August 30, 2003

Arnold wins over another one

Too bad for Arnold that he lives in Pennsylvania but AlexC, over at pstupidonymous is coming around to supporting Arnold's gubernatorial adventure:

So, is he a traditional Republican?

He supports abortion, but not partial birth. He's pro-Brady bill.

However, he's pro school vouchers, pro cutting budget, tax cuts are at least open for discussion, doesn't support gay marriage.

In a strange quote for a non-biased media outlet like CNN, they say this...

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman," he said, a misstatement in a rush to keep up with the staccato-like delivery of the questions.

While, factually it is correct. That is precisely what he said in the interview, the fact that they point it out is very strange.


Hmm, Alex. I consider myself a pretty traditional Republican and most of his stands sound pretty good. Abortion but not partial birth is a reasonable position. I have no problem with gay marriage. I wish he didn't support the Brady Bill but he wont lose me over it. And I agree with you that this is California. He is conservative enough.

I heard Cruz Bustamante on NPR yesterday (imagine that) and he is scary. He wants the state to regulate gasoline prices. Presumably, they did so well on electricity...
The other GOP candidates should pull out and my friends at National Review, whom I respect dearly, should stop pushing McClintock. Arnold is the best shot at keeping California from economically falling into the ocean.

Posted by jk at August 30, 2003 10:21 AM
Comments

Personally, I think it might be good for America to see California "economically fall into the ocean." What better illustration of the natural outcome of collectivist politics in modern America?

Posted by: johngalt at August 31, 2003 10:38 PM

Consider them our largest trading partner. My technology start-up will need to sell into California to prosper. They could bring down the whole recovery -- certainly the technology sector.

It will be bad enough for us when "Old Europe" caves but it should provide the Hayekian proof you seek. California is too close. Let Arnold save the day with Friedmanite economics.

Wow, I got Hayek and Friedman into a short comment -- that's 20 points for jk...

Posted by: jk at September 1, 2003 09:38 AM

As I had commented in an earlier blog, I was hoping that California would experience an Atlas Shrugged like collapse. Sadly, as JK says, it's too close.
Bah... Who is John Galt anyway?

Posted by: AlexC at September 1, 2003 01:24 PM

I think John Galt would be more correct in stating that the current economic failures in California are a result of democratic politics. By this I mean that much of the problem lies in the application of pure democracy as opposed to the system of a republic. Californians have grown increasingly enamored of the referendum, bypassing their own legislature to bring issues before the electorate at large. As such, much popular legislation has been enacted without the debate and more importantly, budgeting of an informed legislature. A classic democrat vs republican argument if there ever was one. Interesting though that so many republicans are so stronly in favor of the recall, by definition a democratic maneuver. Perhaps partisianship trumps idealogy.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at September 2, 2003 03:27 PM

Hmm, Silence, some agreement between us.

Yes, California has "too much democracy." I know you're a Fareed Zakaria fan, his new book on that topic is very good. I think the Hamiltonians are getting at good laugh at Mr. Jefferson over plebisciary fever in the Golden State.

But I have to say that it appears to me that Sacramento is so completely unresponsive, that the referenda have been the only choice for Californians.

So, while I'm a Hamiltonian Federalist (at least as far as Jay...) I think perhaps that an ultimate recourse to raw democracy is good in limited doses.

Posted by: jk at September 4, 2003 04:30 PM
| What do you think? [5]