I'M TIRED OF VOTING FOR THE BEST OF BAD OPTIONS DURING ELECTIONS.  OR SHOULD I SAY THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL HURT US THE LEAST.  I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE.  IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE ELECTION IS AT THE LOCAL OR NATIONAL LEVELS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THIS YEAR IN CALIFORNIA, WE CAN RE-ELECT ARNOLD, WHO AT LEAST IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE VERSUS AN OUT AND OUT LIBERAL TAX INCREASER IN PHIL ANGELIDES.

AS A CONSERVATIVE, I'M NOT THRILLED WITH ARNOLD, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.  I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME A PERSON TRIED TO GET ELECTED BY ANNOUNCING AN INTENT TO RAISE TAXES WAS WALTER MONDALE (WHO LOST 48-49 STATES TO PRESIDENT REAGAN).  AT LEAST ARNOLD HAS SAID HE WILL NOT INCREASE TAXES AND WILL NOT SIGN A BILL TO ALLOW ILLEGALS TO OBTAIN LEGAL DRIVER LICENSES.  SO, BEING PRAGMATIC, ARNOLD SEEMS TO BE THE CANDIDATE I'LL VOTE FOR.

A SERIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS, BESIDES LIBERALS BEING ALWAYS WRONG AND ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY, IS THAT CONSERVATIVES WILL STAY HOME AT ELECTIONS.  AS CONSERVATIVES, WE CANNOT STAY AWAY FROM THE BALLOT BOX.  LIBERALS WILL GO VOTE. 

WHY SHOULD CONSERVATIVES VOTE FOR CANDIDATES THAT WE ARE NOT EXCITED WITH?  ELECTING THE MORE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE, WE MIGHT GET 30% - 40% OF WHAT WE WANT.  ALTHOUGH, THIS IS NOT TERRIFIC, IT SURE BEATS GETTING NOTHING. 

BE PRAGMATIC AND ALWAYS VOTE.