California Needs Conservatism (by Rush Limbaugh)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | August 20, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[Truthsearcher]

"Like I said, any Republican is better than the alternative during the 2004 election upcoming. "

So if Gray Davis tomorrow switched parties, you would say he'd be "good enough", since the only thing that matters is a candidate's registration.

I'm sorry, that logic doesn't work.

I agree that we can't let perfection be the enemy of good. But making a case that Arnold being "good enough" requires more than party registration.

I say this as a Californian who isn't sure who I'm going to vote for among the Republicans, I want somebody who at least stand for some of the conservative principles that I believe in.

Now, try again, make the case that Arnold is "good enough", I'm waiting to be convinced.

[risk]

bump

[Reagan Man]

>>>Well, since a conservative governor of California is out of reach then a moderate will have to do in a pinch.

A conservative governor of California isn't out of reach. Tom McClintok has the conservative credentials and has a campaign agenda to match his rhetoric.

OTOH, Arnold Schwarzenegger is not even a moderate. On social issues, Arnold's a liberal and so far, he has yet to prove he is a fiscal conservative.

[holdonnow]

So, you believe in nothing. And, of all people, you use Abraham Lincoln, among the most principled of presidents, as an example. You might recall that Lincoln was a purist when it came to keeping the Union. You strike me a more of Great Compromiser, a la Henry Clay. You call Schwazenegger a moderate Republican, yet cannot honestly discuss his views or, for that matter, your own views. You insist that he can, no he will, win. You have absolutely nothing to back up any of your posts, other than to sling mud at Rush and conservatives generally -- make that "purists." I think the work "hack" best describes you, with all due respect.

[Matchett-PI]

"Rush knows this but for some reason he's leading the GOP down the primrose path."

WHAAAAAAAAT? Rush is saying the same things he has been saying for the 15 years I've been listening to him on the radio. He hasn't deviated one iota.

[quidnunc]

Holdonnow wrote: Tell me, what DO you believe in, now that you've dismissed everyone else as purists?

And another thing!

I haven't dismissed you as purists, I've dismissed you as ideologues.

[Hoverbug]

After U.S. Senator Wilson had signed an anti-gun piece of legislation with giant crocodile tears in his eyes, I called his office. I told a sweet young staffer that I was appalled that he could sign legislation that went against the second amendment to the Constitution, the very thing he was sworn to uphold and defend from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Her reply: "Well, it IS 200 years old."

This is exactly what you get with a liberal with an (R) behind his name.

Hb

[holdonnow]

Well, time for me to depart. Honestly, you're way too defensive and would do better if you could back your emotional outbursts with some solid thinking. Take care.

[panther33]

Well said, sir.

[quidnunc]

Holdonnow wrote: So, you believe in nothing. And, of all people, you use Abraham Lincoln, among the most principled of presidents, as an example. You might recall that Lincoln was a purist when it came to keeping the Union. You strike me a more of Great Compromiser, a la Henry Clay. You call Schwazenegger a moderate Republican, yet cannot honestly discuss his views or, for that matter, your own views. You insist that he can, no he will, win. You have absolutely nothing to back up any of your posts, other than to sling mud at Rush and conservatives generally -- make that "purists." I think the work "hack" best describes you, with all due respect.

If the choice is compromise and get something of what you want or stand on ideology and lose it all then yes, I think that compromise is preferable.

[PhilDragoo]

If the choice is compromise and get something of what you want or stand on ideology and lose it all then yes, I think that compromise is preferable.

And that something would keep Che Bustamove away from the flight controls.

[Matchett-PI]

"...conservatism is dead? You mean individual liberty, capitalism, opportunity, God-given natural rights, and the rule of law are dead? No, disco is dead. Conservatism is alive and well, and some of us are hoping it will become stronger and help rescue those who are suffering under the iron-fist of liberal Stalinism."

Bears a bold repeat! BTTT

[Bullish]

The good thing about Arnold is at least he will confuse the liberals

The liberals don't need any help being 'confused', it's one of their main states of being.

[budwiesest]

While I haven't given up on Arnold's ability to take down any democrat they might throw at him I would like for the first words out the next governor's mouth to be: "Mr. Fox, we're putting up a wall".

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

A RINO is the lesser of two evils.

[CyberAnt]

"is this state ready to embrace a conservative as Governor"

What better time is there ..?? When things are hunky dorie ..?? We NEED a conservative NOW!! Not next year or the year after - we need Tom McClintock now!!

What better time is there to prove CONSERVATIVISM WORKS - everytime it's tried. Not by some liberal "R" person - but by someone who understands what real conservatism really is all about.

[jjbrouwer]

I'm sorry, but I can't resist pinging babylonian to your lame and futile comment.

Why was I not pinged?

Meanwhile, I will not be supporting Arnie's campaign for the governorship. Gary Coleman is a far more worthy candidate.

[NordP]

But Jim, how do we do that if Cruz gets more votes, because we're so divided? That's what I worry about.

[CyberAnt]

Rush has not changed - you've changed!!

[holdonnow]

That explains why your state is full of them, and remains, as you put it, the People's Republic of Washington.