Brian Janiskee posts this article on Arnold, Gray Davis, Tom McClinitock and the Recall on The Claremont Institute’s web-site.
Janiskee asks the question: whether such a thing as a social liberal and fiscal conservative can co-exist in the same person. Janiskee reviews the voting records of social liberals in the U.S. Senate and finds that not one rates better than a ’C+’ on fiscal conservatism. Indeed, what he finds is that social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives, etc.
Let’s hope the son-in-law of Camelot can put the two pieces together.
"Let’s hope the son-in-law of Camelot can put the two pieces together."
You must be a Classical Liberal. How else can you explain your "eternal optimism" in the face of the facts.
The Facts - Arnold’s Claim to the Mantle of "Fiscal Conservative":
1. His only foray into the political realm, besides contributions, fund raisers, and chairing a National Fitness Program for a Republican Administration is an "initiative" to force a new billion dollar Nanny State Social Program on the fiscally bankrupt State of California.
2. His political heroes: Sargeant Shiver and Nelson Mandela, neither of whom understood or practiced "Supply-side Economics".
3. When kicking off his recall run for governor, who did he "reach out" for as his economics "guru"? Not Professor Art Laffer, of "Laffer Curve" fame. Instead he immediately sought advise to fix California’s fiscal woes from the "World’s Wealthiest Keynesian", Warren Buffet.
4. His position on a "No Tax Pledge"? Nyet!
5. His position for why the State of California needs more revenue - "to fund more needed government programs."
Maybe I am just a pessimist, but I can’t see a "light at the end of the tunnel" in anything above. If such exists, perhaps you would be kind enough to point it out to me.