Posted on 02/12/2005 3:54:58 PM PST by FairOpinion
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Feb 12 (Reuters) - California's Republican loyalists said on Saturday they are ready to rally behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious political agenda that includes ballot measures Democrats vow to defeat.
Republicans meeting at the party's state convention in Sacramento said they will eagerly fight by Schwarzenegger's side if he asks voters to support this year's agenda through ballot measures, a sharp contrast to a September convention when party officials feared key conservative members would not embrace the socially moderate Hollywood icon.
But Schwarzenegger has in recent public appearances rarely missed an opportunity to stress he stands with conservatives on fiscal matters and that he has ruled out tax increases to balance the state's budget. California faces a $9.1 billion shortfall in the next fiscal year starting in July.
"When he first came onto the scene, I was skeptical ... but I think he's proven himself," said R.Q. Williams of Napa County's Republican Central Committee. "He hit the nail on the head, pointing out that what we need to do is rein in spending, not worry about how to figure out taxes and new fees."
At a dinner on Friday night, Schwarzenegger launched into a blistering attack on California's Democrat-led legislature to get rank-and-file Republicans to support potential ballot measures to overhaul the state government.
Democrats, he said, are "spending addicts" who are standing in the way of his agenda, which includes a plan to partially privatize the state's public pension funds. The largest and third-largest U.S. pensions funds are in the state.
PUT IT TO VOTERS
His plan mirrors White House aims for the Social Security system.
Democrats, public employee unions and pension fund officials oppose the plan, which Schwarzenegger says is needed so the state can rid itself of costly financial obligations to the funds. Schwarzenegger has threatened to put the plan to voters if lawmakers do not seriously consider it.
The plan would strike at the heart of one of the state Democratic Party's most significant sources of support.
"The train has left the station and there's three things they can do," Schwarzenegger said. "One is they can join and jump on the train. Number two, they can go and stay behind and just wave and be left behind, or number three, they get in front of the train and you know what happens then."
Republicans gave Schwarzenegger raucous cheers, reflecting a new confidence after years of being shut out in California's political wilderness.
"There's a euphoria that we're relevant again," said U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa. "The Republican party was doing very well in Washington, and was irrelevant in California for a number of years. It was also divided and leaderless. Now they are united with a tremendous leader."
The rule in question was instituted by the party in 1979. But now it's outdated?
The dems never changed the rule and operate under it to this day.
Nothing more than a way to invalidate the people's right to have a vote to speak as to who they would choose to have as their candidates.
Venezuela, here we come.
Please Don't feed the RINOs.. We just put new carpet in, nowwe're gonna have to rip it out. ;-)
Me too, I'm a McClintock supporter. Schwarzenegger was my second choice, and I think he's doing ok, and if the election were held today I'd vote to reelect him. I don't expect anyone to be a perfect match for what I want, and so far he's doing a lot better than I expected.
A. No crap. The fact that you don't get what I was getting at speaks volumes about how well you have thought this through. Apparently you don't understand the logical implications of the fact that the recall was not a primary.
B. I have been a lurker here since 1999, and a member since 2001.
C. I'm a basher of people who would rather sink California, and thus damage the country, to make themselves feel good, especially when they don't even bother to answer about just how illogical their actions are when challenged.
You make some nebulous statement and expect a coherent response. You claim I dont understand what a primary is and then knock me because the recall was not a primary. Who's illogical?
Again, are you californian?
I actually went back thru the whole thread trying to figure where the hell you pulled that accusation from and frankly found nothing other than that nebulous post.
But that doesn;t stop you from making a personal attack. Typical of someone who is not worthy of further response, and using a tool of the left to disguise one's own lack of intellectual honesty..
I do believe there are tax and regulation issues, that influence foreign investment. I don't think those are the major causes of it. I believe greed and lack of moral judgment are the major factors. Substandard labor costs in foreign nations are simply too big a draw for some businesses to pass up. Selling their goods in the U.S. for about the same prices as they did before taking the manufacturing overseas, the profits are enormous. Some businesses pass along savings. Some of the products are vastly inferior to U.S. products.
If you include the lack of tariffs on the imported products, I'd be more inclined to agree that U.S. policy advances the incidence of foreign investment. I do not agree with policies that see us charges a few percentage points of tariffs on products we import, with nations that charge 40% on the products they import of ours.
As for the military subsidies, I'm not exactly sure where you're going with that. If you consider the gulf wars to be solely about oil, I suppose you could make that case. I've never bought into that scenario. We've entered other conflicts to stop or reverse invasions. We did so in Europe. We did so in Vietnam. In 1991, our options were to allow Iraq to keep Kuwait and there by give the green light to it's intent to take the whole region. The end result would be an Israel exposed to that environment, Syria and Lebanon on the chopping block. Eventually, after consolidation other states would be vulnerable as well. Saddam's expansionist proclivities were fairly well known. Perhaps you'd like to expand your case for the military subsidy angle.
I agree with your comments regarding borders, national sovereignty and representative government.
Let's take California for the test case for the next issue. During the heated exchanges in 2003, I don't remember more than one or two people backing Schwarzenegger because they actually liked his claim to be a fiscal conservative and a moderate on social issues. I understand your emphasis on one not being separate from the other. I also recognize that I and others did express comments favorable to his claim of fiscally conservative policies. I would hope that people understood that to be a 'by degrees' approval. He was not for raising taxes. He was for floating a massive bond. I know that there are two theories concerning those bonds. One of them says we should not be borrowing at all. I could agree with that if Schwarzenegger had been governor for the past five years. Instead he entered office in December with bonds due within months. On top of that, deficit spending was going to present even more debt to the state within months after that. In that specific instance, I agreed that floating a bond was necessary. Today it isn't. Schwarzenegger has had 14 months to get his act together. There's no way in hell I'm going to approve of $1 dollars worth of future bonds. Massive cuts are needed. His neck is on the chopping block. If he can't get his act together, then it's time for him to go. Even if he can get his act together, he's not what I want in there anyway. He never was what I truly wanted in there.
We are in agreement concerning the fact that they don't understand the power of private property and free enterprise. My example of child rearing was meant to touch on the "Aw" factor. The greenies look at the environment and think, "Aw, it's so pristine and were killing mother earth." You can't discuss the matter with them because emotions take over and rationality leaves the debate. It's the same thing when you talk about raising children. "Aw, they're so perfect, I couldn't bear to say no to them or force certain corrective character modifications upon them." Once again, emotions take over and rationality leaves the debate.
"Lower taxes and strong military defense. Me, me, me..." I'm not exactly sure what this cryptic phrase was meant to convey. I'll address what I think you were trying to reference.
I don't think it is inconsistent to demand lower taxes and a strong defense. The military is the one of the few things the federal government is supposed to be doing. Welfare as we know it should not exist at all. If I remember correctly from years ago, only half of welfare dollars reach the welfare recipient. The rest goes to overhead. Medicare and Social Security should be privatized. The federal government should never have become involved. If it truly wanted to provide a security net for these groups, it should have provided incentives that would make people save for their own needs. Those savings would be interest bearing. Portions of those savings could be used to spur business enterprises, the same way banks or credit unions do with savings accounts today. The less government is directly involved with, the better. When it can't promise some new enticing program to seniors or other voter segments of our society, we're all better off.
I'll give you an example of what I'm referencing with I make the assumption the other side may have people here. When you look at who supports open borders, you cannot help but suspect people who advocate for it. The leading leftist/socialist/marxist (whatever) groups on the planet, are for open borders. They want to destabilize western governments in order to install their own ideologues in power. They never advocate for open borders in states that are marxist in nature. If necessary they'll build a wall to keep their people in. A person can't be an open borders advocate and a conservative at the same time. It is impossible. The person who trashes everything someone says who advocates for getting our borders under control, is therefore a leftist ideologue. You can't be for getting our borders under control, then trash anything at all that would contribute to attaining that goal. Those who claim not to be for open borders after doing this, are just lying. I don't have to name any of them to address this serious problem.
The sad thing for me, is watching people you respect lose it on issues of this importance. You have every right to think I lost it. I can live with that. Not surprisingly, I think you are wrong.
I can agree with a person 100%, yet realize that their candidacy is not viable. It's a sad fact of life, but the people whose policies we agree with the most, are not always going to be the people who gain traction and win elections. With very few exceptions, my policy during the recall election was to support the ideas of Tom McClintock, and ask folks to support him until it became evident he was unable to win the election. You evidently disagree with this and characterize it as falling in with the wrong crowd. There does reach a point, when reality sets in, elections are on the line and hard choices have to be made. The exchanges at that point are bound to get dicey.
I do believe that Tom was attacked unfairly prior to the absentee ballots starting to be cast. I do think that was wrong. I am rather certain I tried to discourage that. The fact is, if I ask Tom's side who was the most vicious, they'll tell me it was the other. If I ask the members of the other side, they'll tell me it was Tom's side. Each side will use the 'wink and a node - really really' factor, thinking they're right. The same thing happened in 2000 between the Buchanan people and the Bush supporters. It was ugly and very unfortunate. Neither side came away from that with pristine hands. I do think we need to get better at discussing our disagreements. When there is only text involved, people abandon the filters they would use if they were face to face. They let it all hang out, I among them. I try not to, but I get worked up just like others, and I don't mince words. I'm not happy about it. I try to avoid it. I do fail in that effort.
Well, Tom did make a mistake by taking money from the Indian tribes. The disturbing part about that for me was that the tribes knew Schwarzenegger was going to be coming to them for funds, if he was elected. It therefore became a real conflict of interest for Tom to take funds from them, at least to my way of thinking.
I would be accurate in my assessment if I stated that if everyone who agreed with Pat Buchanan's border policy had voted for him in 2000, he would have won. A vast majority of Republicans and Democrats think open borders, immigration from the middle east and other immigration policies are insane. Pat got 0.5% if we threw some water on it before we weighed it. Every candidate can point to internals that elicit proof of viability. With Schwarzenegger's irrefutable 'star factor' and democrat crossover vote, I don't think there's any chance that Tom could have pulled this out. Blaming this on everyone from star struck voters to forum participants, doesn't cut it with me. There are two main focal points regarding this outcome. The California Republican party put it's eggs into the Schwarzenegger basket, and Tom alone could not garner the support of enough people to win the election. This was not a primary. It was the real magilla, and voters did what they did.
I do think Tom would have done much better in a primary setting. With only Republicans voting, it would have been much easier for him to prevail. I will admit to coming away from the 2003 Recall Election with an intense dislike for Tom McClintock. That being said, I do think it would have been a good idea for him to challenge Schwarzenegger in the 2006 primary. Being able to take Schwarzenegger to task on his record, would have served to educate the public on the merits of the High Sierra Conservancy, borrowing to keep the state afloat, and the critical need to cut spending. Hopefully, someone else will rise to that task.
While it was unfortunate the barbs directed at Simon here, he was sold out by the California Republican Party leadership. They are an extremely negative factor in all things political in the state. Simon nearly pulled it out despite them. Let's not stop there though. What national figures could have helped? Do we think Bill Clinton would have stayed home if a Democrat were in a tight race here? Hell no. He'd have been traversing the state on numerous occasions in his efforts to get his party's team elected. What this tell us, is that the California Republican voter today, has been jettisoned into the political universe without so much as a tether to a life support system of any kind.
Sorry this is so long.
Arnold won the election. I happily supported his efforts after. Heck, I even circulated petitions. Then he crossed over the tripwire and supported the .50 caliber ban. This is too much for me to bear. I enjoy watching him tweak the Dems, but we need more substance in this state.
If Arnold wants to alienate his moderate Dem supporters, folks like my wife, a longtime CNA member who re-upped as a Republican and has been known to mutter dark thoughts about the union leadership, well, I'm not putting in a good word for Arnold...
Most of McClintock's predictions have been on target, and I think you should put up or shut up.
LMAO. Saundra, tell Scott I said hi.
Don't forget out wonderful new Sierra Nevada Conservancy and the lefty appointments.
"My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it. People need somebody to watch over them. Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." Arnold–in a 1990 interview with U.S. News
For some strange reason, this attitude does not seem very conservative to me, but then I don't live in California.
I guess being in favor of gun control, homosexual marriage and illegal immigration is a must for a "conservative" out in your neck of the woods.
Anyhow, since you insist I spell things out for you, here is the incredibly obvious truth:
1. There was no primary, thus two people from the same party could be running for the same office against each other, as they were.
2. People from the same party draw largely from the same pool of voters.
3. Thus, it makes it much harder for someone from the split party to win.
4. Thus, under all but the most incredible circumstances, that party will lose. We were lucky this time.
5. It is totally illogical and arrogant for someone who is polling at 10% to say that someone who is polling at 40% should drop out and 'make room' for them.
McClintiacks continually fail to realize, or fail to acknowledge the importance, of these things.
If there was a primary, then they would have a logical arguement: McClintock understands the problems of California better, and is more able to handle the problems, and thus would make a better Governor, thus you should vote for McClintock.
That would be a logical arguement in a primary campaign. But in a situation where there was no primary, it is not only an illogical arguement, it is insulting to the intellegence of anybody who didn't want disaster for the entire state. Saying 'McClintock would have beaten Bustamove in a heads up match' is totally irrelevant, even if true, since there was no primary.
And frankly, anybody who doesn't see that isn't thinking logically.
Some McClintock supporters actually admit they would rather the state sink under a Davis/Bustamove Governorship then vote for someone who they don't see as 'pure'. I respect them. I think they are out of their minds to feel that way, and think they are too wrapped up in their own ideology, but at least they are intellectually honest and forthright.
People that praddle on that 'McClintock would have beaten Davis/Bustamante' don't. They arn't being logical and they arn't being intellectually honest.
Does this list posted yesterday alter your opinion at all?
Here is the rule in question:
Section 3.02.06 Endorsement for Office of Governor
The provision of Article III sections 3.02.02 and 3.02.03, shall not apply to limit the Committee from endorsing or supporting a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for Governor of California. This provision shall be inoperative if the contribution and expenditure limitations of Proposition 208 are invalidated by the federal courts. Any endorsement under this provision shall require a 2/3rds vote of those present and voting and shall not take place prior to the February 1998 Convention. This provision shall be effective immediately upon adoption and shall terminate on June 30, 1998.
The Rules Committee and members voted on and unamimously passed this amendment. I was there. :
Article III, Section 3.02.06 is replaced with the following language;
The provisions of Article III, Sections 3.02.02 and 3.03.03 of these Bylaws shall not limit the Committee from endorsing or supporting a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for Governor of California. Any endorsement shall require a 2/3rds vote of those present and voting. The section shall be effective immediately upon adoption and shall become inoperative on June 30, 2006.
Sierra, Schwarznegger was elected last year and we have to get him re-elected only one year from now. We have got to allow party funds to be used. He is unopposed. No one else is seeking endorsement.
The amendment was voted on by the General Assembly this a.m. and easily passed. Schwarzenegger was nominated and endorsed by the General Assembly this a.m.
I've been on my feet for three days, and posted at 5:30 a.m. Pardon me if I say BFD.
Why and why? We have a nominating process. We are responsible for getting our nominee elected. Nothing says who that will be at this point.
Why do we have to use the party funds contributed $25 and $50 at a time by little old ladies, and parents trying to keep their kids in decent clothing? This guys sits on his own treasure chest of hundreds of millions of dollars. Why doesn't he put up a couple million of his own money like many decent men before him have done? (no he hasn't done that yet). He can even loan it to his campaign and the party can raise it to repay him later. There is no hurry.
The only urgency at this point is the runaway train driven by liberal activists trying to ram liberal policies and liberal candidates down our throats.
Well, it'sa danged cinch they can't now, even if they wanted to!!!
I have always and will always believe that political parties that endorse ANY candidate for ANYTHING partisan, prior to a primary contest, unless it's one those "open primay" abortions, is totally unfair, undemocratic and resembles "King Making!" (which I think is obscene!)
What if the candidate does something totally sinful/outrageous? How does the party deal with that embarrassment. It's premature, I tell ya! But I'm sure the herd was easily stampeded and no one gives a spit anymore, till a problem develops, which is entirely possible, now!!!
May I remind you (not just you, but you were there and voted) that the majority is not always right, but is always tyrannical!!! Republicans used to be somewhat stoic an less easily moved from well thought-out long standing moral high ground positions. But that is changing rapidly I see as we all rush ever more rapidly toward more and more "Government by Whim!"
Thank you for getting back to me with the explanation. Thank you for being there and participating and for reading my phlegmatic positions that are meaningless... as usual.
Oh! You were gonna tell me something about something to do with the SNC criminal enterprise... What happened???
An obnoxious response to an honest and perfectly reasonable question.
Actually the veteran members of this forum aren't "worried" about Republican Party internal bickering. I think I can speak for others when I say that we are "worried" about a process that diminishes our republican form of government.
If you'd take just a moment to step from behind your cloak of partisan political loyalty you would realize that there is no reason for a partisan political primary election if there is only one candidate. Political conservatives would rather an honestly fought election than a coronation originating in the proverbial smoky back room
Well, thank you very much for the elaborative remarks.
Why the heck ya didn't ya say it from the get go, you're just saying Tom was sucking votes that should have gone to aRnie, even tho Tom was more qualified and actually entered the Recall first.
Gee, It's all so clear now.
Maybe you'd now like to explain how a vote for aRnie was the best thing for the state as we borrowed 15 billion dollars to keep day to day operations going, something never done before and not very logcal. How much of that bond goes to the wall street firms as handling fees , etc, to the same folks that also contributed to the Gub. No logical connection there, No sir.
Maybe , you'd also like to explain how, having half of a stem cell imitiatives funds over the next few years go to private industries for dubious research , at best, is logical.
Oh, and while we're at it, seeing as how ya feeel so emboldened , please explain how appointing a bunch of dems to posts in his administration who were part of the reason the state is in the mess it is currently in is logical too.
You're right I don;t understand anything, Im just a fellar crying in the darknes.
Oh,thank you,,You've so enlightened me.
I also guess all the polls that had Tom as the most qualified candidate in the race were meaningless.
Yeah, I am so illogical.
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.