over the years have always been disappointed by politicians who make a promise and don't carry through on it. We've seen a lot of campaign promises made and broken just in the span of this very brief campaign. There's one thing friend and foe alike agrees about Tom McClintock, and that is when I make a promise, I keep it. I steer a straight course and I stay that course no matter what the pressure. And here's my commitment to the people of California: I will cut spending and balance this budget without a tax increase, and that is a promise.
Recall Debate Transcript - September 25th, 2003

I was exaggerating to make a point. As for you: Uhhh, RIGHT. It's so WRONG of me to say (whether or not I personally have an eye condidtion too) that it's irrelevant whether a candidate is cross-eyed. So WRONG of me to wonder about the kind of people who'd make such a crack. Like, say, YOU?

The purpose of this debate was first to explain to voters why they need to recall Davis -- otherwise, without that, we don't even get to the second question of who gets to replace him. Huffington, as the Democratic catspaw, was laying out a case, by attacking Bush, for why the Democrats are not really responsible for what has happened to California during the last 3 years. The obvious rejoinder to that was that Bush has not been in charge of California for the last 3 years, whereas the Democrats have and they have made a thorough mess of California.

I don't understand how an argument like that sidetracks the debate. In fact, the argument basically sums up why the recall is occurring and why, if voters want change, they should vote Republican and not Democrat.

I had to come out of lurkdom

Hah! On the California Flamewar Threads, lurkdom is the wise place to be!

My take (FWIW): Arnold 'won' because he didn't seem stupid, he defended his positions, and he's getting most of the post-debate air time. Debates are often won by the analysis that follows and the air time given to one-liners.

OTOH, Tom's comments below - the only clear conservative position on these issues - could help him. Folks talking about how liberal CA is forget Prop 187 passed...

"MCCLINTOCK: I think you are all losing sight of a very important fact, and that is we are talking about families that are in this country in violation of our nation's immigration laws. Now this nation has the most generous immigration policies of any nation in the world. Illegal immigration undermines that process of legal immigration that's the strength of our nation, and there are millions of people who are willing to abide by our immigration laws to come to this nation, become Americans and see their children grow up and prosper as Americans. Illegal immigration is the process of cutting in line in front of them, and I don't believe we should be rewarding such behavior.

Illegal immigration is costing this country $4 billion in direct costs out of our treasury by the most conservative estimates available. We've got to make sure our immigration laws are enforced. I led the opposition to the measure on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants because it undermines the enforcement of our immigration laws."

and

"...But, getting to the main point, and this is something that I think everyone has lost sight of, disadvantaged children come in all colors. It is their condition of disadvantage that we seek to compensate. It is not a question of race. Proposition 54, I believe I'm the only candidate on this platform who supports Proposition 54, simply says that our government has got to stop classifying us by race. It doesn't matter what race you are. The government should treat everyone exactly the same. And again, when you talk about disadvantage, it's the disadvantage itself that we should be correcting and compensating.

I think that this nation's best when we are all one race, an American race. And this business of government classifying us according to different ethnic groups, different racial categories, that is foreign to the whole concept of one great American people."

Am I the only one tired of racial politics? Am I the only one in CA to notice the problems illegal immigration brings with it? I think not.

You want to play "chicken" with Tom McClintock?

So you don't wanna say what you believe he will do?
Don't want it thrown back in your face when he buckles?

It should be easy for you to say what you believe, after all YOU say you think the man's word "I am not getting out" is as solid as a rock. Stronger than oak.

You must not believe him either, or you would simply say... "NO he is NOT getting out before the election... period" or something like that. You must NOT have as much confidence in him as you imply..