Posted on 08/07/2008 2:30:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
I supported and voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger for California governor over Tom McClintock. Not only that, I ridiculed McClintock and his supporters.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have supported and voted for McClintock.
I hereby openly apologize to McClintock and his supporters. I was wrong.
How about the other people here who supported Arnold in 2003: Agree? Disagree?
Interesting. California didn’t have any Poshards, but Gray Davis was moderate in some things. Heck... I think Bustamante would have been a total idiot and accomplished absolutely ‘nothing’ as Governor. ‘Nothing’ would have been an improvement from what we got.
McCain is our "mulligan". While we keep our fingers crossed and pray that he turns out to be more conservative than we suspect, we can take solace in knowing that he may be only a one-termer. That's why his choice of running mate is critical beyond measure.
I wasn’t calling you that. The phenonemon, whatever we choose to call it, is real. It was the Riordan wing of the party that pushed Schwarzenegger. And they got exactly what they wanted.
I know you weren’t calling me a RINO. I just don’t like the term. I think it’s dismissive and simplistic and is used too broadly.
In another year, McCain would have a very touch challenge.
However, for some reason, the Democrats have chosen to nominate a taller Dukakis.
The result may well be the same as the last time.
Rudy Giuliani was pretty much a carbon copy of Arnold, right down his supporters proclaiming he was the savior of the GOP and insisting the eeeeeevil "extremist" conservatives are "unelectable", so if Rudy was the nominee I'd agree that we're pretty much be screwed no matter who America elects.
However, Rudy is NOT the nominee and McCain, while a step down from Bush, is simply not as bad as Obama. Is McCain a backstabbing jerk and a media whore? Yep. But there are plenty of issues where I see clear differences. McCain has a solid pro-life record and will sign pro-life legislation. Obama is so far left on abortion he supports infanticide. McCain knows Islamofacism is the enemy and whole heartily supporting winning in Iraq, even getting bashed by some "true conservatives" here when he pushed for more troops and the surge strategy before it was popular. Obama will suck to third world dictators and gut our military as quickly as possible. McCain has stood firm for conservative judges his entire career and went to bat to support even failed nominees like Robert Bork when the Dems were destroying them. Obama will appoint nothing but far-left activist nuts and a Dem senate will rubber stamp them. McCain supports traditional families and lent his endorsement to the Arizona marriage protection referendum and supports the defense of marriage act. Obama is a destructive kook who probably would let a man marry his pet goat in the name of "diversity". And so on and so and so on. McCain has a lifetime Conservative rating of around 80%, whereas Obama is in single digits.
So while Rudy is basically a Democrat minus the war issue (which simply makes him a Joe LIEberman clone), I see vast differences between McCain and Obama. McCain is no Reagan, but neither is he an abortion loving, gun-grabbing, tax-and-spend douchebag like Arnold. I can't see any issue where Arnold improves over Davis, but I can name a dozen issues where McCain has CLEARLY governed better than Obama.
>> He's said he will appoint a veep who shares his priorities and will implement his agenda in the event he can't complete office. <<
Good. If he's true to his word, that means Bloomberg or Lieberman will never be veep. If he's not true to his word an appoints an Arnold-type as his veep, then we know McCain is a RINO and not to vote for him.
>> That would include Amnesty and Global Warming, two of the most destructive policies introduced in decades (if not a century or two). <<
I agree McCain is dead wrong on those particular issues, but where is the Tom McClintock conservative alternative? People here have been pimping for Bob Barr, who ALSO supports Amnesty and Global Warming. In fact, he's to the LEFT of McCain on the envirowacko stuff (McCain does NOT go around attending Gore seminars and heaping praise on Algore, but Barr does)! I think it's a bit hypocritical for Bob Barr's fan club to constantly whine about McCain "betraying" conservatives, while ignoring the fact their guy has sold out conservatives ever since he joined the ACLU and the Libertarian "legalize crack now" Party.
>> He has said he would appoint democrats to his cabinet. <<
EVERY Republican President since Lincoln has appointed at least one Democrat to his cabinet (and that includes the Reagan administration), so I don't see a problem here at all. Some freepers worship the likes of Zell Miller and would probably appoint him to their cabinent anyway (I wouldn't). But I don't see alarm bells going off here unless McCain tries to pull an Arnold and decide to appoint liberal Democrats to all the major federal judgeships AND to run his administration as chief-of-staff, and based on McCain's past history I doubt he'd ever do that.
>> I would think a Republican administration would be less destructive than a Democratic one. <<
I would agree in 90% of cases, and the only example I can think of where the Democrat nominee was better than the Republican when it comes to Presidential elections was probably Grover Cleveland (D) over crooked RINO James G. Blaine (R), waaaay back in 1880. McCain is certainly NOT as destructive as the American-hating marxist Obama, based on their past records. I would gladly trade my Senator to Arizona. Can we set up an exchange program?
>> But in McCain's case, I wouldn't expect him to appoint many Republicans--and most likely he would recognize zero conservatives. <<
Given his record in the House and Senate, why not? He has appointed plenty in the past. It's not like his office is being run by Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon. He despises Michael Moore and Susan Sarando and vice versa. Arnold probably hangs out with them at cocktail parties.
>> On the other hand, we have a man who is a complete neophyte and most likely a third generation communist. At least Republicans recognize him for the threat he is and will fight him along the way! I have little hope that Republicans would be willing to put up a fight if Obama's policies were offered by John McCain. It's a sad choice, that is for sure. <<
Well it doesn't really matter how you or I vote because we're not in swing states where it makes a different. George Ryan was certainly to the right of Arnold when he ran for Governor in 1998, and I was on the fence (since Ryan CLAIMED to be a "pro-life, fiscal conservative"), so basically I decide to see who he'd pick for a running mate. He picked the most pro-abortion "Republican" state rep he could find, an obscure first term RINO that he said could help him get the "women's vote". I then concluded George Ryan's "conservative" platform was nothing more than lies to get elected and I voted against him. I was right.
So I'm probably going to take the same wait and see approach with McCain. If he picks an actual conservative as his running mate, like Mark Sanford or Sarah Palin, I will vote McCain. If he picks another RINO, then to hell with McCain, I will vote Constitution Party. In any case, the much touted Bob Barr is no better than McCain and NOT an acceptable choice for conservatives. Barr has sold out to conservatives more than McCain ever has.
>> Interesting. California didn’t have any Poshards, but Gray Davis was moderate in some things. <<
I'm sure there are some pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family "center-right" Democrats in California, it's just that they were never nominated for Governor. Poshard's nomination was a fluke anyway. The Dems had four equally socialist moonbats from Chicago and they split the party's base four ways, so Poshard was able to get nominated with a minority of the Democrat primary vote statewide. Basically the only Democrats that supported him were the rural farm community. He is worshipped in southern Illinois but those guys are DINOs.
So while it's true we often get RINOs, I think it's very very rare that the Democrat is clearly to the right of the GOP.
I think you're right about Davis, both Arnold and Davis are not far-left Kooksinich types, but they are big spending "compassionate" liberals who govern center-left and do whatever will get fawning reviews by the liberal media, no matter how it screws up the state. Arnold is worse by virtue of the fact he's screwing up the state GOP while he's at it, and trying to force the Republicans in the General Assembly to implement his destructive socialist garbage (as George Ryan did before him)
Ditto
I might be encouraged if I saw more Republicans actually speaking out against him--now. Or at least, trying to sway his policies to the right. Instead, they seem to be standing by approvingly as he throws good conservatives under the bus. My crystal ball shows another Arnold, but on a national level. I hope I'm wrong.
That's why his choice of running mate is critical beyond measure.
As I mentioned, he has already said that he will choose someone who shares his priorities and will implement his agenda. Those were his criteria. I don't see anything good in that, even if he had a fatal accident the first week in office.
I'm not following you. What do you mean by "last time"?
Last time they nominated Dukakis.
Overall Bush is more conservative than McCain, but there are sometimes where the opposite is true.
Can you think of any examples where Arnold improved over Pete Wilson?
Thanks for the thoughtful response. In short, I take solace in your remark: “Well it doesn’t really matter how you or I vote because we’re not in swing states where it makes a different.” ;-)
Overall, you have more faith in McCain than I do. But I think your philosophy focuses more toward social issues (than mine) and I tend to focus more toward economic issues. As such, I find McCain just as unpalatable as Rudy. I also do not think McCain will nominate good judges. He was a strong supporter of Bruce Babbitt for the job and his buddy Rudman gave us Souter. I also wouldn’t suggest that any third party candidate offers what I think the nation needs... I’m consigned to the fact that we will have either a President McCain or a President Obama. I’m just not convinced that McCain is the least damaging of the two as he will be able to advance liberal policies without opposition (whereas Obama would have a tough time, assuming Republicans step up and oppose him).
So.... back to the bottom line. In California, my vote won’t count for much anyway so I don’t intend on losing sleep over it. LOL
I get it now. Thanks.
I wasn’t a member of FR at that time. But I did make my thoughts known to the California GOP on the issue of a) the recall and b) Arnold (or anyone) running for the open slot created by the recall.
At that time, I said that the state’s fiscal problems were systemic. That, absent a huge influx of tax revenue (not likely at that time, and even less likely now) or a tectonic shift in the electorate, the state would run into serious fiscal problems within the term of whomever replaced Davis.
I strongly advocated to the CA GOP that no Republican should want to grab hold of the governor’s seat, because it was a trap. The proper policy then would have been to a) leave Davis in office and b) use California as a whipping boy in national elections, ie, the President points to California and says “This is what you get when you give power to the Democrats!” and just pillory and ridicule the liberals’ fondest damp dreams by pointing out how successful their ideas were in California. Look at how they can’t keep the lights on - thanks to the environmental lobby. Look at how small businesses are fleeing the state - thanks to their buddies, the trial lawyers and graft in the workers’ comp system.
We could have hung California around the necks of the DNC like a flaming tire.
But NOOOOOooooo.... the California GOP, never noted for having an IQ larger than their shoe size, steps right up, recalls Davis, and then puts a RINO into office to make sure that the Republican party gets credit for the systemic budget problems down the road.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
As to Pete and Arnold... Arnold is taller... and he's a better salesman (of snake oil, that is).
Your crystal ball agrees with my Magic 8 Ball.
Hey! I used to have a Magic 8-ball when I was a kid!
What a kick that was. (almost as good as my Ouiji board!) ;-)
I just want to expand on what you’re saying there:
I see a pattern among Republicans that they implement the worst possible goofball environmental legislation and policies because Republicans seem to have a chronic deficiency of confidence in their position on environmental issues. There are some times when a clear-headed adult should be able to stand up to the Green Machine lobby and say “You clowns don’t know what the heck you’re talking about, NO, we’re not going to do that, and if you want to get into a pissing match about it, let’s go!”
But no, Republicans, and especially RINO’s, bend over backwards when the environmental lobby is in town and offer up more than the environmentalists want in many of these deals.
Look at Nixon: created the EPA.
Look at Bush Sr. And now Junior.
We’re better off with Democrats on the environment - we can fight them to a near standstill, whereas the RINOs give away the store and the land it is built upon.
I agree with you there. I thought that GWB's early unwillingness to sign on to Kyoto was one of his greatest accomplishments. His recent wishy-washiness has been disappointing, though.
In Arnold's case, he is somewhat different (as I think McCain is, also). Both have embraced much of the environmental agenda and sound more like Al Gore than the Republicans that I am used to. Arnold's environmental policy was written by RFK jr. and was critiqued, in detail, by freeper Carry_Okie before the 2003 election. Few paid attention, unfortunately. McCain, joining with Lieberman back in 2003 to offer up the cap-and-trade legislation says to me he joined in on this massive scam (or is too stupid to see it for what it is). Overall, much of the environmental agenda is in line with the globalist agenda moving to world government. I don't know if that is why they support it--because they both achieve their end objectives--or what.
No matter who is elected, we need to be prepared to run defense against the policies being pursued by Washington. For me, it is more important to focus on what happens after the November election. The fight only begins, then.
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.