Posted on 02/09/2002 9:11:14 AM PST by .38sw
The gubernatorial candidacy of the Californian who called Bill Clinton “the greatest leader in the free world” and rescued the financially troubled 2000 Democratic National Convention proceeds apace, raising money, buying television time and soliciting the advice of experienced Democrat pols.
The only problem is, that candidate is running as a Republican, and what will one day be a fascinating case study for political science classes will probably result in one of the most disastrous lab experiments in California election history.
Democrat Gov. Gray Davis is already running for re-election, but it’s quasi-Republican Richard Riordan who may have the more substantial Democrat credentials. He ascribed to Clinton the above Rushmore-like standing. And when DNC bagmen were unable to dragoon enough of their convention’s costs from moneyed special interests, Riordan stepped in with his own riches, his associates’ cash and, of course, taxpayer funds.
I don't live in California (thank God), and I won't pretend to fully appreciate every nuance of California politics...
But the argument from those who would vote for Riordan seems to be that -if you don't- a democrat will win by default.
But there appears to be no evidence that Riordan is a Republican in anything other than name. There appears to be, in fact, abundant evidence that he's an astonishingly transparent democrat shill.
If this is true, it would seem to follow that no chance for a good outcome in the upcoming gubernatorial election is possible if Riordan wins -by hook or by crook- in the primary. This would leave honest, Patriotic voters entirely free to vote their consciences for the candidate of their choice who they regard as politically right-minded (but hopelessly marginal) in the general election.
What rationale exists for a non-democrat to vote for Riordan in the general election? Isn’t a vote for Riordan an exercise in utter futility? Can’t that be compared to shooting yourself in the left side of the head, as opposed to the right side? (You die either way) What possible profit exists in voting for a pseudo-Republican who is actually a stealth-democrat?
And yes, I fully understand that non-democrats will still want to vote in the general election, even if no acceptable candidate for Governor (including marginal ones) is on the ballot. I realize that this ballot will have other races and questions begging for correct votes to be rendered.
"Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."
This author doesn't bother to discuss current policy issues, at all; pertaining to Riordan's position vs. other Republican candidates. This author also provides no support for suggesting Riordan would lose in a "landslide."
So I'll say this. I am more conservative than Riordan. I clearly prefer Simon or Jones, over Riordan. But if this author is representative of the qulity of "debate" coming from Simon/Jones factions, their campaigns are clearly weak.
All that I have heard thus far in this campaign is attacks on Riordan, by Davis, and by Republicans. If Republicans don't win, it will be because they don't have a worthy candidate. If Simon and/or Jones fail to interest voters, it is the responsibility of their own campaigns. May we hear about issue positions, please?
In order to win California, a Republican needs more than the conservative party base. Reagan knew this (and Wilson, too). If Simon and Jones know this, they had better hurry up, and get their messages out--messages with wide enough appeal to inspire enough votes to win a general election.
Criticizing Riordan does not violate the 11th commandment, because Riordan is a Democrat In All But Label (DIABLO). The 11th commandment does not require us not to criticize democrats, when they take the Republican name for convenience, because they couldn't win the Democrat primary.
Well, good... I think.
I have to confess that I know next to nothing about Simon's politics, although I've heard that he's an improvement on Riordan
calgov2002:
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using calgov2002, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | calgov2002 | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Yes, that's what I gather too.
The question that I would have to have the answer to (if I were a California voter) would be: Is he conservative enough?
Speaking for myself, I've done just about all the 'compromising' that I intend to do. One of the things I took away from the 2000 election, and its unbelievable aftermath is that -if a candidate is 'off spec' on my essential core issues- (with 'gun control' and abortion being the two most important ones) I can't imagine a situation where I'd vote for the wrong-headed SOB.
(this gives me the 'wiggle-room' I need for those fantastic scenarios like a gun held to my head, my family kidnapped and held hostage, a chip implanted in my brain, etc., etc.)
Hey, at this late point, what's the point of assisting the enemy any more? What's gained by putting off doomsday, if 'doomsday' is indeed where we're headed?
Better I should see the day when this Mexican standoff collapses before I get very much older.
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.