I suggest you look up the story. The editors of the L. A. Times made the decision to release this story less than a week before the election. Any statement they made that by coincidence, they just happened to wind up the story right then, wouldn't fool a four-year-old. There could have been no other purpose in this timing than the deliberate sabotage of Arnold's campaign, which does not exactly make the Times look unbiased in this election.

As for the rest of it:

Almost every major Republican you can name has said that the person who leaked the information to the press should be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is consistent with their beliefs on security. The leftists, many of whom rejoiced at past security leaks in previous administrations, are hypocrites.

What has been ridiculous is the attempt to lay this right at Bush's door when Novak, the author of the article, has said that wasn't the source.

As for Arnold's past, I'm voting for another candidate, and so are many conservatives in California. This is consistent with my moral positions, and besides, McClintock is the superior candidate. I can't speak for Republicans backing Arnold. I'm no fan of the California Republican Party. Democrats who are piling on Arnold's past, when they were shocked that anyone could possibly care about Clinton's sex life, are hypocrites.

Democrats have never counted the long-term cost on their social programs. Never. To be sure, a valid case can be made that Republicans have been quite free with defense spending, but listening to Democrats suddenly sounding like Jack Benny is still a little bizarre.

I still remember Newt Gingrich being hooted down every time he mentioned deficits.