Posted on 12/28/2005 5:59:57 PM PST by calcowgirl
The enemies were on high alert and the blogosphere had a juicy news flash: Susan P. Kennedy, a prominent Democrat who will soon take over as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, was spotted having lunch with the chairman of the California Republican Party at a popular steakhouse here called Chops.
"You should know our sellout Susan Kennedy is having lunch at Chops right now with your party chairman - probably re-registering," the blog, Flashreport, reported recently, quoting a Democrat as one of two informants about the lunch.
(snip)
But Ms. Kennedy said she had decided to join the Schwarzenegger administration because she believed in the governor's agenda.
(snip)
Both Ms. Kennedy and the governor also say they support the death penalty and abortion rights. They are both pro-business, and they both insist that the time has come for the state, entrenched in a vicious partisan divide, to set aside party labels and create what Ms. Kennedy described as "a new kind of politics."
Still, Ms. Kennedy struggled with the decision after the governor approached her about the post. "It was a test of my beliefs," she said.
But, she said, "If I agree with where he's going, why would I not support him just because he has an R next to his name?"
Even so, Mr. Schwarzenegger has seen the need to explain his decision, praising Ms. Kennedy at recent news conferences and agreeing to be interviewed on the subject.
(snip)
Ms. Kennedy, he said, "wants to go and make this the perfect administration and to implement my vision and to implement my philosophy."
"And I'm not stuck on my philosophy in a groove, like some people are - like the Republican or right-wing philosophy," he said.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Prop. 76 smoothes out education funding, so that in the low-revenue years, more money will go to education. That's not in doubt... During high revenue years, the Legislature can choose to add more to education..."
North County Times, October 22, 2005
68Grunt is most charming. ;-)
The point was FLEXIBILITY, it eliminated the MANDATORY spending.
Tom was in first. The people who split the Republicans were the Arnold supporters. If they had stood behind Tom instead of pushing an alternate candidate, Tom would have won. Don't blame us for your mistakes.
The Prop 98 changes took the accumulated "Maintenance Factor" of $3.8 billion, and instead of paying it back in the next couple years as required by existing law, it deferred it over the next 15 years. It was just more borrowing, FO.
It really is amusing how someone supporting a big-spending, big-borrowing, enviro-wacko, gun-grabbing, land-grabbing, pro-glbt, pro-abortion, pro-government babysitting, pro-socialized medicine, pro-taxpayer subsidized embryonic stemcell research, pro-taxpayer subsidized hydrogen highways, pro-taxpayer subsidized solar roofs governor can say that Conservatives are splitting the party or promoting the leftist agenda.
Incredible, really.
I should have bought stock in Kool-Aide. What do you think of my new tag line?
>>(A vote for McCain is a vote for Hillary)
ROFL! Perfect! And soooooo true!
Again, please explain how a Conservative Republican, in an overwhelmingly Democrat State, could have won? I will give $50 to FreeRepublic in the name of the first person who gives me a coherent answer to that question I've been asking since before Schwartzenneger was elected.
Calcowgirl has already done that. Repeating it will not make you listen.
Well...EXCUUUUUUUSE me if I don't read every single mind-numbing post of Calcowgirl's. Now, if you would be so kind as to point me in the correct direction, I would be obliged.
Bill Simon was a conservative candidate. Had Carl Rove not fprced out Shawn Steel, the GOP leadership would not have sabotaged the Simon campaign. That he came within 325,000 votes of winning after the most apparently incompetent campaign in ages, with 1.6 million registered Republicans staying home should be proof enough for a logical person, but allow me to provide you a little more background to support that contention.
Mr. Rove hand picked Gerald Parsky for the post on the promise that he would raise money. Parsky had a vendetta against Bill Simon Sr, the candidate's father. When Simon, a virtual unknown, won the primary by 14 points over Dick Riordan, Parsky took over the campaign by virtue of his control of the money.
He started by refusing to fund GOTV efforts. Then he stipulated that Simon endorse the Log Cabin Republicans before releasing funds. Simon's consultant signed the endorsement. That event was widely ballyhooed, even here on FR, and it had the precise effect intended: it de-energized the base. It got worse. Parsky stipulated that Simon change consultants who produced a horrid ad campaign. He also stipulated that Simon hire Ed Rollins. It was Rollins who produced the famous photo supposedly showing Davis taking cash illegally, which later proved to be false. It was the final straw.
If Simon only lost by 325,000 votes, with that many Republicans staying home, after all that backstabbing, it should be proof enough for you that a conservative can win.
But I'm not done!
| Candidate | Votes | Pct. | Spent ($MM) |
| Steve Westly | Moderate Democrat | 45.4 | $10.6 |
| Tom McClintock | Conservative Republican | 45.1 | $2.0 |
| Result? The conservative got no support from the GOP, was outspent 5:1 by a moderate Democrat, and nearly won anyway, despite the disaster of the Simon campaign. | |||
| Candidate | Votes | Vote Pct. | Spent ($MM) |
| Cruz M. Bustamante | Leftist Democrat | 49.5 | $4.6 |
| Bruce Mc Pherson | Moderate Republican | 41.8 | $2.8 |
| Result? The “moderate” Republican darling of the GOP got lots of support, was outspent only 1.6:1 by an extreme leftist with no credibility, the "electable" GOP "moderate" LOST by a margin NINE TIMES larger than the unsupported conservative in the same election. So much for "moderates are more electable in California." |
|||
Sources: vote2002.ss.ca.gov
SOS Campaign Finance Page
But wait, there's more!
Despite having the second lowest Republican registration of any senate Republican seat up for election this year, McClintock's campaign ran more than 19 points ahead of party registration - the largest margin of any senate Republican:
Candidate Party Votes Percent
* Tom McClintock Republican 226,225 61.0%
Paul Joseph Graber Democratic 144,800 39.0%
Here is the last USA Today/CNN/GALLUP poll before the recall.
"6. If the choice were between Cruz Bustamante, the Democrat and Tom McClintock, the Republican, who would you be more likely to vote for: Cruz Bustamante or Tom McClintock?"
September 25-27
Registered Voters
McClintock 49%
Bustamante 42%
Probable Voters
McClintock 56%
Bustamante 37%
So California won't vote conservative? As things stand right now, Tom McClintock has the highest approval rating of any politician in California.
Consider the spate of recent ballot propositions:
| Prop 227 | English only education in public schools | Passed |
| Prop 209 | No more affirmative action in State hiring or education | Passed |
| Prop 22 | Heterosexual marriage only | Passed |
| Prop 187 | No benefits for illegal aliens | Passed |
If you have any integrity, you'll make a donation of $50 to the Salvation Army with my thanks.
You have posted that so many time now and it has done no good when it comes to the Kool Aide drinkers. Hopefully those reading it get the message though.
Couldn't agree more. The problem with getting a conservative elected in California can be laid at the feet of the CAGOP, the RNC and the White House. Conservatives are not welcome in the Hispandering GOP Big Tent of RINOs, liberals and moderates.
Thanks for giving directions.
See post 93. Perfectly coherent, perfectly logical, and completely supported with source references.
If the Salvation Army gets $50 out of the deal, it'll have been worth it.
Hildy, you can refute the data in the post, admit that it's the truth, or keep hiding, I don't care. Just remember: if it's the latter, I've bookmarked that post and will happily remind you upon any and every opportune occasion.
I do hope you send the Salvation Army that $50, but if you do, I fully expect that this will have been the last time you repeat this stupidity about only moderates being electable in California. It just isn't true.
Given this Arizona poster's record, that must be considered a rhetorical expectation destined to remain unfulfilled. But we can still enjoy the cricket music.
What in the hell would she know about California politics anyway?
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.