Incrementalism.
No problem with that, but packaging a slower move to more government power as though it is GOP incrementalism is disingenuous, and we see this frequently. An incremental retreat by our side is an incremental advance for the opposition.
By electing Riordan (BTW - I voted for Simon)
I voted for Simon to block Riordan, but we were given those two options because of the Bush family tradition of settling political scores against Bill Jones, who had the temerity to support McCain in the 2000 primary. He was the only statewide GOP office holder and would have been the strongest candidate against the weakened Davis, but Bush and Rove brought their usual tin ear to California politics and botched it, but good.
I find it ironic when I hear '92 Perot voters (I wasn't one) blamed as short-sighted, while the Bushes get passes for failed strategeries.
Riordan was unacceptable under any circumstances. He's endorsed Democrats against Republicans, and contributed to their campaigns... what party loyalty should he command? He's pro-homosexual, pro-Illegal, and anti-gun. We don't need two parties like that, and Riordan's long term damage to the California and national GOP would have been far worse than anything Davis has done to this State. Davis will ultimately be the Bill Clinton of California, helping to rejuvenate the Republican Party.
There are no silver bullets and those that believe there are are better left alone, pontificating about their righteousness and away from the planning sessions.
Fine, so long as the RNC-type "realists" with losing strategies are shown the same door.
When the politician moves to the electoral middle to get votes, he's right where you want him.
When politicians "move to the middle," what they're actually doing is allocating their resources to win the votes they perceive are up for grabs. To get them where we want them, which is moving toward us, the last thing we should do is tell them that our votes can be taken for granted.
...packaging a slower move to more government power as though it is GOP incrementalism is disingenuous, and we see this frequently. An incremental retreat by our side is an incremental advance for the opposition. I don't believe so. Political shifts and movements in a country the size of the US are like big ships and they don't stop on a dime. They need to be slowed prior to turning or you'll dump half the passengers into the drink.
I voted for Simon to block Riordan, but we were given those two options because of the Bush family tradition of settling political scores against Bill Jones, who had the temerity to support McCain in the 2000 primary. He was the only statewide GOP office holder and would have been the strongest candidate against the weakened Davis, but Bush and Rove brought their usual tin ear to California politics and botched it, but good.
Anyone could have beaten Davis if they really tried, and I'm not sure Jones would have had a better chance. Bringing in a complete outsider with no partisan state baggage is not a bad idea. Let's face it, Simon lost because he wouldn't go medieval on Davis's energy ass. Even with all the negative media prejudice in the fina month concerning his families company, he only lost by 5%.
I agree with not going too negative in a Prez campaign, it's just so, unpresidenttial. But State and local fights should be to the death.
I find it ironic when I hear '92 Perot voters (I wasn't one) blamed as short-sighted, while the Bushes get passes for failed strategeries.
I think the Perot voters knew exactly what they were doing...sending a message to the Republican Party (sound familiar?). By not looking past their noses, we got exactly what they deserved, eight years of the Clintons.
I agree that at times the bushies give W a pass for failed strategeries, but, I also see others NOT giving W credit for his successes in an equal portion. Neither is conducive to correcting mistakes or reinforcing effective rationale.
Riordan was unacceptable under any circumstances.
Would he have been better than, say, Hillary, if she decided to run in CA? Or Bil if he wanted to get back inot politics? Personally, I've learned never to speak in absolutes when discussing politics (that's POLITICS, not ideology).
...Riordan's long term damage to the California and national GOP would have been far worse than anything Davis has done to this State.
I do believe you are stretching this theory way beyond it's ability to hold any tensile strength. Back up this statement with some facts, or at least plausible guesses. No "sky is falling" proclamations please.
Davis will ultimately be the Bill Clinton of California, helping to rejuvenate the Republican Party.
Agreed. That is why I'm trying to understand why we want him out instead of presiding over the CA Titanic as it slips beneath the waves.
Fine, so long as the RNC-type "realists" with losing strategies are shown the same door.
And who would those be? Carl Rove? Didn't his plan get W in the White House? People are not shown the door for making one or even two mistakes. Their contributions and accomplishments are weighed and viewed over a lifetime.
When politicians "move to the middle," what they're actually doing is allocating their resources to win the votes they perceive are up for grabs. To get them where we want them, which is moving toward us, the last thing we should do is tell them that our votes can be taken for granted.
If they move toward you instead of the middle, they have no chance of winning an election. Same for the Dems. You didn't see Clinton moving toward the Greens or the commies right before elections. In fact, I think some of them weigh how many votes they can pick up in the middle by alienating those perceived to be in their "extreme" camp. Remember Clinton lambasting Sister Souljah on TV in '92? That was calculated political move. He netted far more voted from the middle than he lost from AA's.