RINO or Not, Californians vs. Gray Davis and the DNC's Candidates

FR ^ | August 13th 2003 | risk

[risk]

insert dozens of California location posts here

[risk]

Let's take this off of the LOCATION=CALIFORNIA medium.

[Brad’s Gramma]

BTTT for later!

[risk]

ping to move recall "identity" discussion off of the local messages for California.

TOPICS include Pets/Animals (RINOs) and Sports (politics).

[poet]

"Let's take this off of the LOCATION=CALIFORNIA medium"

Done. You are correct, I should have used the proper thread(s) to reply.

My apologies for the improper use of the medium.

[Carry_Okie]

My2Cents: "You can't fight trench warfare from an ivory tower."

You can't fight any kind of war by giving in, especially to a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The only reason you make the distinctions between an "ivory tower" conservative is that you don't understand how conservative principles can be successfully sold to swing constituencies.

Ignorance does not constitute a case.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Don't mean to hijack this thread but there is an interesting article here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963761/posts

[risk]

My apologies for the improper use of the medium.

Heat of the moment, etc... :)

[risk]

Looks like the same basic discussion over there.

[My2Cents]

Whatever. If you think you can package the pure conservative message in a way that will change hearts and minds, more power to you. I have yet to see a really good example of this, but no one can fault you for trying. I'm simply saying that there is a pragmatic need to keep the Democrats -- the embodiment of evil -- out of power. In some areas of the country, a "pure" conservative message isn't a winner; in some places it is. But look at the Calif. Governor's race. The two "pure" conservatives, Simon and McClintock, together, amount to 14% of the support. 14%!! It's still early, and one of them might break out and make a race of it, but the "pure" message of conservatism doesn't resonate here. If that means we have to get behind a guy we agree with 50% of the time in order to keep another guy out office we agree with 0% of the time, that's the reality and we need to accept it. Falling on our swords in a noble effort to keep ourselves "true" to the "pure faith" has no merit when the state is going down the tubes.

I repeat something I've said elsewhere: folks need to wake up and realize that "RINOs" are not the real enemy.

[risk]

I think I'm somewhere between the two of you. I see nothing divisive about standing with Tom McClintock today. As the California Republican Party's Duf Sundheim said to Alan Murray tonight on CNBC's Capital Report, the Republican party has three excellent candidates to offer voters as an alternative to Gray Davis and the Democratic National Committee.

We are not falling on our swords by standing for the candidate we like at the beginning of the campaign. People so eager to jump to conclusions now could be missing out on an opportunity to really bring change to California's political landscape for the next 20 years. To say the least, with Arnold Schwarzenegger still holding back on the details of his platform, if he continues to have success in the abstract, McClintock and Simon can show him what loyal Republicans (and others who are tired of Davis and the spendthrif of the Democratic party) want.

This is a time for discussion and self-reflection. It's not a time for namecalling and insults among the camps that are definitely going to recall Davis completely in October. Once a candidate has won, we can go back to bickering over just how much government is a good idea, who is a RINO and who isn't, etc...

[Carry_Okie]

If you call the Democrats the embodiment of evil, how is it that you are advocating any different if there is minimal substantive distinction in policy between they and your "acceptable" candidate?

It's still early, and one of them might break out and make a race of it, but the "pure" message of conservatism doesn't resonate here.

Enough of it does that a "pure" candidate can be successful. The problem is packaging by and ignorance among the political "professionals" for whom I have little to no respect.

If that means we have to get behind a guy we agree with 50% of the time in order to keep another guy out office we agree with 0% of the time, that's the reality and we need to accept it.

Actually, Gray Davis isn't as bad as it gets. Even I would give him 10%.

Falling on our swords in a noble effort to keep ourselves "true" to the "pure faith" has no merit when the state is going down the tubes.

You keep assuming that this is a matter of faith and not rational practicality. You've been living in the thesis/antithesis world for too long. There are other options you haven't considered.

As for the 14%, it's a far cry better than it was only a couple of days ago. As people get to learn more about Ahnold, those numbers will shift. The depth of his support is very weak. Fortunately for you, I don't have time to go after his negatives. I'll stick with defining a positive program which you'll see in fairly short order.

[My2Cents]

If you call the Democrats the embodiment of evil, how is it that you are advocating any different if there is minimal substantive distinction in policy between they and your "acceptable" candidate?

The fact you don't see the kind of distinction between the parties that I'm refering to illustrates the futility of trying to debate this with some folks. (I mention this, and many folks here on FR know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.) And, btw, since you're able to read my mind, tell me what the policies are that I'm willing to accept that are identical to the "evil Democrats."

I'm too tired tonight to deal with it, and it's probably hopeless trying to explain it anyway. Good night, and good luck to you.

[My2Cents]

I see nothing divisive about standing with Tom McClintock today. ...The Republican party has three excellent candidates to offer voters as an alternative to Gray Davis and the Democratic National Committee.

I agree with you. I agree with everything you've said. What I take issue with the "purists" about is that if they don't get the candidate they want, they sulk, or worse, say "I'd rather have a REAL liberal than a FAKE Republican..." (And most of my comments were aimed at those who would abandon Pres. Bush, rather than comments in the context of the Ca. recall election.)

Those who won't support a Republican because they represent at 20- or 30-degree separation from the true path fail to see the danger of allowing a guy in office who's 180-degrees of separation.

I guess what's really ticked me off is that some folks were ready to trash Arnold before his campaign was 24-hours old. I tried to make the case that everyone should give Arnold some slack until he had a chance to articulate his plan for California. But some weren't willing to do so. It was more important to trash him out of the gate. I've never posted anything negative about McClintock and Simon (other than the likelihood that they're not going to win). I could vote for any, and frankly haven't decided how I'm going to vote. But the "purists" are definitely pushing me in a particular direction...

[My2Cents]

Risk, tell you what...Your post made me realize that I need to leave the "He's-a-RINO" debate out of the threads about the California recall election. This election is unique, of course. It's a completely open election; no primary; no run-off. It's a free-for-all. As I mentioned, my beef is with those who, once the Party has nominated it's candidate, threaten to take a walk in the general election because they may disagree with the nominee a third of the time or so. This recall election doesn't relate to that kind of situation.

Here's what I intend to do: I intend to listen to all the GOP candidates (to make sure one of them isn't a complete embarrassment), keep the options open, and then if all the candidates appear to be bunched up by October 7th, vote for the one I think is the best candidate. But if the "best" candidate is stuck in single-digits, and the leading Republican can use my vote to assure his victory, I'm voting for that candidate. Now, if there are "RINO-baiters" here who are willing to let Bustamante win in order to keep their "purity," then I have a concern about that, but they can do what they want.

[risk]

I don't think Carry_Okie will sulk. He stays engaged, even when he's in serious disagreement with people. I've taken issue with him a number of times, and it was usually I who ran out of points to make :)

Cary_Okie's good about avoiding ad hominem and illogical/irrational approaches to debate, too. I can't speak for him, but as someone who wants to see an independent, honest, and intelligent candidate win, I don't want to see people automatically concede to a less conservative candidate yet. I'm sure that frustrates a lot of people on the right, and it probably frustrates people who just want to know a candidate's positions before deciding.

I'll bet there are intelligent Democrats who have decided to vote for McClintock just because they know he'll stick to fiscal restraint and avoid contentious issues that have nothing to do with bringing jobs to our state, building longterm stability for business and property investment, and defending our borders. I'll bet there are liberal immigrants who like McClintock because he'll ensure that their property values hold!

By the way, I think California property values will see a significant increase in the months after a candidate as fiscally competent as McClintock is elected. McClintock could bump property values up the first day. Schwarzenegger is going to have to prove that he's serious about the economy. I think both are, but McClintock has a more streamlined approach, in a very general sense; maybe that would apply to a laserbeam-like ability to focus on the economy, too.

[risk]

I guess what's really ticked me off is that some folks were ready to trash Arnold before his campaign was 24-hours old.

Yeah, that's not good. I agree with Duf Sundheim -- we have three great candidates. Californians should be impressed by that alone. The Republican party has its act together, offering such good people. Furthermore, President Bush is acknowledging the died in the wool conservatives by widening his support for the three, as well.

I think the recall is looking good all the way around, and when the dust settles after the election, I hope the two candidates who lose the election will win an opportunity to influence the governorship directly.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Thanks for moving this here, I felt compelled to respond to such 'Bot thinking posted on there, but this is a wiser forum.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Here's what I intend to do: I intend to listen to all the GOP candidates (to make sure one of them isn't a complete embarrassment), keep the options open, and then if all the candidates appear to be bunched up by October 7th

Well that's all I've been asking the Ahrnold Buffet minions to do. That's a wise way to look at it.

I have been REVOLTED by the quickness that so many on here, and in Talk Radio's lesser venues (like Hugh Hewit, etc) who have been so lightning quick to sycophantically support that guy who has nothing but cliched populist phrases. He may get alot better, but everyone needs to let them campaign for at least a month!

[My2Cents]

People are hungry for a winner, no doubt. But it's way too early to decide who's the winner, and who's the weener.

I agree with your sentiments, and I think it is in all of our interests to say that all three Republican candidates deserve people's attention, and that we need to hold-off the cheerleading, and the blasts as well.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

I think it is in all of our interests to say that all three Republican candidates deserve people's attention

Right on. Remember, we are the only side, whether it be the Demos, the Greens, even the pure Libertarian Party or anybody else out there---who can be HONEST about what we stand for. We are the side of ISSUE ORIENTEDNESS and debating the merits of a public policy. We must use that, its the only attribute that makes us superior to everyone else.

I have been getting scared...SCARED by the logical extension of the "rallying behind Ahrnold or you are a traitor and a liberal" crowd that is on here. I'm not saying that everyone posting for Ahnold is what I am describing, just some of the most angry ones.

So I point out Buffet, I point out the "funding the programs" quote, other stuff. Lots of stuff we are principally against, and I keep hearing the "I don't care (what he stands for), he can win, and we need power". I am seeing my fellow McClintockites flamed relentlessly for not wanting this flavor of big government.

When our fellow posters don't want to debate the issues and quest power above all else, my Spidey Senses are tingling, why aren't they Statists too?

Will I vote for Ahrnold? Maybe. But if conservatives don't question his big government policies, exactly who will?