Posted on 05/22/2004 11:35:45 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I've got news for ya, Arnie's a first class political opportunist.
I don't know the detailed political history of Darrall Issa. I know he's a conservative Republican. I also know that all politicians are opportunistic to one degree or another. I would hope you're not so naive to think otherwise.
Then take a moment or two. It's all here in our archives.
I also know that all politicians are opportunistic to one degree or another. I would hope you're not so naive to think otherwise.
Nope, but there is a line you just don't cross and then maintain you have core values. Issa ranks right up there with the worst in that infamous category.
Thanks, Ron. Kudos to you, too!
I don't think Arnold's political capitol is worth wasting on Pelosi. Let Nancy make her idiotic comments, and when Arnold comes up with the guns firing in October, Pelosi/Kerry/Hillary will look ridiculous.
Massachusetts is IN PLAY for Bush!!! Having a REPUBLICAN governor will magically cause voters to show up in droves and vote for WHOEVER he endorses!!!
Wanna test the 'Arnold theory' in other states?
Well, I guess every party can use a little pimping out.
Very astute! Successful American politicans are, unfortunately, masters at this. It's called "accomplishing very little, yet trumpeting your accomplishments asif you had, but being willing to share the spotlight so that even your enemies get good press." In state politics this works to well. In Washington it doesn't - all the attnetion given to every little bill makes it very hard to fake progress, and generally the opposition is immune to the charms of the President.
I have never thought of you as a plant, and still don't. Sometimes we disagree and that's okay. Some times we agree.
Take care.
D1
Bush hasn't a chance in hell of winning CA. Zip, zero nada. You can call us names, say we're plants and even...gulp...DUer's. Every year it's the same thing. Bush will lose and he'll lose big in California.
This isn't about how often you and I agree or disagree. This is about you condoning bad behavior and you know it.
Reagan Man, frankly I'd rather not have this discussion with you, but you seem determined to force it, so let's talk.
IMO JMSTEIN7 was spot on in post two when he said, "Interesting". The article on how Schwarzenegger is conducting himself in Sacramento was interesting. IMO, your comment in response was uncalled for.
Schwarzenegger was faced with a strong liberal majority in the legislature in California. Even some of the registered Republicans are way left of center. If he took the route of confrontation, he'd have brought California politics to a screeching halt there. What would that have accomplished for the citizens of the state?
As it is he repealed the car tax and refunded it to the public. He mastermined a first step fix to state disibility insurance and made the opposition respect him while he pushed through efforts they did not back. He has refused to raise taxes. He is also making cuts across the board. If you don't think so, please consult some of the special interest groups across the state who are moaning to high heavens.
When you start jumping on people who have no ax to grind with Schwarzenegger, you're being devisive. Please pay attention to this report. "The workers compensation reform was far more comprehensive than anything I thought would be possible from this Legislature," said Republican Sen. Tom McClintock, who opposed Schwarzenegger in the election last fall and has not been afraid to criticize him. "It obviously didn't go as far as I think it should, or as far as what the people would have approved. But as a legislative victory it was stunning, given what he had to work with."
Your response is to this and other realities is to call Schwarzenegger a liberal. Frankly, we could have done a darn site worse. He's not all that I'd like to see in there, but anything more conservative and we'd have gotten absolutely nothing done in the state. Then the dems would have said that they told us so, and that would be that.
You don't seem pleased no matter what. And these realities being what they are, I can see someone pondering if you're a plant or not, even if I don't agree that you are.
In one breath you're taking JMStein7 to task. In the next you're taking me to task. Then it was a number of other people. Then you're taking the whole state to task for being too stupid to vote in the massiah Tom McClintock. Reagan Man, Tom McClintock would have been a complete disaster.
Tom McClintock was such a schmuck that he could drive away people who agreed with him 100% on policy. I know, because I'm one. Let me tell you something, I will never cast a ballot for Tom "I'd rather see Bustamante in if I can't make it" McClintock. NEVER!
As for California being able to elect a conservative, I'm not convinced it couldn't. It would take a conservative that can string more than two sentences together. It would take a conservative that wasn't so self-centered that he would rather hand the state to a racist brown separatist, than see an unwashed Republic get in.
After all California is the state that passed Prop 187 and others by wide margins. It has to do with what you support, and how you defend what you support. It has to do with your point man. It has to do with a savy public relations effort. It has to do with explaining things in a manner that the general voter will agree with you. If it make sense, they'll back you.
I know that you see McClintock's defeat as the last possible chance of California redeeming itself. Sorry fella, but California dodged the bullet with that scatter brained nitwit. Even when it was positively undeniably clear he couldn't win, McClintock locked up his vote, and his lamebrained misguided nitwit followers took the chance of him handing the state to the likes of Bustamante. Now there's a true conservative, and his cliff-bound lemings for you.
I think 68 Grunt was dead on target with his comments, because I can see precisely where he was coming from. I do however disagree that you are a plant. I think you are a numbskull who has lost the ability to assess the reality of politics if you ever had it to begin with.
Can you honestly sit there and tell me that a McClintock win would have returned this state to mainline conservative values? Well it wouldn't have. It would have simply placed the Governor's mansion in a diametricly opposed position to the state legislature, in a situation where neither would give an inch.
Schwarzenegger won in California. His popularity can be transfered to Bush through appearances and P.R. efforts. As I stated before, if Bush were to finally gain some understanding on the immigration issue, he could win a lot of hearts and minds in the state.
You're comments to the contrary, California is Bush's to lose this time around. And frankly, you are very devisive on this thread with regard to that issue, and the issue of Schwarzenegger working to make the state a better state for business and it's citizens.
For once and for all, Schwarzenegger is not a classic liberal. His fiscal policies are much more in line with Republican views. If he could have, he would have pushed through a much more conservative version of the worker's comp program. As it is, he took the middle road so he could have a chance to affect other aspects of our state's plight was well.
Now, that's the way I see it.
I forced nothing on you and as usual, you're way off base. My bone of contention was with your obvious approval of bad behavior by your buddy, the arrogant one, 68grunt. So it wasn't necessary to give us a diatribe in defense of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Typical D1 BS. You never pass up an opportunity to obfuscate and insult. What a pinhead.
You and others remain infatuated with Schwarzenegger. You have placed him on a political pedestal and consider him the savior of California. That's your right. But in my book, that's a crock of shit. Arnie is a liberal RINO!, now and forever more. He works around the margins of political issues and tries to intimidate friend and foe alike. That is not the sign of a good leader. He has few conservative qualities consistent with Ronald Reagan and he has little in common with the current occupant of the White House.
You call me devisive because I don't believe PresBush can win California. There isn't one poll that has Bush beating Kerry, or any Democrat for that matter. NOT ONE! Get that through your thick skull. That part of your argument is pure sophistry.
>>>When you start jumping on people who have no ax to grind with Schwarzenegger, you're being devisive.
Baloney! FreeRepublic is a conservative website, that promotes the conservative agenda. FR doesn't support the liberal agenda of pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-gay unions and wealth transfer politicians, who want to spend more and more of the taxpayers money on social programs that divide American's and weaken us culturally and morally.
California is in debt up to its eyeballs. Arnold the liberal has mortgaged the states future through bond initiatives that will force the children of Calfifornia to pay for the mistakes and mismanagement of not only Boy Davis, but of Arnold Schwarzenegger too.
You and others have sold out California for a hand full of promises made by a liberal politician. Remember what Arnold said early in the recall camapign. Once he gets things turned around and the budget is out of the red and back in the black, he will push to fully fund all the social programs of California. That is pure social liberal Democrat ideology. If you accept it, you're no conservative.
And lastly. Tom McClintock is a good conservative Republican and I believe he would have made a good Governor too. You don't hide your obvious hatred for McClintock and anyone who dared support his candidacy. So be it. Your disdain for McClintock is matched by your disdain for PresBush. And don't bother denying it either.
That's not quite true. Given Arnold's popularity, and if other things break Bush's way, he does have a (small) chance of winning California.
The important thing, though, is that Bush success or failure in California is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the election. If Bush takes California, it means he's winning the rest of the country by a landslide, so he doesn't need California. If Bush loses California by a narrow margin, it means he's winning enough other states by an adequate-to-comfortable margin, so he doesn't need California. If he loses California by the usual landslide, he may or may not garner enough votes in other states to win re-election, but it still won't matter that he's losing big in California rather than losing small.
So there's no particular value for Bush to spend time in California, other than to raise money and throw a bone to California Republicans. Oh, and if Arnold's popularity continues to grow, some joint appearances with Arnold might help Bush in other states.
Similarly, there's no particular value in Kerry's campaign spending any time or resources in California. If Kerry can't take California for granted, he has no chance anyway. So he mights as well concentrate on battleground states.
I forced nothing on you and as usual, you're way off base.
After reading your comments on this thread, you've got a lot of nerve telling anyone they are off base.
My bone of contention was with your obvious approval of bad behavior by your buddy, the arrogant one, 68grunt.
The only arrogant person I saw on this thread was you telling everyone else that they were backing a liberal. 68Grunt had your number and it's eating you up. Too bad.
So it wasn't necessary to give us a diatribe in defense of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Typical D1 BS. You never pass up an opportunity to obfuscate and insult. What a pinhead.
My so-called defense of Schwarzenegger, was nothing more than an explanation of a reality you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to grasp. This inability to comprehend California political dynamics was demonstrated before, during and after this last election. Unable to own up to it and recognize the truth for what it is, you trapse around the forum insulting folks at random. So be it. Some of us are not going to go silently into the night in the face of your ignorance. If you with to characterize them as you did 68Grunt or myself, so be it. I think 68Grunt can take it, and I know I can.
You and others remain infatuated with Schwarzenegger.
You may be sexually aroused by McClintock, but I can assure you I am not infatuated with Schwarzenegger. This does begin to answer a few questions I had regarding your inability to address the McClintock/Schwarzenegger issue rationally though.
You have placed him on a political pedestal and consider him the savior of California.
No, you have assumed that I have done so, and that has made you look like an ass. I recognize Schwarzenegger's shortcomings and appreciate other things that he has done that are positive.
That's your right. But in my book, that's a crock of shit.
The only crock on this thread has been you and your poor attitude. You know nothing of my policital leanings and make assumptions that bear nothing to do with reality. Then you make extrapolations based on those assumptions that are wildly off base. In short, you're lost in space fella. That's why 68Grunt was right on target when he said you are an embarassment to the name you have chosen to post under here on the forum.
Arnie is a liberal RINO!, now and forever more.
Schwarzenegger is more liberal than I would like, but he is not the consumate liberal you have tried to tar and feather him with. You give him no credit, then bash him constantly. That is beneath you. It is beneath the level of particpant that should be taking part on this forum. What is conservatism if not honest about players on the political stage? You do not demonstrate that honesty. You are not honest about the good things Schwarzenegger does, and continually try to besmirch him whether he does good or bad.
He works around the margins of political issues and tries to intimidate friend and foe alike.
Reagan Man, you have an enormous shortcoming when it comes to comprehension skills. The article this thread was predicated upon, lists a number of instances where Schwarzenegger has gone out of his way to be friendly to friend and foe alike. In reaction you make the above comment. Frankly it's a little disturbing to watch you embarass yourself like this.
That is not the sign of a good leader. He has few conservative qualities consistent with Ronald Reagan and he has little in common with the current occupant of the White House.
Read the article again Reagan Man. I'm not sure it will do any more good than the first time you read it, but it's worth a try. Schwarzenegger keeps the lines of communiation open with his politcal adversaries. I think you can remember another political figure who struck up a good friendship with Tip O'Neal and a guy named Gorbachev. If you try real hard, you might see some parallels with California's current governor.
You call me devisive because I don't believe PresBush can win California. There isn't one poll that has Bush beating Kerry, or any Democrat for that matter. NOT ONE! Get that through your thick skull. That part of your argument is pure sophistry.
Polls... blah blah blah blah. Please remind us how precise and accurate the media polls are at election time. Man, you have definately taken an overdose of your dufus pills today. 1. Schwarzenegger is wildly popular. 2. He will stump for Bush. Is this getting too technical for you?
>>>When you start jumping on people who have no ax to grind with Schwarzenegger, you're being devisive.
Baloney! FreeRepublic is a conservative website, that promotes the conservative agenda. FR doesn't support the liberal agenda of pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-gay unions and wealth transfer politicians, who want to spend more and more of the taxpayers money on social programs that divide American's and weaken us culturally and morally.
Okay Mr. Wizzard, get back to me when you can list one single bill or initiative process that Schwarzenegger has implemented to advance any of the above agenda. Until then I'll just recognize that you're a devisive nincompoop.
California is in debt up to its eyeballs. Arnold the liberal has mortgaged the states future through bond initiatives that will force the children of Calfifornia to pay for the mistakes and mismanagement of not only Boy Davis, but of Arnold Schwarzenegger too.
You are one of the densest people I have seen post on this forum. You really know nothing at all about most everything. Yes California is up to it's eyeballs in debt. Schwarzenegger didnt' get us there. He did introduce and push through a $15 Billion dollar bond measure. There was short term debt coming due in several months and he had no choice but to raise revenue in some manner. Passing the bonds prevented him from having to support the raising of taxes. I guess you didn't know that, or simply refuse to acknowledge it. As for California's kids having to pay that debt off, our current tax structure is paying those bonds off. Our children have nothing to do with it. And you are woefully ignorant on the process.
As the years go by, California's populace grows and it's tax base with it. Over a period of five to seven years, the taxpaying base expands. If Schwarzenegger can cap growth and expand business, the debt will right itself. He has been cutting, something you seem to have chosen to ignore. He is on the right track, and you are simply lost, flailing for an issue to prove you were right last fall. Well, you weren't, so give it up.
You and others have sold out California for a hand full of promises made by a liberal politician.
You and John Kerry and the democrat party have a lot more in common than I and they do. You make stuff up as you go, and simply refuse to acknowledge reality on any level. My post to here explains why you are so wrong. You won't acknowledge it, but then that's okay.
Remember what Arnold said early in the recall camapign. Once he gets things turned around and the budget is out of the red and back in the black, he will push to fully fund all the social programs of California. That is pure social liberal Democrat ideology. If you accept it, you're no conservative.
Yeah, let me recount the recent past for you. You babbling idiots first said Schwarzenegger would not repeal the car tax. Then you said he'd never refund it. Then you said he'd never work on workman's comp. Then you said he'd raise taxes. Well the 'woe-is-me' campaign you been waging is now batting 0.000 percent. That's a damn good average.
I don't approve of this attitude by Schwarzenegger, but then according to you I was a real fool to support Schwarzenegger rather than Bustamante like you guys did. I guess I'll have to carry that heavy cross.
And lastly. Tom McClintock is a good conservative Republican and I believe he would have made a good Governor too. You don't hide your obvious hatred for McClintock and anyone who dared support his candidacy. So be it. Your disdain for McClintock is matched by your disdain for PresBush. And don't bother denying it either.
The mischaracterizations in this short paragraph are legion. On many occasions I have stated that I agree with McClintock's platform, but you and I part ways when it comes to characterizing his allegence to conservatism. You see, when it comes to reality, you have to do what's best for conservatism. Locking your vote away and giving the likes of Bustamante a 10% jump on the only guy that can beat him, IS NOT SOMETHING A GOOD CONSERVATIVE DOES. McClintock sold out conservatism when he did what he did. I'll NEVER trust him again, and you can sit on that and spin fella.
As for McClintock making a good governor, you're still in the 'puddle of tears' phase and we're about five to six months away from the election by now. Put away your dolly and your Little Missie Bake Oven and grow up. McClintock is not governor. It could have been worse. Get over it!
I supported McClintock's candidacy until he chose to go postal. "I'm not going to win, but I'm going to take the party down with me", is not the mark of a statesman. If you can't grasp that, what are we even conversing for? You're have lost connection with political reality at just about every level.
You know Reagan Man, if I were a politcal candidate you're the last person I'd want supporting me. You alienate people with a genious that is rarely matched. There are many fine qualities that I appreciate about President Bush. I have said so on this forum. You and a few other malcontents have chosen to focus on the other comments I have made, where I pointedly disagree with him. If you wish to fixate on those comments and not take into consideration the favorable comments I make, so be it. I can't stop you from being a pinhead if you want to be. Go for it. And please accept my congratulations for your rich success to this point.
Right! LMAO
I see you haven't changed, or made an effort to break out of your juvenile behavior pattern, nor have you had much success containing your emotional outbursts either. So be it. I'll respond to a few of your remarks. Even though the election is history and Arnold is the Governor, its important that conservatives learn from their mistakes and brother you have a lot to learn.
>>>After reading your comments on this thread, you've got a lot of nerve telling anyone they are off base.
And you've got a lot of nerve calling yourself a conservative and then so adamantly defend the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger. You're the one who voted for this liberal. Not me bucko. So again, get this through your thick skull. You do not advance the conservative agenda by voting for and supporting liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Such actions also undermine the efforts of the GOP. If you can't comprehend that simple fact, then you're no better then others. You're a prime example of someone whose arrogance is only exceded by their ignorance.
What makes this entire affair even more appalling is crystal clear to anyone capable of seeing through the facade that surrounds this storyline. Arnold is masquarading as a Republican. Anyone with half a brain --- something you appear to lack --- knows that Arnold is a RINO.
>>>This inability to comprehend California political dynamics was demonstrated before, during and after this last election.
OMG. If you only had a brain. We conservatives realize that California is a politically liberal state. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. Especially after electing another liberal as Governor. But that means little when you consider the opportunity you people in California threw away. There was a confluence of political factions and historical underpinings that could have led to the election of a true conservative Republican. Instead, Californian's took the easy choice and went HOLLYWOOD. The people out here in flyover country sat back and observed the soap opera of the recall election and were amazed by the final outcome. The question we asked time and again. Are Californain's that stupid? And the answer time and again was a resounding, YES!
In such a militant environment, you've got to take the bull by the horns and do whats right. You may call yourself conservative, but you're not really conservative. You never really gave Tom McClintock a chance. The minute Arnold said he was running, you people became engrossed with the idea of a Hollywood icon becoming the next Governor. Deja Vu all over again. A true insult to the memory of Ronald Reagan.
At this point, the infatuation with Arnold was in full swing. So don't tell me that you, quote "On many occasions I have stated that I agree with McClintock's platform., and "I supported McClintock's candidacy.... You don't really think I believe you now. Do you? You make things up as you go along. Now that's Kerry-like. LOL
When I said, you've placed Arnold on a political pedestal and consider him the savior of California. That wasn't an assumption on my part. That was the gods honest truth. You can deny it all you want. The facts speak for themselves.
>>>The only crock on this thread has been you and your poor attitude.
I see it differently. I don't believe its a sign of poor attitude to oppose a liberal like Arnold. I think its a badge of courage to oppose Arnold and stick to my conservative principles, especially in the face of so many pinhead defenders of Arnold, like yourself. I wouldn't have had a problem if Arnold was a moderate. Problem is, Arnold's not a moderate and never will be.
>>>Polls... blah blah blah blah.
Yeah. I don't place much credence in polling numbers at this point, but the fact that there isn't even one poll that shows Bush could come close to taking California in the general election, highlights a polling "trend" that hasn't got a chance in hell of turning around in the next five months. Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen. But I'm a realist. Not a dreamer.
>>>You babbling idiots first said Schwarzenegger would not repeal the car tax. Then you said he'd never refund it. Then you said he'd never work on workman's comp. Then you said he'd raise taxes.
LOL I never said those things. More importantly, show me exactly where Arnold's agenda is anywhere near the agenda of the conservative movement in America today. I've got news for ya, it doesn't come close. I'll make it a bit easier. Show me exactly where Arnold's agenda is in step with the Republican Party platform on the major issues of our time. Again, don't bother trying.
FACT! Arnold's political ideology and governing agenda is anti-conservative and has little in common with the Republican Party platform.
If you're proud to have someone leading California whose pro-choice and supports abortion on demand, supports special rights for illegal immigrants, supports gay unions, supports wealth transfers and supports spending more and more of the taxpayers money on social programs that divide American's and weaken us culturally and morally, then you're welcome to him.
>>>Reagan Man, you have an enormous shortcoming when it comes to comprehension skills. The article this thread was predicated upon...
It was pointed out, the article was written by a liberal writer. I don't see any conservatives jumping for joy over what Arnold has accomplished so far. OTOH, for conservatives this isn't about what Arnold has or hasn't accomplished in his first six months. It's to remind those so-called, right of center Californian's that their Governor is a liberal RINO and not a conservative Republican in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Right! LMAO
I see you haven't changed, or made an effort to break out of your juvenile behavior pattern, nor have you had much success containing your emotional outbursts either. So be it. I'll respond to a few of your remarks. Even though the election is history and Arnold is the Governor, its important that conservatives learn from their mistakes and brother you have a lot to learn.
Perhaps I do, but not from the likes of you. What follows is a point by point response to the valid comments you have made.
You're lost in the ozone, somewhere between liberal lala and meandering centrist-ville. Location, somehwere on the outer limits of the twilight zone. California! Land of fruits and nuts. Carry on Waldo!
Why thank you. After reading your posts on this thread, an insult from you is one of the highest compliments I could desire.
Still batting 0.000. Still oblivious.
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.