« Latest poll bad news for Republicans | Main | Giulianism »



An excellent article? Yeah well OK. Time's writer thinks it's a "lesson". I should say, liberal Time's writer thinks 2 Republicans elected to office who are not conservative on social issues, thinks its a lesson. How about a lesson on our left of center MSM and their willingness to write a positive angle on Republicans whom they are in agreement with?

It's also a lesson about so-called moderate officials willing to do what they can to get votes:

"Both Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger, despite initial unpopularity (both saw their ratings drop in their first terms) have used their subsequent popularity to pursue bold measures - as Bloomberg has said 'What good is a 70% approval rating if we don't take risks?'"

LOL what good is having absolute miserable approval rating if you can't suck up.


Andrew, Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are what we call "RINOs," or Republicans in Name Only. Bloomberg was a Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in order to run in the mayoral election, and holds little in common with his putative party. His anti-gun actions are but one example of this, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it "non-partisan." It is distinctly partisan, and I wonder how many of those mayors are Republican.

Schwarzenegger has supported his big government programs with massive state bond sales, and is he working furiously to further his regulation-heavy and economy-killing environmental agenda. Hardly a traditional conservative stance.

In other words, these two politicians are nothing more than sheep in wolves' clothing.


Any Brit looking at American politics should keep two things in mind.

1. Party is not as important in the U.S. as it is in the U.K. Elections are more based on the individual candidate and voting against ones own party is more common.

2. Geography is important. The part of the country the official represents will often have as much to do with their positions as party affiliation. Even though Arnold and Bloomberg are Republicans they represent more liberal areas of the country.



I would have to disagree with you regarding voting. The average Republican or Democrat will not normally vote for someone in the other party. It is more normal voter to sit out the vote if they do not like their candidate.

RINOs do get some democrativc voters because their platform normally has more to do with the Democtaic platform. Also Bloomberg had to run as a Republican because he would not have got past the Democratic primary.


Republican run more liberal condidates in liberal areas; and Democrats run "conservative blue dog" candidates in more conservative areas.

So, I don't get what the lesson is.

Schwarzenegger is perfect for California. He is also a "peoples" candidate. I guarantee that he would govern differently in a conservative state.


What really aggravates me and makes me less likely to vote for a candidate is when they want to 'tackle climate change'. Despite what certain scientists are saying (liberal scientists, the only ones governments are listening to), there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that:
A. we are causing climate change or
B. there is anything we can 'do' about it.
Many other scientists who say this is all hype aren't being listened to, silenced and/or ridiculed. Why isn't there a candidate out there taking their side?
It's expected for Democrats to use this issue to get elected because it is a liberal agenda. So when Republicans try to push it, they lose my respect. What I would like to know is what kind of private threats are being made by liberals to conservative politicians for them to all of a sudden push the agenda as their liberal opponents do?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker