Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Carry_Okie
DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: If my analysis is incorrect then explain why the courts routinely rule in accordance.

Carry_Okie wrote: Some do and some don't. Just because HCI is successfully shopping statist judges doesn't mean that they are following the Constitution.

That may well be true. I'm not disputing the fact that the judges routinely rule unconstitutionally. But we have to accept that they are ultimately to final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what isn't. Do you see my point now?


DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: The recall election is not a Republican primary.

Carry_Okie wrote: Neither is there a need for an absolute majority. Republicans could EASILY have won this with a single candidate. When conservatives pushed through the recall over the objections of the Rove/Parsky/Firestone/Huffington CAGOP hierarchy they highjacked the effort by putting up their rich RINO pretty boy and then tell the people who did the work not to split the vote. Thugs, as usual. Had Republicans pulled together (as they keep telling us we should) Simon would already be governor. It was the CAGOP who threw the election.

I agree McClintock as a single candidate would indeed win the election with a simple plurality. That's why it's a good thing he's got company from Schwarzenegger. A traditional conservative such as McClintock would be resented by the general population as having been rammed through by the right-wing. It would not play well for the Republicans and would ultimately trigger a backlash that would resonate with average voters.


DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: Simon came up on Riordan because Gray Davis spent millions in advertising to influence conservatives in the Republican primary.

Carry_Okie wrote: Hokum. Riordan was toast by the time he got to the convention. You had to be there to see it. It was a rout.
---------------------------------------------------------

DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: That's why there are not Republicans in statewide office right now.

Carry_Okie wrote: No, it's because Parsky wouldn't cut loose with cash unless Russo forced the Log Cabin letter. It's because Parsky wouldn't spend a nickel on registration or GOTV. It's because Parsky demanded control of Simon's ad campaign or he wouldn't cut loose with the funds Rove put under his control. McClintock would be controller but for Parsky's piquish personal vendetta. You RINOs screwed up the whole election. GOP turnout reflected it. Wanna know why? Read this.
----------------------------------------------------------

DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: I think you need to poke your head out of the bubble you're living in.

Carry_Okie wrote: Get your facts straight and stop buying the Party spin. I'm a lot more intimately involved in this stuff than you realize. .

This all just furthers my point.
You are too much of an insider, too close to the highly-charged factional politics inside the party. This is what leads to your myopic viewpoint that you cannot see beyond.

I, on the otherhand, am much closer to the "don't bother to vote" general public.
If the Republicans want to regain California in the Republican column, then party-insiders are going to have to pay closer attention to the sort of things I'm saying.

Most people will reject both extremes in an election. Whoever they may be. They will look for who is the most in the middle, because most people are non-commital and would rather be seen as a little bit wrong by most people than as extremist in the eyes of half the people.
Our society forgives people for being "a little bit wrong" but judges "extremists" harshly.

Candidates like Bill Simon only turn off the general public. It's all about perception, correct or not.
I'm only trying to serve as a reality check.

597 posted on 08/13/2003 10:50:54 AM PDT by DrMartinVonNostrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies ]


To: DrMartinVonNostrand
You are too much of an insider, too close to the highly-charged factional politics inside the party. This is what leads to your myopic viewpoint that you cannot see beyond.

When you can't win on facts, you try personal attack. OK.

If you don't even know who Bill Jones is, you have no business commenting on any of this.

But we have to accept that they are ultimately to final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what isn't. Do you see my point now?

Oh, the old Marbury v. Madison canard. There's a reason the DOJ dropped the Emerson case. Let's see if you can figure out what it was.

I agree McClintock as a single candidate would indeed win the election with a simple plurality. That's why it's a good thing he's got company from Schwarzenegger.

That does not follow. Ahnold is splitting the Republican vote.

A traditional conservative such as McClintock would be resented by the general population as having been rammed through by the right-wing. It would not play well for the Republicans and would ultimately trigger a backlash that would resonate with average voters.

That may have been true fifteen years ago, but since the development of mass media among the people it has become no longer true. You still haven't been able to show why we need Ahnold when conservative ballot propositions have been so successful. What you don't understand is that the Internet and the fax machine changed everything. What plays well in the media no longer determines elections. That's why your assertions about Davis' media buys against Riordan don't hold water.

599 posted on 08/13/2003 11:05:18 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson