So I’m curious what readers & bloggers think . . . Now that we know Arnold pulled in 47% of the vote and McClintock around 13%, did McClintock advance the conservative cause by not endorsing Arnold last week?
Tricky question. On one hand, McClintock did conservatives a favor by forcing Arnold to mind his right flank until the end of the race. And McClintock kept conservatives from having any responsibility if Arnold & Pete Wilson’s advisers try to raise taxes, or if the Sacramento Dems flay Arnold once he’s in office. On the other hand, Arnold’s margin of victory and McClintock’s low showing will tempt Arnold and Wilson’s advisers to think that the conservatives are irrelevant. And if Arnold blows it, I bet the California Republican Party will get blamed no matter what McClintock & the conservatives say or do.
Of course, who better to run the World’s 5th largest economy:
"Arnold Schwarzenegger
"The Austrian-born "Terminator" star is making his first run for elected office after years as an action hero and bodybuilding champion.
"A moderate Republican, Schwarzenegger has long been mentioned as a possible candidate, and last year made a trial run of sorts by successfully championing Proposition 49. The initiative was supposed to funnel up to $550 million a year to before- and after-school programs, but has received no state money to date because of California’s budget deficit.
"Schwarzenegger, 56, is married to journalist Maria Shriver, a Democrat and Kennedy relative. They live in Brentwood with their four children."
The big question is: now that he has his hands on the State of California’s purse-strings (a.k.a. in the taxpayers pocket) will Arnie "fully fund" his "Nanny State" initative to the tune of a half billion buck? And if so, will the "Teachers’ Union" support his re-election in 2006?
BTW, why is it that a RINO, who supports gun control, abortion, same-sex marriage, and Nanny State big government programs is considered a "moderate", when polls show a majority of Americans oppose them?