"TOM McSELFISH = Gov. BustaMENCHA"

9/14/2003 | ALOHA RONNIE Guyer

[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

[ohioWfan]

I didn't even SEE your post #339 until now!

I was here to discuss the relative merits of voting for McLintock or Schwartzenegger for the good of California, when someone made the claim that Arnold's debauchery was the same, or worse than xlintons, and I argued that point.

I was also debating with someone else that it was conservative purists voting for Perot that resulted in the election of the most debauched, dangerous man who's ever been President.

I just happened to notice in passing that you were nasty, accusatory and demeaning to those with whom you disagreed, so I made a comment about it.

Now I know why smart people from outside of the state of California avoid these threads........

Now settle down, and enjoy those fish.......

[savedbygrace]

You continue to miss the point, Ronnie.

Voting for Democrats In Republican Clothes (DIRC) will not solve the problem, or save the Republic.

When we sink, what difference will it make if the Captain and Crew have Rs after their names? I'm serious. I'm seriously asking the question, if you care to answer it.

[ohioWfan]

Look, LeRoy......I chose Wyoming because it is a conservative state, and would show more obviously the erosion of votes from Bush to Perot vs. Clinton to Perot, and in my view, it did.

I didn't say my analysis was failsafe, but when 20% of Republicans (conservative or not) shift to Perot, and only 5% of Democrats, it DOES mean something.......and the fact that the state ended up going for Bush IS irrelevant to the issue.

Perot appealed to the ultra right because they hated GHW so much. I called them your 'fellow ultras' because of your persistence in arguing against me when I faulted them for what they did in '92.

Anyway, thanks for forcing me to do the research. I knew I was right before, but I'm even more convinced of it now.

I apologize if I mischaracterized you in any way. I've appreciated the politeness of your replies. I wish you God's best as you sort out the mess you have to live with in the state of California. I don't envy you.....

[MrLeRoy]

"Clinton won 22 states that Bush had carried in 1988. Among these were some states that Clinton probably won only because of the Perot candidacy. With a total of 40 electoral votes [...] Perot’s vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush’s victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s – Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257." - The Center for Voting and Democracy, http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

[MrLeRoy]

"The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

"This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

"In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

"In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

"In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

"Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

"If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

"This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory."

- http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

[exmarine]

Still nothing of substance....

[MrLeRoy]

"In 1992, the minor party vote increased the Bush share of the major party vote by a net 6.4 percentage points by drawing votes that would otherwise have gone to the Democratic candidate; most of the minor party vote, however, would not otherwise have voted. Bush would have lost by an even larger margin in 1992 if not for the minor party vote." - William A. Niskanen, http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj18n1-7.pdf

[Robert_Paulson2]

Couldn't have said it better...
watch out for trolls who attack your faith, to try and get a flame bati war going, and then try to get you banned for picking on them,

Not that anyone here would do something like that...

We got a lot of self proclaimed "rino" hunters here.

[exmarine]

I didn't even SEE your post #339 until now!

Even though I mentioned it AT LEAST 3 times in our exchange! People like you can only argue via ad hominem as you have nothing of substance to offer. Let the record show that you attacked me first and I merely defended myself. The fact is that I would bury you on the issues and that is why I believe you didn't bother responding to #339. Let the record show that too. Now go back to your cozy little Ohio life and leave politics to adults.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

...A Fiscally Conservative Republican, which both ARNOLD & TOM are, needs to be sitting in the Governor's Chair on Oct. 8th ...to put his Veto Stamp on whatever Fiscal comes out of our Democrat-Controlled State Legislature until they get it right.

...But a Republican it MUST be, if California is to stay in the United States, without a Gov. BustaMEChA (D), and the United States is to stay in the World, without a President HILLARY (D).

...It's just a question of WHO's going to win this California Recall Election, which isn't a Primary Election, a Democrat or Republican..? That's it, That's all.

...TOM was just on Los Angeles TV saying that as Republicans came to vote in the end for RONALD REAGAN for California Governor in 1966 after first saying that he couldn't win...

...so will they now for TOM in 2003.

...And that's THE Question here. I personally don't see a Parallel to 1966 in California, because REAGAN ran first in a Closed Republican Primary Election not open to Democrats. This Recall IS wide open to Democrats. So, whoever wins the first time around here, WINS it all.

...How many Democrats will be voting for TOM as opposed to ARNOLD on Oct. 7th ...seems to be the Key to a Republican Victory ...or the agony of its Defeat and America's.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629

---

.."IS it SAFE?" = President HILLARY

http://www.WashingtonDispatch.com/wdforum/DCForumID1/186.html

[ohioWfan]

I will ask you ONE MORE TIME. Provide a rebuttal to ANY of my 13 points in post #339, or just go away. I have no time for blindly loyal Bush sycophants who dont' have the ability to discuss the issues without attacking the person. Put up or shut up.

Excuse me.....but don't you find it a tad ironic that you are accusing me of 'ad hominem attacks' after posting THIS?? LOL!

I was on this thread to discuss the California gubernatorial election, and subsequently the Perot effect of the 92 election which relates to it.

George W. Bush's policies were off topic, and I wouldn't have responded to them, regardless of your pleading that I do so.

I posted to you in response to your attacks on other Christians about this gubernatorial election.....relevant to the overall discussion.

You repeatedly try to draw me off topic (so I finally went back and read your post), and then accuse me of not addressing the 'issues,' attack me with meaningless insults, show incredible displays of emotion, and then call yourself an ADULT?

I'm sorry ex......but you amuse me.

One last point about Arnold, though. Unless you know he has not asked for, and been forgiven by God for his 'reprobate' status as a young man, you cannot use it against him in this election.....Christian, or no.

If you want to use his pro-abortion position, that is another matter. But past sins which have been repented of, do NOT disqualify a candidate from office.

[ohioWfan]

Thanks for posting that. I'll consider the interpretation of stats given in those posts.

[exmarine]

One last point about Arnold, though. Unless you know he has not asked for, and been forgiven by God for his 'reprobate' status as a young man, you cannot use it against him in this election.....Christian, or no.

He has made his position clear: Pro-abortion, pro-gay adoption, pro gun control, and calles McClintock supports "right wing" zealots. I'd say these positions make him a reprobate by definition! Ahh-nold is a socialist and since he still favors killing babies or destroying the family, I can't find any repentance in that! Can you?

As for your other comments,

[ohioWfan]

Now go back to your cozy little Ohio life and leave politics to adults.

Maybe you should move to Ohio. You might turn into a nicer person if you lived here......

Lots of fish in Lake Erie too.........

btw, whatever happened to the ones you were going to fry and leave me alone for? I really wish you had, because you are NOT any fun to talk to at all, and I really don't care much what you think.

[exmarine]

Excuse me.....but don't you find it a tad ironic that you are accusing me of 'ad hominem attacks' after posting THIS?? LOL!

Not meant as an attack, just an observation. Your very name/handle indicate that you are a Bush sycophant, but anyone who would call himself a "Wfan" (on FR no less) should expect people to assume he is a diehard Bush loyalist and defender. A pox upon me for jumping to such a conclusion from your handle. "Sychophant" is a little harsh since it suggest a servile function, so would it be more accurate to say you are a "diehard Bush loyalist?" It's okay to be a Bush loyalist, it's your choice. I simply don't believe that Bush or the Republicans represent my interests. This is a "Free Republic" isn't it? Or should I just fall in lock-step with Bush when he is wrong on so many issues (see the 13 I listed and that is just a start!)?

[ohioWfan]

Please stay on topic, and read what I said.

I was referring to repentance regarding his 'reprobate' status.....the thing that you have been screaming about. If he has repented of that, it is not Scripturally correct to continue to accuse him of it, because it has been forgiven. (Before you go ballistic, please note that I said IF).

I said that his position on abortion was another matter, and have said previously that I have serious problems with that.....as I do with gay adoption.

I have not defended any of that, and frankly, I have the comfort of being theoretical about it all, and realize that you in California don't.

I still suggest that all of you consider moving to a state that is not in such a mess, and whose government is not so violently opposed to conservative, and Christian principles.

[exmarine]

Well, you jumped on me first pal. Want me to find the number of your first post to prove it?

Where one lives has nothing to do with what kind of person they are. My tact is not the best, but I speak my mind. Our nation's survival depend upon people speaking their mind and speaking it bluntly. There is no constitutional right to not be offended in spite of what the Supreme Court says.

[exmarine]

I still suggest that all of you consider moving to a state that is not in such a mess, and whose government is not so violently opposed to conservative, and Christian principles.

The best thing you've said yet.

[Maelstrom]

Please at least link where you think I've said these things.

Conservatives in general have better reading comprehension of what I've actually said.