[tallhappy]

Put simply Schwarzenegger is worse than Bustamante.

[ambrose]

Oh no, not the BustaBoogeyman!

[Warhead W-88]

I support Arnold, but I don't want Tom to actually drop out.

I fear that there is something big and bad in Arnold's past that could kill him as a candidate. If that happens, we want McClintock in the race and ready to take the mantle. We certainly don't want him to have already dropped out, Perot like, only to re-enter the race.

I like what McClintock is doing now-- he's making his points, he's giving us a savage critique of Bustamente/Davis, he's presenting himself as a reasonable and viable candidate for governor. And he's doing all this without attacking Schwarzenegger (at least not attacking him in a very deadly way). Perfect.

I just hope that if Schwarzenegger continues holding up, and continues as front-runner, that McClintock will... not drop out per se -- he's put his credibility on the line about that, and I wouldn't want him to hurt that credibility -- but to say something to the effect of, "Arnold would be a capable governor. I think I would be a better governor, but Arnold would be good as well. So, my supporters who simply cannot and would not ever vote for Arnold should vote for me. But for the rest-- those choosing between two good alternatives -- perhaps you should consider the best strategic vote. Because beating Davis and Bustamente is more important than me or Arnold."

Etc. Not so much dropping out of the race, but signalling that voters who may be undecided between him or Arnold, or who might find both acceptable but prefer McClintock, should perhaps go with Schwarzenegger.

I am chagrined at the high level of hatred between Arnold and McClintock supporters. I have to say that I find most of this hatred emanating from the McClintock camp. I never disliked McClintock, even though I found Arnold a bit more appealing. McClintock to me was a very appealing alternative, a strong second place. The electability issue had something to do with that, of course.

For me, then, were McClintock the front runner and Arnold playing the spoiler role, I'd have no hesitation at all about encouraging Arnold to get out. I'd gladly throw my weight behind McClintock. California is simply too important to be left in the hands of the Democrats.

And so I am a bit baffled, and a bit angered, by the hatred and hostility directed at Arnold. Yes, he's a bit liberal on many social issues. So effing what? Governors do not have the power to change our national, court-mandated abortion policy. Everyone here knows that -- indeed, when a pro-life candidate is running in a state, many pro-lifers will point out to liberals that it doesn't matter what the candidates abortion position is, since a state official has very little latitude to change the law -- but suddenly McClintock supporters are behaving as if Governor Arnold Schwarzengger is going to advance the pro-choice position in California.

And yes, there's the gun thing. But in California, being strongly pro-gun is a political loser. I'm afraid that being moderately pro-gun, or at least not kooky on the issue, is the best we can hope for.

But on most other issues Arnold is quite acceptable as a candidate. He's good on immigration. He's good on capitalism versus collectivism. Etc.

So I am disappointed that while I, and I think many Arnold Schwarzenegger supporters, would be more than willing -- enthusiastic, actually -- to throw our support to McClintock were he to become the front runner, most McClintock supporters say they would never, will never support Arnold, under any circumstances, even to prevent Governor (Save us all) Bustamente.

I don't get this. I think some people take a perverse pride in being spoilers, of "taking the ball and going home" if they can't get their way 100%. That's everyone's right, of course, but it does not make one the sort of political ally that one wants to do business with, and it's really piss-poor political strategy. Some people seem to have the idea that they're "principled" and "righteous" for vindictively throwing an election to an arch-leftist like Bustamente just to "teach the California RINO GOP establishment a lesson."

Well, lessons are important, yes. But more important that lessons & payback is actually winning elections, actually putting our candidates into office so that the public can see real conservative policies working-- successfully.

Libertarians -- members of the actual libertarian party I mean, not philosophical libertarians -- seem to take a similar perverse delight in imposing a 100% purity test on all would-be candidates. The Libertarian Party does not elect many officials to office. And the public never gets to see an effective libertarian office-holder, and never gets to see libertarian policies working.

Thus, the Libertarian Party is, in political terms, a joke.

I've got news for everyone here: In California, the GOP is nearly as hapless as the Libertarians at the state level. If you ever want to change the minds of Californians, you've got to elect a Republican as Governor (or Senator). Only then can the people begin to learn that conservative principles work. "Working in theory" or "working on paper" does not cut it with electorates. They need to see actual policies actually implemented, and actually working.

And to do that, you need to actually elect someone who is conservative. Or at least conservative on the biggest issues.

But some people, however, fancy themselves "idealists" who would rather consign themselves to the political wilderness for 40 years rather than bend on minor issues (and in this context, abortion IS a minor issue, because Governors have so little power to change the national, court-mandated policy). They call this "principles"; I call it stupidity and cowardice. Stupidity because it's guaranteed to result in failure; cowardice ALSO because it's guaranteed to result in failure.

And I wonder if that isn't the real agenda here: To keep conservative ideals blissfully uncontaminated by the dirty compromises of the real world, so we can all admire how wonderful they seem to work in the laboratory or in the think tanks or in position papers, never having to risk seeing them succeed or fail in the real world.

[tallhappy]

The first thing Bustamante would do as governor is increase taxes on us by $8 billion.

Schwarzenegger has promised to build hydrogen refueling stations every 20 miles -- despite the fact that there are hardly any hydrogen cars.

And if you think 8 billion is a lot, Schwarzenegger's hydrogen fueling network of dreams would cost a lot more than 8 billion.

[Jeff Gordon]

Question: As some of these eleven dozen or so candiates drop out, what happens to the votes cast for them?

Do the just go into vote wasteland?

Can a candidate drop and request that all votes for him or go to some other candidate? For example if Cruz were to drop out, could he designate all Cruz votes go to Gary Coleman?

[giotto]

I finally figured out what is keeping McClintock in the race: He has a chip on his shoulder the size of Ross Perot. Perot hated Bush, and set out to derail his presidency; McClintock has a vendetta against the "country club Republicans," who have spurned him in the past. He loves the feeling of power it gives him to have them twisting in the wind, begging him to drop out. A classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite his face, because no matter the outcome, his political career is finished.

[dpwiener]

From the Los Angeles Times poll conducted from September 6th to the PPIC poll released on September 17th, Tom lost 4% of his support and is polling at 14%. This is half the support level of Schwarzenegger and Bustamante. Because polls show he lacks momentum, Tom has no realistic chance of winning.

Comparing numbers from different polling firms is worthless. They each have their own weighting profiles, different questions, etc. At most you can glean some information from movement in the same company's polls over a period of time.

If you're going to compare the Los Angeles Times and the PPIC polls, why not also compare the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll which shows Tom at 18%, only 7% behind Bustamante and closing the gap? As to which candidate lacks momentum, the answer to that is Bustamante (unless you want to count his falling numbers as downward momentum). I continue to maintain that the big story during the final week of the campaign may well be the race between McClintock and Bustamante for second place. I for one would thoroughly enjoy seeing Bustamante fall to third. That would pretty much end his political career.

[Taiwan Bocks]

I must support Tom because he is against murdering babies for cash and against homosexuals adopting children.

No one should urge christians to step back from God's commandments.

[Lancey Howard]

A Bustamante victory on Election Day would be disastrous. The first thing Bustamante would do as governor is increase taxes on us by $8 billion.

How would Bustamante do this without the handful of Republicans that he would need to get a tax increase through the legislature?

An Arnold tax increase - - now that's a different story. Arnold would likely get that necessary handful of weak-kneed Republicans by giving them the cover they need.

[Lancey Howard]

Bob Chandra is a Bay Area Republican activist

How could anybody trust a "Republican activist" who supports a pro-gun-control, pro-illegal alien, pro-enviro-nazi, pro-homosexual-adoption, pro-abortion candidate? I will never understand this. Most conservatives, and I believe most Freepers, will support a candidate who is a little soft on one or two important issues. But wrong on nearly everything? I don't think so.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

And what exactly does it gain California and the Republican Party if we vote for the Non-Conservative Schwartzenegger? Do you understand the damage he'll do to the Republican Party if he is elected? Do you all understand that you're handing the Democrats a scathing platform for the '06 elections? Do you understand that you will be allowing them to shift the blame off of themselves and onto Republicans? Do you understand that Arnie is a RINO and will do nothing but support leftist policies which will make things worse?

We have a chance to turn things around. We have a chance for principles to shine. But no. Some would rather see a pretty boy in office than someone who looks "crosseyed." Isn't that sad? Isn't that a stellar reason to support Arnie?

[poet]

"And you, the supporters of Tom McClintock, hold in the balance the fate of California. Your choice determines whether we throw off the chains of the Davis-Bustamante regime"

Wait a minute, Arnold has such a lead in the polls that our votes for Mc are insignificant so we've been told by many Arnold supporters, so, how can your statement be true?

The split is permanent. Unlike politicians in a hot race, we will not forget the personal insults/vilifications of Arnold's supporters. Yes, I know some of Tom's supporters have thrown their own insults and I don't abide that either.

I, myself, have used the terms RINO and liberal which some take as an insult, however, truth be known, they are statements of fact, not insults relative to Arnold. Why is it liberals almost always run as fiscal conservatives, when, in reality, they are not? In Arnold's case, he says he's a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, how can you reconcile the two opposites?

Social Liberalism is to Fiscal Conservatism as Water is to a lit match.

Both the match and fiscal conservatism will be extinguished.

[EternalVigilance]

It's essential to realize that Arnold shares your values, he's on your side...

Well, that's where you lost me.

Actually, you lost me quite a bit before that, but that stuck out like a sore thumb.

[EternalVigilance]

Together, we showed how populism can work when we join forces.

Populism? Give me a break...

[EternalVigilance]

The reason that conservatives such as Bill Simon and former California Republican Party chairman Shawn Steel have endorsed Arnold is that he alone can deliver us from the misery we've suffered under Davis-Bustamante rule. And these conservatives know that Arnold will uphold conservative principles in opposing driver's licenses for illegals, rescinding Davis's tripling of the car tax, and opposing partial birth abortion.

Surely you jest?

[EternalVigilance]

When the Founding Fathers were debating about measures to confront the British, Benjamin Franklin said memorably, "We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Yeah, but he didn't then try and put a Tory in charge of the army...

[WhiteGuy]

Because polls show he lacks momentum, Tom has no realistic chance of winning.


There you have it.

Our country is being run by whomever has momentom in the polls.

[calcowgirl]

The most recent gallup poll found that 31% of registered voters considered Arnold Schwarzenegger NOT CAPABLE of governing the state. I am one of those 31%. Given over 7 Million registered voters in California, that means that over 2 million people also think the man you suggest we vote for is not capable of being Governor.

ca·pa·ble adj
having capacity or ability; efficient and able
having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified

I am tired of others trying to paint non-Arnold supporters as 'single issue voters' or telling me that Arnold represents 75% of what I want in a new Governor. The other night, I made a long list of the things that I like/don't like about Arnold. Frankly, other than star power and the ability to rally the press and raise money, I came up with nothing positive.

Notwithstanding a perceived lack of capability (by me and the rest of the 2 Million+ voters), his liberal social policies say one thing to me... he can't solve the fiscal problems of the state. Things like hydrogen highways and 'doing everything for the people' is what got this state into the problems it has now and is just as scary as Bustamante.

For months, Arnold supporters have spent their time brow-beating McClintock and his supporters with the 'Tom can't win' mantra. The Gallup poll demonstrates that wasn't true. If Arnold wanted my respect or vote, he should earn it. He hasn't done anything to garner support of loyal but concerned Republicans. Instead, he painted them as 'right wing crazies', said 'the public doesn't care about details', and continued to run to the left. I value my right to vote and do it with great thought. I also resent others telling me what to do with that vote.

On October 7th, I will not be voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger. If that results in a democrat being in office, perhaps next time the GOP leadership should take more care in selecting the candidates they back. They certainly have not represented most of the Republicans I know, who also find Arnold an unacceptable choice.

[Amerigomag]

McClintock could have beaten Davis and Bustamante with the help of the CRP and the RNC.

Instead, the Bush family promoted Schwarzenegger and thumbed their nose at the California conservatives. Many fair weather conservatives rushed to their side.

Shame on you wavering conservatives and shame on George Bush.

[Kevin Curry]

The reason that conservatives such as Bill Simon and former California Republican Party chairman Shawn Steel have endorsed Arnold is that he alone can deliver us from the misery we've suffered under Davis-Bustamante rule.

Horse manure. This pathetic piece of fiction has been thoroughly discredited. McClintock would beat Bustamante in a landslide. Moreover, he is indisputably better experienced and more able to address the fiscal problems facing the state than Arnold and his advisors (the socialist Warren Buffet and tax-hiking Pete Wilson) are.

The reasons for continuing to support Arnold at this point have nothing to do with some supposed inability of McClintock to win or with rescuing the state from its liberal-policies inspired fiscal disaster. It is due to the sheer arrogance and mule-headed stubborness of Arnold's supporters who refuse not only to admit they are wrong, but fundamentally and disasterously wrong.