A sad day for Christians in California and maybe in the US also.

I say it was a good thing. Gray-out Davis had to go.

 

The journey to the Right in American Politics is a series of baby steps not giant steps.

Think of it this way - A step toward the right in California is a step closer to God not further away.

 

I think that it is, indeed, a move in the right direction, especially for what we've seen elected in California during the last ten or so years.

 

Since when is it the job of the saints to be in control of any type of government in the first place? I mean, it sounds like Davis had a lot of enemies, and he was certainly out in left field to be sure, but just because the apostle Paul wasn't on the ticket out there on the left coast doesn't mean that voting for a more conservative opportunist was "wrong." And let's be honest, here: Schwarzenneger is an opportunist in this situation, if not a complete political hack in the first place. Furthermore, I'm not saying a believer should not seek government office if he chooses to do so. What I don't understand is when believers actually think (a) they can't vote for a candidate because of one or two issues that bug them and then turn around and complain when you wind up with a Bill or Hillary in that office because they refused to vote for the other guy; and (b) the Scriptures support loading the deck in our favor when they do not. In fact, this attitude is virtually nonexistent in the epistles. Granted, they were written in a time when Christians were being persecuted by the government, but the NT writers clearly advocate obeying the government because of divine placement. Therefore, let me fire the old adage out there: Sola Scriptura. If you claim to live by it, live by it in all areas, including the way you view the government. It is there because God established it in His perfect will and power, we are to obey it, but there is no command for the Christian community to attempt to use it as an agent for change. That is the job of your congregation and mine.

 

Which viable candidate should have been elected?

 

And if you and I lived there we could have voted for him.

 

Notice that I said viable candidate.
McClintock did not have a chance of winning.

 

And I think the only reason is that he got no media coverage. Everyone was focused on the 'celebrity' status of Arnold.

It didn't seem to matter what he had done or what he stood for. People confused his personality with the roles he played. Maybe it was their only shot at rubbing shoulders with a 'star'...

Sad...very sad.

 

Electing Arnold in California is not a bad thing. Neither is voting for the lesser of two evils. As another poster pointed out a step to the right, in this case, is a step in the right direction. Christians have cast their votes for candidates that stood for what they believe in but have no chance of winning. And they have not voted at all. This is called apathy. Especially when a vote for a fringe candidate might as well be a vote for who they DONT want in office most of all.

 

I am very interested to see where he will go with this.

 

And, well, and as shallow as this is and will sound, he is really good looking.

 

I think one of the mistakes made by people is to assume that the Republican party is Conservative. It isn't. Arnold is better than Gray Davis but a conservative he is not. I would have voted for McClintock. He was the most qualified. The Republicans however I think would support just about anyone who could get elected as long as there is a (R) behind his name. A strategy of style over substance.

 

The problem with the Republican party in California is that they wanted to win no matter what...just as Davis did, signing all of that liberal legislation at the last minute.

Was Arnold the best candidate on the ballot? No. Is he a better choice than Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante? Yes. Who would I have voted for? Tom McClintock.

It was said that McClintock was not a viable candidate. That is completely incorrect. All of the polls showed that, between Arnold or McClintock, running as the only option to Cruz, the Republican would have won.

If the Republicans in California had decided to back a true conservative, instead of compromising their beliefs to get an "R" into the Governor's mansion, Tom McClintock could have won. If Arnold had decided not to run, McClintock would have won.

So, while it is probably better that Arnold won, the state could have been even better off had a true Republican been elected.

BTW, my prediction is that McClintock will win at least one of the next two gubernatorial elections.

 

You are working under the assumption that everyone who voted for Arnold would have voted for McClintock. That is simply not true.

Moreover, you underestimate the former Governor. Gray Davis would have attacked him relentlessly, painting him as a right-wing extremist. Davis is a master of politics, and would have defeated the recall completely if he was up against McClintock.

Was Arnold the best candidate? No, and you have already demonstrated this. He was the only one who could beat Davis.

 

You underestimate Gray Davis. Running against Bustamante and McClintock, Davis would have defeated the recall altogether.