Well, not ever...
Conservatism sells. We have to get back to the point where we're selling it to the masses.
In the mean-time, Ahnold is a heck of a lot better than Angelides, so this one is a no-brainer.
Posted on 07/01/2006 8:16:42 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger is the top contender in California’s gubernatorial race, according to the latest poll by Zogby Interactive. 49 per cent of respondents in the Golden State would vote for Schwarzenegger, while 41 per cent would support Democrat Phil Angelides.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
You're exactly right: the choice is Arnold or Phil.
Phil is against everything Arnold's detractors claim they're for.
Go figure.
Truth is, so is Arnold.
Not really. Arnold is the better choice of the two. CA can ill afford a democrat governor who will rubber stamp the insane legislation that will emerge from the democrat controlled state houses.
You wish. The New Majority is already courting MEChista Tony Villaraigosa.
Get a grip. Face reality. They're traitors.
Who are the traitors, Karaoke. Villaraigosa, the new majority, Arnie, McC? Which song are you pretending to sing?
Well, not ever...
Conservatism sells. We have to get back to the point where we're selling it to the masses.
In the mean-time, Ahnold is a heck of a lot better than Angelides, so this one is a no-brainer.
I used to write in my own name for President and Governor, but darn it, I never won!
What advances the ball? Won't it be easier to elect a Conservative to your liking if we build on Arnold? To my mind, a Governor like Arnold re-centers the political spectrum. So the Right is further to the Right and the Left is closer to the Center. So the next election will be fought on a field that is more favorable to us.
Of course, there are the people who say that in order to elect a true blue Conservative, you first have to let the Donks completely screw things up, and then get in as a protest candidate. I have never held to that view. Any strategy that starts out by handing a victory to your opponent is a bad strategy in my book.
That may be true. For instance, if the choice is between a left liberal and a Wahabbi Salafi pro jihadist Islamist fascist, I'll vote for the left liberal, because the latter actually has even more contempt for the principles this nation was founded upon than the left liberal does.
But generally, the Republican candidate is the better representative of the mixture of classic liberalism and conservatism that I believe in. Yes, even Arnold. Yes, he's raised fees, but he has not raised taxes, as a Democrat would have gleefully done. And with the exception of his stem cell corporate welfare boondoggle, his ballot proposals were pretty conservative. There's no way Davis would have tried to pass those.
Carry_Okie, Tom McClintock was consistently rated during the Governor's race as the best-qualified and most capable of any of the candidates. McClintock ended the election with higher favorable ratings than ANY other politician in California. Never count the power of conservative ideas out. Outside of LA, a MECHA past will be far from a straightforward plus, and Villaraigosa will be absolutely demolished in any debate with McClintock.
If you feel you need to tell me any of this, you were quite apparently not here during the recall.
Never count the power of conservative ideas out.
It's not me doing that. I generate conservative ideas. It's the "moderates" who abet the left in setting both the points of discussion and where lies the middle ground.
Outside of LA, a MECHA past will be far from a straightforward plus, and Villaraigosa will be absolutely demolished in any debate with McClintock.
It doesn't matter a bit if the "moderates" do the same thing to McClintock that they did to Bill Simon; delaying any activity after the primary and killing momentum, stuffing the GOTV effort, extorting concessions to the gay lobby before releasing funds, stipulating use of incompetent consultants... It's a long list. Tom lost the race for controller despite being outspent 5:1; IOW he had virtually no support from the Gerry Parsky moderates controlling the money at the CAGOP even though he significantly out-polled "moderate" Bruce McPherson, who did get CAGOP support. Had you been here during the recall, you would have seen the attacks on Tom leveled by the same despicable crew you see on this thread. They will attack anyone with the temerity to point out that the differences between Arnold and Angelides are without distinction.
Thanks. Its an important distinction in understanding both Reagan and the modern conservative movement. Too bad you didn't show more of a penchant yourself for one or the other, instead of indicating a sell-out vote for the lesser of two (liberal) evils. You say you believe in a "mixture of classic liberalism and conservatism", but Arnold is neither a classic liberal or someone who holds to conservative viewpoints. Btw, your grossly exaggerated analogy is actually quite silly.
Have a nice Fourth of July.
The Schwarzenegger team is running brilliant TV ads. Some of the best I have ever seen. They are very subtle and and soft on a certain level, but very effective. And they are going after Angelides on raising taxes, using Steve Westly's quotes :) and overall successfully painting Angelides as someone who will take CA back to the bad old days.
We did that. It backfired.
Thanks for the link-- you obviously have a lot of expertise and good ideas. I can see why you dislike Arnold so much, since he seems thinks to think the answer to the tragedy of the commons is more government. But you know what? I doubt Angelides is good on that issue, either.
So some people supported Arnold over Tom out of political calculation because they thought Arnold had the best chance to beat Cruz. So what?
It doesn't follow that Angelides will veto the gay marriage bill that will inevitably come his way, as Arnold did? I don't know about you, but to me that veto was HUGE.
Will Angelides refuse to raise taxes or will he raise fees AND taxes?
Will Angelides propose ballot initiatives that are opposed by the unions and Democrats for their sensible conservative nature?
Sure, Bill Simon was deserted by many of the Riordan supporters. Well, Arnold was deserted when he placed his political capital on the line in proposing some very sensible ballot initiatives. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a vote for the lesser of two evils is just a vote against the greater evil.
Reagan Man-- it was SUPPOSED to be grossly exaggerated in order to make a point, and to be silly to (hopefully) entertain you.
The point is that supporting and voting for the Republican over the Democrat is almost always the right thing to do, Lowell Weicker being one of the few exceptions.
The point isn't whether Arnold is classic liberal or conservative. Maybe he was the former once, when he plugged Milton Friedman's "Free to choose" series, but he's plainly neither now. The point is that he's closer to being a conservative classic liberal than Angelides-- not close enough for your tastes, not close enough for mine, but closer than Angelides--- and in an election where those are the only two options, Arnold plainly is the least bad option, unless Angelides has virtues I haven't heard of.
I hope you have a great Fourth too:)
They are the same, but one of them is destroying the opposition and the opportunity to advance a new approach.
So some people supported Arnold over Tom out of political calculation because they thought Arnold had the best chance to beat Cruz. So what?
No, they attacked Tom because they believed Tom couldn't beat Cruz, which was patently false.
Will Angelides refuse to raise taxes or will he raise fees AND taxes?
As opposed to borrowing now and taxes later? Don't get me started on corruption.
Will Angelides propose ballot initiatives that are opposed by the unions and Democrats for their sensible conservative nature?
Arnold's ballot initiatives were not about controlling spending. The only one on the ballot that was conservative he refused to support while simultaneously expecting it to increase turnout. It was both despicable and stupid.
Sure, Bill Simon was deserted by many of the Riordan supporters.
It was a lot worse than mere withdrawal of support; it was overt backstabbing.
Well, Arnold was deserted when he placed his political capital on the line in proposing some very sensible ballot initiatives.
You mischaracterize those iniatives. They were not as they were made out to be, particularly Prop. 76 which, according to the LAO, had a ratcheting mechanism that actually locked in ever higher spending. The only one of Arnold's I could support was paycheck protection.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and a vote for the lesser of two evils is just a vote against the greater evil.
The support of a lesser evil comes at the price of depressing good. When the degree of "lesser" approaches zero, it's time to call evil what it is, if only because the policies it institutes produce more evil; else one gets to own the consequences. Further, support of "moderates" who drift to the left to incorporate an ephemeral "middle" allows the left to go over the deep end, and the middle thus continues to accelerate leftward.
The answer is no.
Herr Fieldmarshal ain't from California, he's just here for the division.
Nice style, Reagan Embarrassment, he acknowledges you've a point then you slap him with it. Nice. Nice division, that is.
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.