Posted on 02/20/2006 3:21:04 PM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - Typically in California, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor don't campaign as running mates -- but you would never guess it by watching Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock lately.
The 2006 campaign is still young, but Schwarzenegger, the incumbent governor seeking an uncertain re-election, and McClintock, a state senator from Ventura County running for lieutenant governor, look very much like a tag team.
Personal friendship -- and political necessity -- have forged an alliance between the two that mirrors a presidential-vice presidential slate, with each shoring up the other's weaknesses.
Schwarzenegger helps boost McClintock's visibility and fund-raising ability. McClintock, in turn, has recently rushed in to aid Schwarzenegger by tamping down trouble from his right flank.
"There is a mutual-needs society going on here," said veteran Democratic strategist Kam Kuwata. "One guy has the bottle of milk. The other guy has the glass. You need both to drink the milk."
It wasn't always this way.
Just three years ago, the pair competed to replace Gov. Gray Davis in the recall election.
McClintock was the sometimes bristly, uncompromising conservative who won over many Californians with his principles, even though his social views were out of sync with many voters. Schwarzenegger was the charismatic moderate, who took the state by storm with his unique brand of star power, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.
Schwarzenegger was elected with more than 48 percent of the vote, while McClintock received almost 14 percent.
A few months later, McClintock wrote the ballot arguments against the Schwarzenegger-sponsored Propositions 57 and 58, a bond-and-balanced-budget package. He thought the measures would allow lawmakers to postpone tough budget choices.
But time and perhaps political expediency appear to have healed all wounds.
The men are said to have developed a warm friendship. And they appear tighter than ever as the California Republican Party convention in San Jose approaches this weekend.
"Together, they are greater than the sum of their individual political parts," said Republican political consultant Dan Schnur. "Schwarzenegger may not have picked a running mate like he would have in a presidential campaign, but McClintock provides him the same balance that a running mate would."
But will a ticket approach fly in a state where voters view the offices as so separate that they frequently elect governors and lieutenant governors from opposing parties in the same election? It's hard to say. Past legislative efforts to have the two statewide officers run as a slate have gone nowhere.
Same-party candidates for governor and lieutenant governor here mainly do their own thing. They may team up at conventions and scattered events, but their campaigns are distinct.
So far, this year is an aberration.
The two men have separate campaign arms, but "they are running as a de facto ticket," said GOP consultant Kevin Spillane.
The coming months will tell whether the alliance is short term or more lasting.
"Gov. Schwarzenegger and Sen. McClintock are good friends," said Steve Schmidt, the campaign manager for the governor's re-election effort. "Sen. McClintock will be the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor. They're going to work together during the campaign. No two running mates ever agree on every issue, but Gov. Schwarzenegger is pleased to have Tom McClintock beside him."
McClintock, whose profile was raised in the 2003 recall, is usually a weak fund-raiser who has come oh-so-close to winning the state controller's office -- only to fail twice. This year could be his last real shot at winning a statewide post.
Schwarzenegger, a prodigious fund-raiser, helped McClintock amass about $500,000 for his 2004 Senate race. This year, McClintock has been invited to meet-and-greets with well-heeled Schwarzenegger donors.
The governor could also help generate publicity for McClintock and earn him crossover appeal with independents and Democrats. If the governor solidly wins re-election, McClintock and other Republican candidates for statewide office could ride his coattails.
"If it's a bad year for Schwarzenegger, it's kind of hard to see how McClintock would win anyway," said Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney, a former Republican policy analyst. "If it's a good year for Schwarzenegger, the alliance could work to McClintock's benefit."
After last year's disastrous special election, which alienated many Democrats, independents and dispirited conservatives, Schwarzenegger could use a boost too.
The governor recently faced an uprising from some members of his party's right wing -- an attempt to have the GOP revoke its endorsement of Schwarzenegger unless he dumped his new Democratic chief of staff. The insurgency threatened to overshadow the coming convention.
McClintock, revered as an icon in some California conservative circles, had the governor's back.
The senator sent a missive in support of Schwarzenegger to 1,400 convention delegates and signed on to another, similar letter from GOP candidates for statewide office. He recently arranged a conference call with the influential California Republican Assembly, whose members were agitating to yank the governor's endorsement. McClintock also attended a closed-door meeting last week at the Sacramento Hyatt among Schwarzenegger, his campaign team and the county GOP leaders.
The long-shot push to rescind the endorsement died down, and McClintock was a "linchpin" in restoring the peace, one of the governor's aides said.
McClintock's reputation for being unwavering in his beliefs could also rub off on Schwarzenegger, who has been criticized for zigging and zagging left and right.
The strategy, though, carries some risk. If the public associates them as a team, either man could suffer if the other bungles.
McClintock -- both revered and scorned for his loner nature -- could lose credibility if he's seen as compromising his principles to elevate Schwarzenegger.
Thus far, he's avoided that trap. Earlier this year, McClintock made their differences clear -- the governor's budget proposal, he said, "digs a bigger hole" in the state's finances.
Still, "I will do everything I can to see that this governor is re-elected," McClintock said recently. "And I'll do everything I can to offer alternatives when I disagree with specific proposals."
There's also a chance that opponents could try to use some of McClintock's views -- opposition to abortion, for example -- to tar Schwarzenegger as he tries to win over moderates and independents. But pro-choice Californians could always split the ticket.
Most analysts think the risks are few, and the dividends could be ample.
"We've always said we were the Big Tent party, and that's true," said veteran Republican strategist Ken Khachigian, who was President Reagan's chief speechwriter. Plus, "the closer you get to elections, the more pragmatic people get."
As for your challenge, "Prove it! Show me the links!" I don't need to prove it, I know and remember what I read. If you were ignoring the same stuff at the time, too bad.
Which words of mine rate as "hate-filled vitriol?" Unless you consider the term "pig-headed" and accusing folks of confusing pride with principle, a vitriolic thing? What I have is contempt for conservatives who will vote for and support no one but the perfectly conservative candidate; when the guy as near to perfect as it gets, Tom McClintock, tries to partner with Arnold, they imply that he's selling out -- and they do it in the name of "principle." They refused to vote for Arnold because of "principle" -- had enough of them taken that "princpled" line in the recall, Cruz Bustamonte would be our governer and there's a chance Gore would be our president because of the economic damage Cruz would have wrought on this major part of the American economy, which would have been blamed on Bush.
You threw in a reference to "Koolaid drinkers," which I think is only slightly closer to vitriolic than the term "pig-headed." You link to poll discussions and analysys and comments that the timing was off .. that if it hadn't been a special election the oppostion wouldn't have had as much time to pool their resources, etc. etc. ... and you wonder why I regard your defense as built on red herrings, excuses, and polls. I don't give a rat's patoot about analysis and polls. I do care about encouraging fellow conservatives to go out and vote for what's right even if it's not perfect.
Then you point out that the most conservative measures lost by the smallest margin ... again and again, it must have gone over your head, but on talk radio, in letters to the editor, and in posts on FR, I heard conservatives saying "Bah, I'm staying home, Arnold is too liberal for me." Makes me think that if they'd been a little more principled than prideful, those measures would have passed.
I do question the true motives of those who endorse and support a big spending, big borrowing, gun grabbing, land grabbing, pro-homosexual, taxpayer subsidizing global warming fanatic.
Which of the Special Election propositions sponsored by Arnold were going to do any of those things? Would Cruz Bustamonte have been less a big spending, big borrowing, gun grabbing, land grabbing, pro-homosexual, taxpayer subsidizing global warming fanatic? Because if the "principled" conservatives had had their way, he'd be there instead of Arnold, whom I call a RINO along with a whole lot of other conservatives, including probably Tom McClintock!
Have ya ever actually dealt in facts?
Have ya honestly ever done any research on your own?
It doesn't seem like it from a quick review of your last couple posts.
Cruz would have bankrupted the Ca economy and Bush would have got blamed for it. lolol
That's a good one. lolol
Which of the measures didn't you support?
Would Cruz Bustamonte have been less a big spending, big borrowing, gun grabbing, land grabbing, pro-homosexual, taxpayer subsidizing global warming fanatic?
---
Cruz can't even spell half the words in that sentence much less understand what they are about.
Yet you want to give him the benefit of the doubt and cut down conservatives just because of principles and their beliefs, amazing.. and you are conservative? The GUb is delivering what sits his backers, many gay and green, btw, so why rock the boat now, huh?
You do know this is a conservative forum, not a moderate or leftist one or one owned by the New Majority, ever heard of them?.
The GUb has done as much if not more to advance a leftist agenda in 2 years than Gray did in 1 and a half terms. Check it out.
Oh, that's right. You only believe want you want to, at least that's what it seems.
Did you vote for everyone proposed? Where is your critical thinking. did you sell it just for a win? too bad
That's a pretty weak attempt to debate by asking questions and not responding yourself, btw. we can play that game all night.
The GUb is delivering what suits sits his backers, many gay and green
Brilliant move by the both of them IMO.
That would be one way for McClintock to be more known for a run as Gov. years from now, and Arnold benefits from some of the McC's followers coming to hear him and getting exposure for the Gov.
Few conservatives could respond to the request because they honestly don't recognize the descriptions. Here's a bit more accurate analysis taken from an earlier discussion
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.
The bold highlights are mine and give an indication of the way conservatives might vote. At a minimum conservatives voted NO on Prop 76 and others may have also voted NO on Prop 77.
Certainly not good enough for the California Ilk herd. They will try to divide the right and totally neutralize any chance of victory. Now, the faux-bull has a perfect chance to attack the credibility of the epitome of a California conservative. The 'California conservatives', who you generalize together with all California conservatives are in reality, fifth columnists. Their goal is the complete defeat of all things conservative and republican. As long as they can keep stirring the pot, they can contribute to what you called 'such a sorry state'.
Now I understand the private mail I'm getting that says for a long time several FReepers have considered Amerigomag and Calcowgirl as Democrats. Et tu, Revenge? All the rhetoric and red herrings are illusion. These are the facts: Arnold put measures on the ballot that would have helped the conservative cause in California, and they didn't pass.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp? What "research" and "facts" make that false?
With Conservatives like you snarling at an imperfect but better-than-Cruz governor and bullying any who support him, who needs Liberals?
I and at least one other person who has FReepmailed me think on no uncertain terms that the measures didn't pass in good part becuase of "conservatives" who discouraged conservatives from at least trying to make this a better state on anything less than perfectly conservative terms. You are blind if you don't understand that there are millions of us out here who blame folks like you. You're worse for conservatives than Liberals -- probably why so many think you're Liberals posing as conservatives. You haven't done one thing to make Conservatism stronger in California, and blame everyone else when Liberals get and keep the upper hand. It's that simple.
I'm off this thread. Crow your "victory" that you've beaten this "new kick-toy" as you work to bring California even further to its knees with your prideful stupidity.
I supported props 73 (parental notification), 74 (teacher tenure), and 75 (public employee union dues).
I opposed the CRP's recommendation to vote for Props 76 (more borrowing, increased spending), 77 (flawed law) and 78 (socialized medicine)
As for your challenge, "Prove it! Show me the links!" I don't need to prove it, I know and remember what I read. If you were ignoring the same stuff at the time, too bad.
Another unsupported contention. 2 for 2.
Which words of mine rate as "hate-filled vitriol?" Unless you consider the term "pig-headed" and accusing folks of confusing pride with principle, a vitriolic thing?
See post 25. All of that venom for conservatives.
What I have is contempt for conservatives who will vote for and support no one but the perfectly conservative candidate
It seems much more widespread. I don't expect perfect. I have already stated that I would vote for a candidate who supports 75% or more of the Republican platform. Unfortunately, the current choice the CRP has endorsed does not even approach 50%, and that rating would be generous.
They refused to vote for Arnold because of "principle" -- had enough of them taken that "princpled" line in the recall, Cruz Bustamonte would be our governer and there's a chance Gore would be our president because of the economic damage Cruz would have wrought on this major part of the American economy, which would have been blamed on Bush.
I refused to vote for Arnold because he was a liberal. He said he was a "fiscal conservative", but there was plenty of evidence to indicate he was not. His environmental platform he published before the election (written by RFK jr) read like a UN playbook that would make Al Gore proud. As his record shows, I was right. BTW, Bustamante was not a serious threat. Had Arnold not been elected, the recall would have failed and Davis would still be Governor.
You threw in a reference to "Koolaid drinkers,"
No, I didn't. I posted two threads and referred to the theme of the threads as Koolaid.
You link to poll discussions and analysys and comments that the timing was off .. that if it hadn't been a special election the oppostion wouldn't have had as much time to pool their resources, etc. etc. ... and you wonder why I regard your defense as built on red herrings, excuses, and polls. I don't give a rat's patoot about analysis and polls.
Don't give a rat's patoot about analysis, huh? Analysis is simply the process of breaking down an issue into its logical components so that the consequences can be deduced. Perhaps you should give it more credence. A lot of the problems we are facing today could have been avoided had proper analysis been done or existing analysis been taken to heart. And... the links I provided were to lengthy interviews that included much more than your description.
I do care about encouraging fellow conservatives to go out and vote for what's right even if it's not perfect.
Again. I do not expect perfection. I do, however, oppose change for the sake of change. In the initiative process, if the proposed change does not indicate that it will be a step in the positive direction, without risk of more steps in the wrong direction, I will not support it. Had people looked more closely at Proposition 111, the feel good "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act" promoted by Republicans, we would still have the Gann Spending Limit in place. That provision was pretty much obliterated in the fine print. You might have called this proposition "not perfect"--I call it a sham.
Then you point out that the most conservative measures lost by the smallest margin ... again and again, it must have gone over your head, but on talk radio, in letters to the editor, and in posts on FR, I heard conservatives saying "Bah, I'm staying home, Arnold is too liberal for me." Makes me think that if they'd been a little more principled than prideful, those measures would have passed.
Well, I'm certain if so many said it, you should be able to find some links, right? No... I thought not. You already refused to back up your contention. (Yes... I was here... and I was paying attention... people weren't saying that... there were only others, like you, contending it happened but couldn't support the contention either.)
I do question the true motives of those who endorse and support a big spending, big borrowing, gun grabbing, land grabbing, pro-homosexual, taxpayer subsidizing global warming fanatic.
Which of the Special Election propositions sponsored by Arnold were going to do any of those things?
I was not aware this discussion was limited to only the Special Election. Afterall, you brought up Bustamante and he had little (nothing?) to do with the Special Election. I certainly was looking at the full record.
Would Cruz Bustamonte have been less a big spending, big borrowing, gun grabbing, land grabbing, pro-homosexual, taxpayer subsidizing global warming fanatic? Because if the "principled" conservatives had had their way, he'd be there instead of Arnold, whom I call a RINO along with a whole lot of other conservatives, including probably Tom McClintock!
You'd call conservatives and McClintock RINO? I don't get that.
Regarding the rest, again, Bustamante would never have been Governor. Regardless, had Davis still been Governor, we would not have had the borrowing that was passed under the (R) label; in fact, Republicans were blocking Davis in court from doing a smaller version of Arnold's $15 Billion fund to supplement deficit spending. With the supermajority voting requirement on budget bills, spending increases could have been blocked, and spending slowed; instead, Arnold has proposed spending increases at a greater rate than Davis and Republican legislators have been pressured to go along. The 25 Million Acre Sierra Nevada Conservancy had been vetoed by Davis previously; Arnold not only signed the legislation but promoted and supported it. Etc. etc. etc.
Wear the title with pride. You've just bested them, well done. Carry on.
ROFL! Watch the companyNM you keep. My posting record stands on its own--consistently conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat nor do I support anything they stand for. Instead of answering questions or supporting your claims, you now want to try to smear the poster. How classy!/s
With Conservatives like you snarling at an imperfect but better-than-Cruz governor and bullying any who support him, who needs Liberals?
Keep lowering the bar. Next we'll have the 'better than Stalin' mantra getting posted.
They can't count on conservatives to tote that bale down on the plantation and when the servants rebel, the party faithful panic and spray bird shot over the whole crowd, wounding many of those that remain faithful to the plantation master.
Here's a reasoned suggestion for Finnies. Please come to FreeRepublic's California Topic but bring the facts and be prepared to discuss issues, ideological issues, not partisan issues. Freepers don't care which party is in power as long as that party advances a conservative agenda.
The Wilsonegger gang receives accurate and deserved criticism for their actions because they advance the cause of liberalism. If the gang continues advancing liberalism, conservatives will do everything in their power to defeat them. If Republicans are wounded because part of their traditional base is working actively to defeat the goals of the CAGOP then I'd suggest the CAGOP stop advancing liberalism and return to their traditional values.
It's not rocket science. Even a Finny can understand.
No one is trying to "divide the right." I, personally, am trying to see if we can't come to some common ground that "defines the right." It used to be the Republican platform. If I listen to some here, I am now supposed to believe that one can support gun control, more rights for homosexuals, big spending, big borrowing, more environmental regulation, taxpayer subsidies to questionable business interests, etc. etc. etc. and that makes one a "good Republican."
All of these things seem AOK to the New Majority Big Tent Country Club crowd. In my mind, those things make it look Democrat, which like I said, I do not and will not support.
Oh, so you ride side saddle in the posse now too.. lolol
If you want to run with the (M)ilk, be my guest.
All they have are wild accusations and hyperbole, they couldn't debate if their lives depended on it, just play along with them and deny facts, you'll fit right in. ;-)
-----
Did you actually vote for Tom in the Recall or just claim him now as so many others have of late when its convenient to do so.
Some say he has come to his senses, others see it as going over to the dark side so he can at least be one step out of the top spot, it's the only way he will get there is to be like those who dump on principle in order to win, only to spend us deeper in debt and put more of the left's agenda inplace of the GOP platform planks. It's sad to see him used like a rag doll by the New Majority and the moderates.
You do know that is happening, I would hope.
Yes, I understand. Your "traditional values" set the standard and if you don't get 100 percent uncompromised endorsement, then you'll work to actively defeat any and all who disagree regardless of party -- and then hold the Republican party responsible! Divide Republicans in the name of "princple."
Reload. Either the Grunt or Finny will be stumbling back.
Now I really won't be stumbling back because I got to go to the store!
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.