Skip to comments.
"TOM McSELFISH = Gov. BustaMENCHA"
9/14/2003
| ALOHA RONNIE Guyer
Posted on 09/14/2003 10:05:38 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE
NEVER FORGET
.."TOM McSELFISH =
...Gov. BustaMENCHA"
........was THE Sign to behold at this weekend's California Republican Convention held in Playa Del Rey next to the Los Angeles International Airport. So I did.
...No Convention Endorsement came for California Governor, but a posted Convention Straw Poll showed ARNOLD with nearly ..80%.. of the votes verses a little over ..18%.. for TOM McCLINTOCK.
...No one backed down this weekend, though it was hoped one Candidate for California Governor would, with Recall Election Financier Congressman ISSA watching it all unfold right before his very eyes.
Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer / Republican Convention Witness
NEVER FORGET
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 821-830 next last
To: SONbrad
Yes...pretty amazing logic isn't it? It amazes me how people of "principle" would rather lose 100% than win 50%. It amazes me how people of "principle" would rather have a liberal in power rather than a conservative as long as he has a (R) behind his name.
Great logic, the way to defeat liberals is to elect them after welcoming them into your own party. Amazing logic? You bet!
121
posted on
09/15/2003 7:47:26 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
To: skeeter
Oh my my. So he MUST be 100% conservative to get yuor vote. Tsk, Tsk. He doesn't "pander" to you so he isn't trying.
*sigh*
He doesn't say what YOU want him to say....so he just isn't trying...
*sigh*
What I find truly amazing is that people like you will continually look for someone that is 100% with you on the issues, refuse to support those that aren't...and then complain about those that get elected precisely because of your unwillingness to vote for anyone else.
This is NOT a primary election. Voting for a losing candidate and splitting the party only aides the Democrats. I thought you understood that.
*sigh*
122
posted on
09/15/2003 7:48:58 AM PDT
by
SONbrad
To: skeeter
Well, now.....Arnold is not going to be able to 'earn' base votes, because his own personal convictions are not very conservative.....other than fiscally.....and he is standing by them.
I'm (obviously) an outsider, and can dispassionately offer my opinion on the matter. Bottom line......Schwartenegger can win. He is better for California than Davis or Bustamante, and he is conservative in the most important area....fiscal restraint. So far, it doesn't look like McClintock can win.
As I (as much as is possible) objectively look at what is best for California, AND for the conservatives in California, I believe that McClintock should drop out of this particular race, and let Schwartzenegger have a chance to win, and then prepare to run for the Senate, or another office where he can serve California as a solid Conservative.
IMO, his staying in the race will hurt the state in both the short and the long run.
123
posted on
09/15/2003 7:51:57 AM PDT
by
ohioWfan
(Have you prayed for your President today?)
To: SONbrad
Never mind.
I'm beginning to think all you "moderates" learned to debate on the same playground.
124
posted on
09/15/2003 7:52:23 AM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: Cinnamon Girl
No kidding, I would never call Bustamante a Mensch, I would call Cruz a Groyser and McClintock a Knaker.
McClintock supporters are Farbissoners, and it drives me meshuganah.
125
posted on
09/15/2003 7:52:43 AM PDT
by
Hillary's Lovely Legs
(There is no shame in being poor, just dressing poorly.)
To: Theodore R.
But it was angry conservatives voting for Perot (conservative or not) who helped elect xlinton, and in that way the parallel is correct.
The conservatives who vote for McClintock will in fact be helping elect Bustamante.
They will be able to live with their principles, but they must also live with the fact that their state will be going further and further into the abyss.
Not a wise choice, IMO.
126
posted on
09/15/2003 7:56:15 AM PDT
by
ohioWfan
(Have you prayed for your President today?)
To: ALOHA RONNIE
My Savior has forbidden me from voting for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is running. Your mileage may vary.
127
posted on
09/15/2003 7:56:22 AM PDT
by
MrLeRoy
(The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
To: Brian Allen
Vote for McJeffords, "elect" Fox's "man" in Sacreemeeento. And burn, Babies, burn! Bajez?! We don' need no steenkin' bajez!!
hehe ! (See #96, 98) ...
128
posted on
09/15/2003 7:57:06 AM PDT
by
MeekOneGOP
(Check out the Texas Chicken D 'RATS!: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/keyword/Redistricting)
To: ohioWfan
Well, now.....Arnold is not going to be able to 'earn' base votes, because his own personal convictions are not very conservative.....other than fiscally.....and he is standing by them. Well, living in CA I've pretty much heard all he has to say regarding his "fiscal conservatism" and I don't see it. I WANT to, but I don't. He's said he will not raise taxes, unless there's an 'emergency' - and won't define 'emergency'. Not very heartening. He hasn't said much about shrinking the size of government entitlement programs, in fact he's said he intends to maintain some of the more onerous ones. He seems to be riding the fence on the subject of illegals.
This state is in such tough shape I'm afraid electing a moderate R will serve no one but the democrats, who deserve ALL the blame for our problems. He presents very little risk to their ideology, plus he'll provde them political cover.
No, I want a REAL reason to vote for Arnold, insults won't do the job.
129
posted on
09/15/2003 8:01:10 AM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: skeeter
LOL. Now that is really a nice example of debating skills there, skeeter! Keep up the good work!
130
posted on
09/15/2003 8:03:15 AM PDT
by
SONbrad
To: skeeter
No, I want a REAL reason to vote for Arnold, insults won't do the job. Insult? Who was insulting whom?
Personally, I'm glad I don't have to make your choice.
But for me, it would be the bottom line. Who is better? Schwartzenegger or Bustamante? Those are the two candidates who have a shot at winning.
Personally, Arnold's pro-abortion position would be the most troubling for me, but then again, the real choice is between two pro-death candidates, one of whom is better than the other......
131
posted on
09/15/2003 8:12:00 AM PDT
by
ohioWfan
(Have you prayed for your President today?)
To: AmericanInTokyo
... SHOULD DEBATE ...Should not! That would be stupid and only benefit bustamecha. The party in California will never, ever, no way in hell, unite behind McC. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
132
posted on
09/15/2003 8:18:40 AM PDT
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
To: skeeter
I agree that Arnold should make an effort to reach out to social conservatives. I understand the importance of big-tent politics, and the social conservatives are very important to Republican victories. But I'm skeptical that there's much more that Arnold can do to win over these folks.
For example, Arnold has already come out in support of banning partial-birth abortion and expressed support for parental notice laws -- policies which would mark a dramatic change in direction from the radical abortion policies of the ruling California Democrats -- but he's still blasted as being "pro-abortion" by many conservatives. Their tendency is to always see the glass half-empty rather than half-full. They demand full compliance with their litmus tests and will not accept compromise of any sort. That kind of stubbornness results in no movement at all for conservative causes, and many Democrat victories.
To: ohioWfan
Insult? Who was insulting whom?Not referring to you.
But for me, it would be the bottom line. Who is better? Schwartzenegger or Bustamante? Those are the two candidates who have a shot at winning.
That is the question. Based upon what Arnold has said so far, we'll get to the same place as Bustamonte would take us, only more slowly. And with a state GOP all the more deluted and impotent.
I'm waiting for him to throw conservatives a bone, some hope that his administration would reverse at least some of the policies that have set us on this course, but so far he's offered nothing.
134
posted on
09/15/2003 8:20:49 AM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: Protagoras
Maybe the 'principled' x-tremes outta look for the door. They've ruined too many elections for us as it is.
135
posted on
09/15/2003 8:21:05 AM PDT
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
To: BearArms
Well said. Bravo!
136
posted on
09/15/2003 8:21:50 AM PDT
by
SONbrad
To: ALOHA RONNIE
These RINOS wanna rub up against Arnie so that some of that magic gets on them
He is a movie Idol....popular...the kind of exposure money cant buy.....
Repubbies and Dems want to gain and stay in power like a freakin pair of Nike shoes
If Mikie Jordan sells them ...they must be good....so pay a couple hundred bucks for a pair of tennis shoes made by slaves in China
If Arnie is a Republican...maybe its cool to vote for others.....they hope they hope they hope
Never mind the issues....or the direction the GOP has to take to get to where Arnie is...
Acceptable to Kennedy Republicans and Hollywood liberals....who acted in movies with Arnie
and are still getting residuals from their DVDs...and re runs on TNT
Sell out your souls vote for Arnie....
137
posted on
09/15/2003 8:22:28 AM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: skeeter
See post 133. Seems like Arnold has already thrown the bones. I guess they weren't big enough, though.
138
posted on
09/15/2003 8:22:55 AM PDT
by
SONbrad
To: BearArms
That kind of stubbornness results in no movement at all for conservative causes, and many Democrat victories.Yet the democrats manage to win while staying true to their own base. Do you contend that conservative principles are less marketable to the mushy middle than liberal ones?
139
posted on
09/15/2003 8:23:20 AM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: 68 grunt
Who is "us"?
140
posted on
09/15/2003 8:25:19 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 821-830 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson