Infinite Monkeys

Ahnold has been a little busy. Congress dropped a huge stack of bills on his desk last month that had to be vetoed by August 31, and he felt compelled to actually read them and weigh their merits before deciding on their fate. Since then he's been stumping, but his focus is on state issues. Which, given the budget crisis that prompted his assumption into the Governor's mansion, seems only appropriate.

I can understand his focus being on state issues, that's why I speculated on his using his "star power" in local elections.

BUT. An appearance alongside "W" next door in Nevada would take how long? A quick trip to Pannsylvania or Ohio? The Republican base in California supported Arnold. I think he owes it to us to more actively back Bush.

Its because of two things:
1) Arnold takes just about the opposite position as Bush on almost every major issue. He's really a Republican in name only (not that thats unusual...take Zell Miller for example). The problem is that once he goes on the campaign trail those conflicts will come up.

2) and here's the biggie. He'd probably come back to Cali facing a recall of his own if he campaigned for Bush. Yes, California has conservatives, and yes, it did give the country Reagan, but it is an intensly liberal state that has some serious bones to pick with Bush (energy policy, environment, North Korea). Remember, in the recall Arnold was voted for by a lot of Democrats too...he needs to keep them happy if he wants re-election and that ain't gunna happen if he helps Bush win the election.

Very interesting. So, are you saying that someone who doesn't actually seem to have Republican principles ran for office as a Republican, and people voted for him because he had the greatest likelihood of winning and could help the party out? And then, against all expectations, he acted in his OWN best interests instead?

Man, that just burns me up. It's sure a good thing the President of the United States is a principled Conservative Republican who would never enact a liberal spending and entitlement agenda. Because then I'd be really steamed.

It still boils down to real, not imagined choices. The real coice was Arnold versus Gray or Cruz. That's not a choice. The same with Bush v. Kerry. It's NOT a real choice.

I am disappointed in Arnold not helping the GOP, just like I am disappointed in W's spending. But Kerry would be better?

But I blame Hugh Hewitt.
He made me vote for Ah-Nuld.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos,... er, McClintock!

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos,... er, McClintock!"

Oh, so you're the one?

Actually, I voted for McClintock too. I thought he was the best qualified in matters of assessing and repairing the state budget -- which, if I remember, was the alleged reason folks were chomping at the bit to unseat Gray Davis.

Or maybe they were just saying that because "Hey, Gray Davis is totally creepy," while true, wouldn't have been nearly so compelling a reason for launching a recall.

McLintock would have been my first choice in a perfect world as well, except:

1. He could not win at all. No chance. And if he had been the sole Republican, we'd still have Gray Davis (who is creepy) or Cruz.

2. McClintock would have been able to accomplish nothing with the State Legislature. Arnold at least had something of a mandate and the star power to move the Legislature. Tom would've just pissed people off.

3. And Davis is still creepy.

Your No. 1 criteria is interesting to me, as is your argument that the election came down to real vs. imagined choices, because those seems to lead directly into self-fulfilling prophesy. What's the point of declaring allegiance to a party based on its ideals if you're going to overlook those ideals when a more "winnable" candidate comes along?

Why should the GOP (or the Dems, in an analogue case) bother hewing to their purported platform if people don't hold them accountable for abandoing it anyway? And why should candidates who aren't being held accountable to the party bother doing anything for that party?

If you want to fingerpoint at anyone, my suggestion would be California GOP leadership, not the gov. They're the ones who set up the situation by giving Schwartzenegger carte blanche.

So, ah, did Arnold actually FIX anything? I mean, anything meaningful, not just shuffling around taxes and spending so it looked like he was doing something? Because if not, what good did it do to vote for him instead of McClintock? Because now it looks like YOUR side is fucking the state up. That doesn't sound like winning to me.

Arnold Sucks! And sadly, I voted for him.
I won't make that mistake a second time.
I'm a registered Republican, but I will not vote
for him again. He's truly a RINO.

Yeah, especially since he just called for open primaries in the California --which both major parties oppose -- and wants a $3 billion measure to fund embryonic stem cell research, a position the GOP isn't known for backing.

Are you sure having him stump for W would be good for the GOP, given that he's not exactly invested in the party platform?