Posted on 07/01/2006 8:16:42 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Support RINOs, that's what happens to the GOP. Just ask the good folks of Taxachusetts (once one of the most Republican states in the country), New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, California...
"Short-term pain for a longer-term payoff."
Yeah, giving Democrats more and more power in blue states will have a longer-term payoff for conservatives.
Forgive me if I remain incredulous. Try finding a *reason* to support the Democrats and not just a convoluted rationalization.
Twaddle on, Tweedle Dee.
It's McClintock for me,
in the fight of his life ~ it's the Schwartz & McC
versus Phil Angelides' Dem tax thievery.
Think for a moment. You're acting like the next election is the be-all and end-all to existence. Take a look at the long-term, 2010, 2014, etc. What happens if Ah-nold is reelected ? Let's see... He proliferates a liberal agenda that is scarcely different from the Marxist/Stalinist cabal, and does little to nothing to change the political culture in California. People see "Republican" and they say, "well, they're no different than the Democrats." They're right ! When you've got a liberal leading the party, there IS no difference. The person who runs to succeed Ah-nold has to CARRY the baggage he has, for good or bad (mostly the latter) even if their agenda is COMPLETELY different (take a look at Ohio where a Conservative is running behind because he has to carry the baggage of a horrid RINO incumbent, even though he is as far removed and different from the sitting Governor as if to be in a different party)
Now, what happens if Angelides wins (along with McClintock) ? Angelides predictably pursues a radical agenda, McClintock criticizes it publicly, drawing sharp and clear distinctions between his Conservative GOP stands and the Angelides "way." The public reacts viscerally and negatively to the Angelides agenda, Republicans likely GAIN legislative seats at the midterms, both at the state and federal level, and quite likely launch another recall to replace Angelides with Lt Gov McClintock, and we GET our Conservative Governor. As I said, short-term pain, long-term gain.
"Forgive me if I remain incredulous. Try finding a *reason* to support the Democrats and not just a convoluted rationalization."
You have to look at strategy and how this works in other states. Try applying it and be amazed. Like I wrote earlier, it took the disastrous Clinton to GIVE us Republican majorities for the first time in decades. Would you rather not have those now nationally if it meant GHW Bush had gotten a 2nd term ? Think about it.
Riddle me this,
riddle me that,
be it Ah-nold or Angelides,
you're still getting a liberal ass-hat.
Spare the tripe from Tennessee ~
your juvenile hyperbole.
What do you think A the Dem is gonna do with only five seats short of a majority override in the house is gonna do?
Most of my family is in California. Just because you don't care about my young niece and nephew's future by enabling a liberal agenda doesn't mean I share your misguided views. Your attacks, as always, are nothing but farmloads of red herrings.
I know why McClintock is supporting Ah-nold, he's just being a loyal party man, but do you know why Aztlan Tony Villaraigosa is ? They know what happens when liberal Republican/RINO Governors retire... you get a 'Rat, just like clockwork. He's counting on it. Like I said, do it now, bite the bullet, and it WILL pay off. Take the scraps of nothing Ah-nold offers, and you'll get Gov. Tony and his wettest MeCHA dreams in 2010.
Oh puhLEEZE ~
Your pity squeeze
is quite pathetic, dear ~
McClintock backs the Schwartz,
but then, perhaps you didn't hear?
Don't sweat it, he's a fifth columnist.
So now you second guess McC?
How very opportune of thee.
Oh please, do tell us more of why
McC is just a party guy?
I'll take Tom's judgement any day
above a thing you do or say.
The CA electorate will never elect an GOP conservative.
What they won't elect is a rabidly drooling, hyperbolic, extreme right-wing caricature of a conservative.
And when Ronald Reagan was elected what was the political make up of CA voters at the time?
If you're going to take that stance that they will NEVER elect one, you might as well fold it up and move. 40 years ago, that same mindset in California amongst the elites was quite prevalent. The establishment liberals in the GOP were running their standard-bearer, San Francisco RINO Mayor George Christopher. Ronald Reagan was having none of that. If Christopher had won the primary, he would've been crushed by Pat Brown.
Flash forward to the '70s under Jerry Brown. He was elected along with an equally hard-left Lieutenant Governor, Merv Dymally. By 1978, a certain Conservative Republican was undaunted and ran a no-holds-barred contest against Dymally as a "moderate" ran a milquetoast campaign against Brown. Guess who won ?
By 1982, the primary battle for Governor was between not a liberal and a Conservative, but between 2 Conservatives, the Lt Gov Mike Curb, and Atty Gen George Deukmejian. Duke was the last Conservative GOP Governor of CA and the state was already moving back in the right direction, only to have all the gains eviscerated by the RINO Wilson, and we know who succeeded him "thanks" to his leadership.
Like I said, if you think Conservatives can't be elected, it's time to pack it in, because you'll no longer have any need for a Republican party anymore. As for the rest of us, we know if you put forth a positive Conservative agenda in the face of RINO and liberal hordes, we CAN win.
Reagan was 25 years ago. Get with the program.
The task isn't easy, but it can be done. It will not be done by denigrating fellow republicans. It can not be done by seeking to destroy any candidate who doesn't meet some whackjob's description of a conservative. The posters who I suggest are fifth columnists simply put on the facade of a rabid right-winger in order to divide the base. Anybody that pulls this nonsense in a general election needs to be called on it.
Your memory is defective to the point of being culpable.
You apparently don't remember a conservative candidate for statewide office who was outspent by his opponent by over 5:1, who got only $300,000 from the RINO CAGOP (which was hell-bent on seeing him lose), and who lost by only 5,000 votes in an election depressed by a deliberately sabotaged GOTV effort (directed at Bill Simon). Had that candidate received decent party support, he'd have won.
That was Tom McClintock. When the voters get a decent conservative alternative, they show up. The real problem is the RINOs in charge of the CAGOP.
what state office did mcclintock win
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.