CA: Tom McClintock - A Tale of Two Parties

Tom McClintock CA senate website ^ | 8/22/03 | Tom McClintock

[NormsRevenge]

Times and things change or do they?

[NormsRevenge]

Ping

[The Old Hoosier]

An excellent piece.

[ElkGroveDan]

[jam137]

Good Stuff!

[FairOpinion]

I think the article grossly misrepresents Reagan's position -- he was very inclusive, so that even conservative/moderate Democrats felt comfortable voting for him, that's how the "Reagan Democrats" term was born.

And of course there is the famous Reagan quote, which has been posted here a few times before, but apparently people still need to hear it:

==

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

==

Clearly he did NOT consider himself an uncompromising "radical conservative", in fact it sounds like he saw them for what they are: obstructioninsts, who hurt the party, instead of helping it, by their stubborness.

[The Old Hoosier]

Reagan didn't always get what he asked for. But he DID NOT come to the table with already-reduced demands, either. He was not inflexible, but he was not a sell-out either, like Arnold.

[The Old Hoosier]

Arnold doesn't want to "fight for the rest later." That's another difference. His election would hurt the state party, even if Cruz's election would hurt the state more.

[FairOpinion]

"4%"

[jam137]

I think the article grossly misrepresents Reagan's position -- he was very inclusive, so that even conservative/moderate Democrats felt comfortable voting for him, that's how the "Reagan Democrats" term was born.

Yep -- just like Democrats helping to elect Tom McClintock to the State Senate in 2000 by a landslide, even though the district went for Gore.

[The Old Hoosier]

9 in the field poll, but that doesn't really matter. You can elect Cruz Bustamante, or his Austrian twin, and I don't know for sure that the one is worse than the other.

The main difference seems to be that Cruz won't be able to get his tax hike through the legislature. Also, weak as they are, he does have some budget items he wants to cut.

Arnold, on the other hand, won't give specific cuts until after he's elected, and when he goes to hike taxes, he will peel off some Republicans and get the two-thirds vote.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

My God I love this guy!

This was the ideological pillar that held aloft the so-called Republican "Big Tent." When George Bush in Washington and Pete Wilson in California destroyed that pillar in the 1990’s by massively increasing taxes and regulations, the tent came crashing down and the diverse groups within it began brawling with each other.

Just wanted to share this latest work from my friend ;-)

[FairOpinion]

"Arnold, on the other hand, won't give specific cuts until after he's elected, and when he goes to hike taxes, he will peel off some Republicans and get the two-thirds vote. "

--

Looks like you are working real hard to get BUstamante elected, coming up with the most ludicrous, convoluted accusation about how the world is going to end, if Arnold gets elected, but Bustamante will be just fine, because our fine CA Legislature, dominated by Democrats will stand up to him, but won't stand up to Arnold.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

"4%"

Then why is it worth your time? Oh yeah, because no one but people who normally are aligned with the letter 'R' are going to vote for your vague populists platitude candidate, and you need us.

Insulting us isn't the way you will get us. Didn't work for your guy Rioden who had no message, and it won't work now.

[68 grunt]

I'm really enjoying your discomfort. Please continue. How long has it been since you've felt the wind?

[FairOpinion]

"4%"

"Then why is it worth your time?"

---

4% means that the chance of McC getting elected is zero, but it also means, that if the election is close between Arnold and Bustamante, as it's expected to be, that maybe the margin, by which Arnold could lose to Bustamante, because the "radical conservatives", as Reagan called them, insist on throwing their vote away, effectively voting for Bustamante.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

calgov2002:

Gray Must Pay
Cruz Must Lose

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[Owens08]

4%

Ya, in a poll where a full 1/4 of respondents AREN'T EVEN REGISTERED VOTERS, and only 1/2 are likely voters...

if we used as a sample a high school government class, ya arnold is going to poll well. but post-buffet, post-'im gonna raise your taxes' and post-'democrats start to move towards cruz' any poll of likely voters, or how about just registered voters, will show arnold dropping...

also, this is very reminiscent of the 2002 primary. the main argument for riordan was 'he can win,' the same argument being used now for arnold. once arnold starts to dip, and it becomes clear he's likely not to win, freefall will ensue. it's hard to stay high in the polls when the only thing going for you is a thought that you're electable...

just a thought...

[68 grunt]

:^)