CA: GOP conservatives reconsider effort to withdraw support for governor

ap on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 2/11/06 | Tom Chorneau - ap

[calcowgirl]

Right now no borrowing is needed and to be honest, property taxes for a while will be bringing lots of cash...

Right now, the state is projecting deficit spending indefinitely into the future which has been fueled by borrowing. This only furthers big government and socialism.

We do have 20 year road bonds in the billions that will pass that will go for future roads we will need. That debt is for an actual purpose that is traditional.

Apparently the majority of the Republican legislators currently disagree with you. Time will tell what is being offered after everyone is finished their Christmas list to the legislation.

Passion and religion are two areas where common sense can get thrown out the window.

What you call "passion" is the common sense reaction of those wanting to keep their freedom by demanding smaller accountable government and protecting Property Rights and 2nd Amendment Rights. Your position is simply totally unacceptable to most Republicans and all conservatives:

Properly rights will be upheld even with Democrats in the legislature because even the Democrat voters will hand them a new one if they try and take private property left and right.

Some gun control is good, mostly automatic weapons and such...

...but the people of the state like occasional restrictions or things like putting serial numbers on bullets and registering all bullets in a state data base to check against future crimes.

With this platform, combined with your suggested approach of just getting a "little bit dirty" and using more government spending to lure the brainwashed socialists into the party, I predict that there will be a lot more "protests" in the future.

P.S. I didn't vote for Perot, and I have never voted for a Dem or third party, but if Republicans continue down the same path leftward, I will most certainly consider it in the future.

[Czar]

"With this platform, combined with your suggested approach of just getting a "little bit dirty" and using more government spending to lure the brainwashed socialists into the party, I predict that there will be a lot more "protests" in the future."

There sure will be.

I take it A CA Guy is not a conservative.

[calcowgirl]

I think the thread demonstrates the need for the party, both conservatives and otherwise, to get back to a party platform. The belief that politicians will protect our property rights or that a little bit of gun control is AOK is disturbing. The marking of ammunition that was mentioned (as a good thing, no less) is legislation introduced by Joe Dunn, one of your OC Commies.

The only way the party is going to gain is to expose the left for who they are and to educate the electorate as to what Rs stand for so they can see the difference. McClintock, Haynes, Devore, and others have written some informative articles to help educate. We need more! And we need campaigns to be informative and educational, not just soundbites and rhetoric.

But it all starts with the platform. I'll repeat from earlier in the thread:

How can grass-roots supporters go sell the party on Republicanism--take smaller government or fiscal conservatism, for example--when this party is spending more than any of their dem predecessors? IMO, it needs to start with the principles and the platform--not the "they can win" theory of candidate selection.

Right now, I am hard pressed to explain to anyone why the Republican party is backing a big-spending, big-borrowing (read: taxes!), gun-grabbing, pro-GLBT, land-grabbing Governor who is forcing taxpayer/ratepayer subsidies of hydrogen highways, stemcell research, solar roofs, global warming, has appointed liberals statewide into key positions that will succeed his time in office, and made a huge number of liberal judicial appointments.

[A CA Guy]

My idea of getting a bit toward what we would call dirty is not running fully to the right.

Look at what we have in the CA legislature and tell me how you think a bunch of conservatives could unseat a bunch of them.

I think this is war, and we are fighting a party that has bought the vote on their side.
I think we have to fight outside of our comfort zone and to then get voters to listen more and drag them to the right.

I think there needs to be at least a 4% shift in voting trends before you can run on a regular basis a very conservative candidate.

At the point there is a Republican/Conservative majority in the state Legislature, that is when you have a state ready to hear a conservative message.

At this time I think we do not have people in the state that would vote a super conservative person in unless they were famous like Reagan.

Sure I want the more conservative state, but my position is the reality of what is says there is no instant cure or candidates that can pull that off.

Meanwhile I say we in main elections put Republicans in and that we should not waste the vote on nonvoting or a pathetic third party. All that does is get Communist Democrats voting.

You want nonconservative? Look to those who on principles won't vote in 2006 or will waste the vote away from the Republican party. That would be your liberal in spades because actions speaks louder than words and those actions get Communist Democrats elected IMO.

[A CA Guy]

You can play games all you want, but the bottom line is actions speak louder than words.
If you don't vote, or direct your vote away from the Republican in main elections, you are endorsing the Communist Democrat.
This form of dysfunction has been seen before in other elections like Perot with Clinton, and it is always a loser for conservatives.

[A CA Guy]

Bonds for roads has been the one reason in history we did do bonds. Another would be to build a school and so on.

We have needs in 20 years from now with roads that includes keeping in good shape what we have and expanding where roads go.
We need the roads.

Just like the Feds found we have a surplus, the State should also find a good surplus with all the new property tax income coming in.
I would hope some propositions would go out there to restrict spending and to some day open up off budget things that get automatically funded.
We also need to have public employees and unions get no more than the average wage and benefits for their jobs, not 50% overpaid on our tax dollars.
I believe in property rights and what I said is that even if with the Democrats in office, once some places try and confiscate private property and some of it makes the news, there will be new laws forbidding it on the state level. The people won't stand for that and even liberals won't stand for that.
I was also accurate, outside of the military, who needs fully automatic weapons?
I did hear California is going to register rounds of bullets by serial number in the future to connect the buyer with any crimes if the future. That is coming as a political issue from what I hear and read.
I like a well armed Californian citizen for safety. I'm just not out of my head standing up for automatic weapons and military grade weapons in the hands of the general public.

The Republicans have to run to the left of what they like to do at least slightly in CA on social issues. Unless you have some superstar running, the people won't go at this time for the full conservative. I don' think the majority of CA voters are that responsible.

[A CA Guy]

See #37

[Czar]

"Right now, I am hard pressed to explain to anyone why the Republican party is backing a big-spending, big-borrowing (read: taxes!), gun-grabbing, pro-GLBT, land-grabbing Governor who is forcing taxpayer/ratepayer subsidies of hydrogen highways, stemcell research, solar roofs, global warming, has appointed liberals statewide into key positions that will succeed his time in office, and made a huge number of liberal judicial appointments."

Which is why the CAGOP/New Majority GOP Big Tent RINOs are in big trouble with CA conservatives. My conservative friends in Orange County seem to be saying they are all through pulling the lever for another "least worse" RINO candidate. No more. I agree completely.

[A CA Guy]

The problem is that you get the worst Communist Democrat in with that thinking.

I would like more conservative people in office, and I think down the line if we don't sabotage the Republicans in favor of Democrats, that could be possible.

We have to get people elected, they slide the voters more right.
The voters at this time are not where they would need to be to vote in our preferable candidate.

I think if the CRP could get an attractive electable more conservative candidate in there, they would do it.

Though the Governor is a good one, I think we could do more to get the State back in order if we could find the candidates to unseat a bunch of the Democrat State Legislators. IMO, that is where the action is. If we can get conservative people in there, we can take the State back.

When you think protest vote, think Perot and how that got us Clinton.

[SierraWasp]

"The problem is that you get the worst Communist Democrat in with that thinking."

Well right now, you and your bunch have given us a Commonist Republican Governor!!!

I'm not buyin your "shades of gray" garbage!!!

Let the Commie Demnocrat screw everything up so's a Conservative Republican can un-screw everything more quickly by leading the Party to elect a Conservative controlled Legislature eventually.

This IncreMental bending and breaking and forgetting a consistent conservative platform for righteous Republicans is gettin us nowhere FAST!!!

[A CA Guy]

Again, this guy took on the employee unions and teachers.
Which was the last great conservative in the California Gov.'s office to attempt to do that.

He got screwed by the voter and was reeled in by that.

At least he tried, can't say the same for out voters.

[Amerigomag]

I was also accurate, outside of the military, who needs fully automatic weapons?

Which, conveniently, was not the point of the discussion or news since automatic weapons have been the province of government since FDR.

The point was the restriction of Second Amendment rights by a liberal, Republican governor.

One fact is certain. Republican partisans will always, absolutely, refuse to discuss facts or ideology in a courteous, straight forward manner. Much like their Democrat counterparts, their presentations are emotion driven and seek to injure rather than exchange or learn.

No developed debating skill, constant shrill wine or personal vitriol can make Schwarzenegger a conservative. No lecture, no brow beating, no attempt to inflict unearned embarrassment is going to compel a conservative ideologue to vote for a liberal or advance liberalism. King Arnold simply has no clothing!

[calcowgirl]

Note to Big Tent GOP party leaders:

Your talking points don't and won't work!

[Amerigomag]

At least he tried, can't say the same for out voters.

Tried to do what? Advance the cause of conservatism? Let's take each Prop individually:

Prop 74: A partisan attempt to provide fiscal relief for local government. What did the Wilsonegger gang do? Instead of presenting the issue factually, explaining it features and benefits rationally, the gang stooped to a pattern familiar to this forum when addressed by Republican partisans. They introduced personal vitriol into the discussion, essentially classifying all teachers, regardless of principles, as their enemy.

Prop 75: The only ideological pure, conservative issue of the four. No attempt was made to explain the benefit of personal choice. Again, the personal vitriol that the gang introduced into the campaign erased the proposition's benefit. Personal freedom to pursue a personal goal, taken directly from the Bill of Rights.

Prop 76: An issue more liberal than conservative accomplishing immediate, personal gain for a select few at an unwarranted expense to the taxpayers. Even conservatives voted against this turkey.

Prop 77: A pure, moderate, ideological issue. Prop 77 advanced the cause of moderation through a clever partisan wrinkle. It was neither conservative nor, strictly speaking, non partisan. It favored neither party yet it favored both, exclusively.

To come to this forum and present that the four propositions which the gang pitched were conservative and that their failure was a failure of conservatives to exercise their franchise is both disingenuous and not supported by fact.

[forester]

He got screwed by the voter and was reeled in by that.

Not true. The guv was screwed by the inept advisors around him, not conservatives. Remember the firestorm over leaving widows and orphans out of public employee pension reform? How about the genius that screwed-up the wording of the redistricting measure? Face it, the guv is all show and no go. Now he is caving into the CTA, and every other liberal lobby known to Sacremento.

Tell me this, smart CA guy. Were we better off with a (D) guv who was held in check by a conservative minority or are we better off with a (R) guv that cuts backroom deals with the liberals, apoints liberal judges, and then gets the party to heap scorn on those who dare stand for principle?

You and others talk about results...you try to scare us conservatives with the "your electing a dem" boogieman arguement. This is crap. Arnold blew it, and set the conservative cause back at least five years. IMHO, we were better off letting the dems screw the State up then supporting a liberal (R) under the banner of "win at all costs." Like the waspman stated, by giving the dems the opportunity to complete the screw job they started, it ensures that voters know who blame. Asking for blind allegiance to a party that is morally bankrupt is insulting to anyone of integrity! Don't come to me asking for $ or looking for a volunteer to walk precincts for this guv!

[A CA Guy]

And all the unions and public employees came out and spent a good part of a billion agaisnt Arnold because he was so liberal, especially in propositions, you saying that was the case?

[A CA Guy]

We are not better off with a (D) Governor in check by a conservative minority.

First off, a minority has no say, your whole thought there can only benefit Democrats.

[forester]

First off, a minority has no say, your whole thought there can only benefit Democrats

Good grief, more spin. Try again.

[A CA Guy]

You think Republicans have lots of power as a minority?

Man the Democrats in CA would love your thinking.

I'd rather see Republicans in the majority and then you will have the power for check and balances.

[calcowgirl]

Prop 75: The only ideological pure, conservative issue of the four. No attempt was made to explain the benefit of personal choice. Again, the personal vitriol that the gang introduced into the campaign erased the proposition's benefit. Personal freedom to pursue a personal goal, taken directly from the Bill of Rights.

I would say it did more than that. Ordinary, hard-working, blue collar working folks who may have been recruited to the Republican party and/or the conservative cause, will probably not consider it for years to come. The confrontational approach has caused long term damage and was totally unnecessary (and ineffective).