Saunders: Why Not Win? (California Republicans)

Townhall.com ^ | 5-23-03 | Debra Saunders

[Dan from Michigan]

I'm not a fan of Wilson, but I'll give him his due. He's won over and over.

[Penner]

"As Chuck Todd reported in the National Journal, 'Republicans this side of the White House lawn' are opposed to efforts by Californians to push former Gov. Pete Wilson to run against Sen. Barbara Boxer".

For obvious reasons.

[birdsman]

I am far from being a Wilson fan, but he'd be an improvement over Barbara Boxershorts. We also must remember that we have such a slight edge in the Senate, that even a RINO is better than a Democrat. Should the RATS regain the Senate, all conservative initiatives die in committee. Wilson has the best chance at taking that Senate seat, so let's hope that he runs.

[goldstategop]

Pete Wilson at least took a principled against illegal immigration. The GOP paid the price because it tucked tail and ran and refused to fight for Proposition 187 after the courts overruled the voters to please liberal special interest groups. If the GOP caves on taxes, no one will ever vote for the party leadership that betrayed us again. So if the GOP is irrelevant in California it isn't because its uncompromising but because its been trying to get along with the Democrats.

[marsh2]

You need a candidate that is acceptable to urban/rural north/south. Wilson will do. Riordan was too much on the left on environmental issues.

[heleny]

Boxer will probably attack with Prop. 187 reminders anyway, so Wilson or whoever becomes the GOP candidate must not waffle on the issue. Illegal immigration can become an emotional/racism issue if the GOP tries to shy away from it, but is one of many practical issues if Californians are prompted to think rationally.

[goldstategop]

My thoughts exactly. A principled stand against illegal immigration can't be attacked by the Democrats. The GOP must show how uncontrolled immigration is contributing to the exploding costs of state government, affecting quality of life, and diminishing the future people want their children to have. Framed that way, reasonable people can't argue the current situation can go on forever and California can't afford to become a Sweden on the Pacific - not next to a Third World country where people will come here in search of a better life and a chance to enjoy government benefits many of our citizens should get but aren't.

[Redbob]

"...we have such a slight edge in the Senate, that even a RINO is better than a Democrat."

Even a RINO like Oly Snowe, or Voinovich?
Exactly how does it benefit the GOP to have whackjobs like those two who vote against the majority?

[ACAC]

We would not even be able to bring up a tax cut at all if Daschle was leader. The RINO's make Frist majority leader, so they are much better than a Dem. If Daschle was majority leader, the tax cut would be zero.

[Plutarch]

California's budget deficit makes Prop. 187 look much better retrospectively. Let Boxer attack Wilson on 187, and he can drape the $35 billion budget deficit around her wrinkled neck.

[Fawnn]

I oppose Wilson not because he might upset hispanics, but because he is a pro-abort social liberal.

I'm pro-life, but sometimes compromise is necessary to move politicals forward. On the other hand,...

Barbara Boxer is obnoxious. I can't believe there aren't some voters who wouldn't be motivated to vote against her for that reason alone. Maybe too much attention is placed on backing "known" opponents when going up against the supposedly entrenched Teddy Kennedy-type DNC icons.

What do I think the "American Idol" frenzy and President George W. Bush's approval ratings have in common?

Americans are proving that they like wholesome.

I'd think now that Republicans are winning more elections than ever, forget about putting "known" candidates in some of the long-shot elections (like against Boxer) and find photogenic family values types willing to smile when told they lack the experience the opponent brings to the office and reply, "I know! Refreshing, isn't it?"

[cgk]

Barbara Boxer is obnoxious

Her rants yesterday directed at Rupert Murdoch, on talks about his intent to purchase DirecTV, were pathetic and shrill. Complaining about Fox News Channel and wondering "why anyone would subject themselves to fair and balanced between the right and far right"... I think she even used the word disgusting. I only wish people other than those who watched Brit Hume (or maybe C-SPAN) had seen it.

[No Dems 2004]

This lady is making a strong point. The GOP needs to wake up about California. They don't have to run tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum to win there - they just need a strong candidate. I don't think she's right when she contends that President Bush has written the state off. As for Wilson, I don't know, but he has won a lot of elections and the GOP has to recognise that their natural base is the white vote, and, for the GOP, this generally means running the white male. It ain't modernistic and it ain't cool, but it's the winning strategy.

What we need to remember that Republicans have generally faired very poorly when they've run minority or even female candidates for high positions. John Sanchez made a fine 'inclusive Republican' poster boy in the New Mexico gubernatorial race in 2002, but he didn't even make the race close for the GOP as whites ended up seeing Bill Richardson (who is only half-Latino from him mother) as the more white candidate of the two. In 1998, the last Republican to run against the diabolical Boxer was Asian-American Matt Fong. But Fong failed to rally even his native Asian vote for the GOP, and, of course, whites weren't enthused by the GOP strategy, either. Not surprisingly, Fong lost big, in a race that should have been a GOP pickup. I hold it against the CA GOP to a certain degree, because we're stuck with this disgraceful woman fomenting her political puke all over us all the time.

If you asked me, minorities are becoming less attracted to the ethnic draw card from candidates of their own race - and this is so even for the Democrats. Tony Sanchez and Ron Kirk thought that being Hispanic and black would fuel unprecedented turnout rates from Texan minorities, but it failed abysmally. George Pataki defeated African-American Carl McCall in a hands-down victory in New York. Sure, I know that there was a divisive primary, but that's not the only reason. And who were the ideal candidates to win Senate races in Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Minnesota and even New Hampshire (Sununu is Arab-American, but it's hard to tell the difference). Just think of how many women and minorities were key to the GOP victories of 2002. You'll realise the key to victory for the GOP lies with the white male. Even the lacklustre Bill Simon brought Gray Davis to his knees, although he fell short of victory.

We've tried the minority trick against Boxer and have failed. Let's give her a good dose of her medicine and run a strong white male candidate - be it Pete Wilson or someone else. I think she's very vulnerable - even in California.

[princess leah]

California is full of nuts and fruits, but they also can read the writing on the wall...go out and get a name that can beat Barbara Boxer, and her party cohorts...put up Wilson for senate, Arnold Swartzenager for gov. and then when Feinstein is up for re-election throw her against Bill Simon (maybe by then he'll have gotton a GOOD campaign manager!)

[My2Cents]

Despite his reputation as a RINO (I hate that label, btw), is it likely that Pete Wilson would oppose the judicial nominations of Miquel Estrada and Patricia Owens? I think not. Reason enough to support him, if he runs.

[Theodore R.]

And don't forget John McCainiac, Linc Chaffee, and Susan Collins in that camp, along with former Democrat Arlen Specter when he thinks he won't get caught in such company.

[Common Tator]

Ah yes Debra Saunders... a perfect example of why some men swear off women... swear at them too.

Debra has once again set up some straw-men and then blows them down.

The truth is California, like New York, is a liberal state. It has been for nearly 20 years. It has become more so in recent years. It is certain that a Republican with any kind of baggage can NOT be elected in California. The Republicans will need a new face who politically is slightly to the left of center and whose opinions are closely allied with a majority of the voters. It Will take the votes of a majority of the voters to win. That is always the case.

NO one has ever changed minds in an election. That is, no candidate can change the ideological beliefs of a significant number of voters in an election. The only chance to win for either party, is to choose a candidate that appeals to the votes more than the opponent.

Parties or even presidents don't elect senators. The voters do and it may surprise Debbie babe, to learn that voters vote for people who share their views. To win, the Republican nominee must have more in common with a majority of voters, than the Democratic rival. The very minority right wing just can't understand why so few voters support their views. But the truth is the voters in California do not

That is the game. A candidate must attract the votes of more than half of the voters if he or she expects to win.

Debra's brain and Rove's toilet have something in common. They have both been used to dispose of crap.

[Mister Baredog]

Latino California Assemblyman Robert Pacheco noted with regret that Democrats have managed to turn Prop. 187 into a "wedge" against Republicans.

Letting DEMS who supported 187, like Sen Finestein, totally off the hook.

I'm willing to support ANY Republican at this point, Wilson, Rice, Schwartznegger, any of them. I like Chris Cox also. Boxer is vunerable.