...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.
Saber is way to the right of me on many issues, but his read of California politics in the post with which you disagreed is in my opinion correct. I could have written the part he penned about California myself, except that I voted for Davis over Simon, which obviously he did not. Simon's tenure would not have been good for the GOP for a host of reasons, some personal, and some due to the condition of the state.
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.
True as far as it goes, but not an accurate description of what is happening with the growth of government spending under President Bush. Going from, say, a 4% growth rate to 3% growth can described as an incremental step toward smaller government. Under Bush, the growth rate has increased, with more budget busters planned, like prescription drug benefits. Those are concrete steps toward larger, not smaller government.
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.
How did Clinton, with a 43% plurality, win an eight year term?
It was the advisors of Bush41 who didn't look past their noses when they lost a third of his 1988 voters, and they cost us four years of Clinton. It was the advisors of Bob Dole who didn't look past their noses and get enough of those votes back that cost us the second four years of Clinton.
Campaign managers are paid to win elections. Candidates are supposed to hire good managers. The accountability, and blame, falls squarely on the losing candidates for whom you and I voted in '92 and '96.
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.
Agreed. Being a kneejerk in either direction is no constructive. Bush 43 and Rove deserve credit for the 2000 win, regardless of how lost they are in California.
If they move toward you instead of the middle, they have no chance of winning an election.
In which direction did the GOP move in the losses of '92 and '96? When losing seats in the House and Senate in '98? They did so again in 2000, but lets call that a wash, with the GOP taking the near tie for the Presidency. The main factor in 2002 was that Bush was riding high on his outstanding performance following 9/11, and was able to do well with strong mid-term coattails.
The last time the GOP made a concerted effort to appeal to conservative principles was in 1994. Refresh my memory... how many GOP incumbents were thrown out of the House or Senate?
Not unless he picks up more new ones than he loses. Politicians are always looking to solidify their base while picking up swing voters from the other guy. If they lose a few from the fringe, they don't care.
This was in response to my comment "If a politician pursues strategies that lose voters from one election to the next, then that politician has only the mirror to blame."
Obviously, if an incumbent picks up more voters than he loses, he isn't going to lose the election. That's irrelevant.
My comment was specifically about politicians who lose their seats by losing parts of their base when trying to appeal to new voters. Getting new voters is dandy, but when a political strategy loses more votes than it gains, the strategists are to blame, not the voters.
BTW, my definition of "base" is anyone who voted for a politician or party in the previous election. President Bush counts among his base both RINOs and conservatives. Fair enough?
I have a question. What exactly is the definition of a politician "taking my vote for granted" (tmvg)? Does that mean of they don't vote or govern exactly as I would if I were in their place, they are TMVG? Where's the line? 50%? 75%?
For me it's hard to quantify. I know it when I see it. Insulting my intelligence with a candidate is one way. Riordan is barely more loyal to the GOP than Buchanan or Bob Smith. He endorses Democrats over Republicans. Why should conservatives be expected to show more party loyalty than a candidate?
Here's another... the "do you want Hillary?" ploy. That cuts both ways, yet too often the bad strategists responsible for the losses to the Clintons in the first place keep getting paid for consultations.
How many statewide races has the GOP lost in California since 1998? Damned near all of them, and all of the high profile races have been run by limp candidates who were ashamed of conservatism and tried to appeal to the center. Losers all, because they pursued strategy that is an axiomatic loser.
Attempting to buck History, Bush and Rove sought to repeat the error by annointing Riordan. Since defeating McCain in the 2000 primary, Bush's only California electoral success is that he got his petty political score settled with Bill Jones.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room in California, the one the Bush has refused to understand since 1994, remains unaddressed.
"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 thought I was the lone voice crying in the widerness. The problem is that because of their shortsightedness we all got Clinton for 8 years.
Some still haven't learned from history and insist on repeating the same mistakes: "ideology uber alles" ignoring the results of their actions: helping the Democrats.