Posted on 11/14/2005 9:02:02 AM PST by NormsRevenge
In 1945, Winston Churchill was swept from office in a devastating election defeat just days after leading England safely through World War II. As he watched in morose silence as the results rolled in, Clementine sat beside him, patted his knee and said, “If you ask me, Winston, it’s a blessing in disguise.” Churchill growled, “At the moment, madam, it is very well disguised, indeed.”
I’m not going to pretend that Tuesday’s election was anything other than what it was: an unmitigated and stunning defeat of some of the most basic principles of good government ever put to a vote: that government should live within its means; that politicians shouldn’t chose who gets to vote for them; that teachers should demonstrate sustained competence before they’re granted lifetime tenure; that public employees have a right to decide for themselves what candidates they’ll support with their own money; and that parents have a right to know if their teenaged daughter is undergoing an abortion.
Nor am I going to pretend that the election can be easily dismissed as a fluke. It was a major setback in the cause of reform and a major victory for the government unions that are now ascendant, emboldened and unchallenged in their domination of our political and legislative process.
There are many lessons to be learned and to be learned well. But as Mark Twain warned, “We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits on a hot stove-lid; she will never sit on a hot stove-lid again--and that is well; but also she will never sit on a cold one anymore."
I have always said that it is naïve to believe that the same legislature that got California into its mess is going to get it back out. The Governor learned this during the first year of his administration, when, despite a few cosmetic and incremental successes, no serious reforms survived the legislature and the state’s finances continued to deteriorate (masked by a $15 billion infusion of borrowed money).
The governor ultimately had no alternative than to bring this impasse to a head and appeal directly to the people. He could have maintained a façade of bipartisanship, contented himself to tinker at the margins, put forth pleasing half-measures while the state’s deficit continued to mount – but he chose finally to confront the state’s condition boldly and forthrightly. And he knew that to do so, he had to confront the government unions responsible for that condition.
Should the election have been called sooner, when civic attention and the Governor’s popularity were at an all-time high? Could the reforms have been better selected, framed and crafted? Would a clearer presentation of these issues have prevailed?
Those shoulda-coulda-woulda questions are important ones and I don’t begrudge the pundits who are now raising and answering them. But they should be tempered by Teddy Roosevelt’s observation that, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again (because there is no effort without error or shortcoming), but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause…”
Now the watchword is “compromise,” but through all this soothing rhetoric there is a hardened reality: the government unions are now in a stronger political position than ever and no “compromise” will escape the Capitol without their seal of approval. And that means the state will continue to drift upon the course that has already brought it to the brink of insolvency, until the next crisis awakens voters.
Elections are decisive moments in time that record a snapshot of public judgment, but they are conducted in a dynamic world where events can quickly reshape the political landscape. If the fundamental course of the government is not changed – and the government unions have an intense self-interest and demonstrated ability NOT to change – crises will visit California with increasing frequency and intensity. In such an environment, the politics of the state could shift very rapidly.
Whatever the Governor does in response to the election, it is imperative that he levels with the people on the actual fiscal condition of the state and that he is very clear and uncompromising in presenting the solutions that must ultimately resolve it. And when watered-down and meaningless changes are all that emerge from the legislature, he must resist the temptation to proclaim them as anything more.
We humans are creatures of habit. We instinctively resist change and engineer our institutions of government to resist it as well. Change occurs in a society only after the necessity for it finally overcomes our own resistance. That is why serious reforms only come in a state of agitation – and why the recall succeeded in 2003, while the reforms to consummate that recall failed two years later. The recall proceeded while the public perceived a crisis and the reforms were attempted when they did not.
When the next crisis comes, the Governor will find a new appreciation among Californians for what he was trying to do in this election, and a more receptive electorate to do so in the next.
I've criticized some specimens in both camps. What's your point?
I remember you celebrating farmfriend getting banned because you were opposed to what she said about Arnold. I think coming out now in favor of Mcclintock is disingenuous.
Well, we can probably guess, can we not?
Overall, it will be the GOP Big Tent RINOs, liberals and moderates, aided by the wealthy silk sock, Bob Michael go-along-to-get-along country club, party-over-principle New Majority pecksniffs, and buttressed by the entirely useless CAGOP presided over by Uber RINO Duf Sundheim. With this pack of useless twits at the controls, I wouldn't be surprised if they did take a run at elbowing Tom McClintock aside.
You are referencing an unsupported allegation, written by a poster who refused to support his baseless comments on this thread despite being asked to do so repeatedly, and who was provided evidence to the contrary.
*Laughs in your face*
I remember that farmfriend was banned for ludicrous tinfoil-hattery directly attacking the folks who run FR. He/she/it was simply a troublemaker, in the last analysis.
"I think coming out now in favor of [farmfriend] now is" reason for me to ignore everything you ever say.
Not that I give two squirts about what YOU think, but: I always preferred McClintock and always said so. But I feared he could not win in '03 -- and I feared BustaMecha more than had hope that Tom somehow could pull it out. That said: '06 won't be a recall election, so it's different: a majority is required to win, not just a plurality.
Now go get the last word, troll. I just won't be reading it, or anything else you ever post. I have more important things to do!
2008? Whoops. I glossed right over that. Good point.
I agree on all points.
OK--lets start with you, having demonstrated previously that you failed to make the cut as a loyal American conservative. Consequently, you are no conservative.
There--feel better, Ms. Quisling?
I haven't seen a single poster on FR exhibit that mentality. Of whom do you speak, and what support do you have for such a conclusion?
Outrageous falsehood, anyone?
McClintock Syndrome...Tancredo Syndrome...Buchanan Syndrome...
When has Tom Tancredo lost an election?
Well, if you have seen it, post a link. If not, quit posting baseless allegations.
From your referenced quote:
Most of those so called California conservative critics, who didn't vote and stayed home in a temper tantrum... They spend more time stabbing Arnold and GW in the back than eliminating liberals.Opposing some of the measures based on the issue (not the man), while supporting other measures, does not qualify.
Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.
Oh yes, that's right, Conservatives can't win in Californa....Well obviously, neither can RINO(s).....
Gee, what a shame...
Even McClintock seems to be giving credit to Arnold for doing battle on these issues. Yet some of McClintocks' supporters refuse to take their cue from their own guy, and still want to refight the last gubernatorial election. They had a chance to actually vote for the stuff they claim to believe in, yet they stayed home in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum. How short-sighted and juvenile can you get.
Agreed. See post 175 for your hornet's nest.
(1) conservatives did indeed vote for 73-75, and to a lesser extent for 76-77 too,
nevertheless
(2) they didn't do the other things that more-strongly-motivated folks do to help win elections, such as contribute to Propositions' ad campaigns, volunteer to stuff mailers and walk precincts, etc.
It is just so frustrating. I love it when Arnold DOES do something to block leftist excesses in this state ("on Tuesdays and alternate Wednesdays," is my semi-joke about his inconstancy), but he's so in love with being LIKED that he can't stand to be consistent. The day after he votoes a greedball leftist bill, he goes and stumps for something leftish -- and a lot of the time I don't think he really even believes in it (i.e., that he's really more conservative, in his heart, but hasn't the courage to BE conservative in his job).
I think you're right.
I was feeling sorry for the rest of the state who doesn't get to hear him.
Roger's info was so much more reliable than Free Republic, because, like Tom McClintock, he understood the gravity of this election and didn't stoop to eviscerating Arnold via the props.
"Even McClintock seems to be giving credit to Arnold for doing battle on these issues. Yet some of McClintocks' supporters refuse to take their cue from their own guy, and still want to refight the last gubernatorial election. They had a chance to actually vote for the stuff they claim to believe in, yet they stayed home in the political equivalent of a temper tantrum. How short-sighted and juvenile can you get."
Tom worked hard to get these props passed. He had excellent radio commercials, and this oped was excellent.
The Donner Party Division needs some repubie for lunch or they don't feel good.
What GOTV program?
I got door hangers for 26 established precincts (along with an excellent walk list - credit where due-), but we normally serve 103 precincts.
We lost this one the old fashioned way. Spend all of your money on the media, and forget the ground game. It's getting boring to watch the state party make the same stupid, consultant-driven mistakes ever single freakin' time.
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.