In California they'd almost certainly be endorsing McClintock OVER Arnie.
Which would followed by the election of Bustamante.
posted on 09/03/2003 7:19:38 AM PDT
("Toss in a buck ya cheap bastard, I paid for your g**damn breakfast." Joe)
Which would be less damaging to the taxpayers than Schwarzenegger, who will be able to get 2/3rds majorities in the legislature to raise taxes, when he decides there is an "emergency."
posted on 09/03/2003 7:23:54 AM PDT
by B Knotts
If the bulk of the party endorsed a different candidate, why shouldn't ARNIE be LOYAL and throw his support to McClintock?
Who's the one who says it is only a one-way street?
All I hear is "conservatives have to give up their principles and support Arnie."
Why can't it be "Arnie supporters who give up their principles and support McClintock."
After all, "It's for the good of the Party."
posted on 09/03/2003 7:27:23 AM PDT
(In the Beginning Was the Word!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson