Peaking Tom A conservative tries to become California's next governor. (Go McClintock!)

NRO | 08/28/03 | John J. Miller

[nyc.flip.conservative]

Peaking Tom A conservative tries to become California's next governor.

Conservative Tom McClintock isn't worried about spoiling fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's bid for governor in California. "You could say the same thing about him," he says. "He's spoiling my chance to become governor."

McClintock, a 47-year-old state senator from Ventura County, is the one candidate in the race who can honestly say he's surging. Last weekend's L.A. Times poll had him shooting up to 12 percent, doubling his popularity from a few weeks earlier. This mark put him behind frontrunner Cruz Bustamante (35 percent) and GOP heavyweight Schwarzenegger (22 percent), but also far ahead of the rest of the pack.

He is suddenly California's dark-horse candidate for governor.

Third place isn't the same thing as first place, of course, but McClintock does appear to have positive momentum. If the supporters of withdrawn-candidate Bill Simon (six percent) get behind him, he'll be just about within the margin of error of second place — and in a statistical dead heat with the Terminator.

McClintock is doing so well because he has become the clear favorite of California conservatives who are disturbed by Schwarzenegger's refusal to rule out tax hikes to balance the Golden State's budget, to say nothing of Schwarzenegger's social liberalism on issues such as abortion.

He also brings plenty of political experience to the table, having been elected to the California legislature for the first time in 1982. Last year, he ran for controller and lost by a fraction of a percentage point despite being outspent 5-to-1 by his opponent. He outperformed every other Republican running for statewide office.

"There is a great deal Arnold Schwarzenegger could teach me about making movies," says McClintock. "There is a great deal I could teach him about state finances. Unfortunately, there won't be any training period for out next governor."

McClintock already has a plan for his first day on the job. "I'd issue an executive order rescinding Gray Davis's tripling of the car tax, void the high-priced electricity contracts he approved, and call a special session of the legislature to get worker compensation costs under control. I'd do all that before lunch."

He has an agenda for the afternoon as well: "I'd start to eliminate agencies that duplicate functions performed by other arms of the government. Then I would begin to look at contracting out many public services. All of this would save the state billions."

Ultimately, McClintock would like to see annual state-spending increases capped to match the combined rate of inflation and population growth. If this had been done just five years ago, he says, California would have a budget surplus today rather than a big deficit.

The prospect of Gov. Schwarzenegger worries him. "There's a dirty little secret about California tax policy: It takes a Republican to raise them," says McClintock.

That's because tax hikes require a two-thirds majority in the California legislature. Although Democrats dominate both houses, they still need to pick off a few GOP votes to raise taxes. "When a Democratic governor proposes a tax increase, we can count on Republicans to unite against it," says McClintock. "When a Republican governor proposes a tax increase, however, he can always bring along the necessary number of Republicans."

McClintock continues: "That's what happened in 1991, when Pete Wilson imposed the biggest tax hike any state has ever had in American history. He had just won election saying he was against tax increases but he refused to rule them out. Now all of his people are advising Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Schwarzenegger is saying the same thing Wilson did. That concerns me."

Needless to say, McClintock has plenty of enemies within his own party. Many of them — plus a few friends — will try to convince him to drop out, noting that the combined strength of Schwarzenegger, Simon, and McClintock is possibly enough to pick the next governor.

Yet there are several reasons why conservatives may want to stick with McClintock the whole way. First, McClintock's withdrawal would have Republicans betting everything on Schwarzenegger's success — and if one of those damaging rumors about the actor turns out to have political traction, McClintock's candidacy becomes a handy insurance policy. Second, if a conservative like McClintock can't be governor, it may be in the interests of conservatives to have either Gray Davis not recalled or his ally Cruz Bustamante installed as his replacement, in the belief that California Republicans next year will be able to campaign at all levels against either Davis himself or the Davis legacy.

Finally — and perhaps most importantly — McClintock is the only committed conservative in the race. He's the best in the field and would be a fine governor for a state that desperately needs one.

[nyc.flip.conservative]

Why haven't I seen any comment on this mostly positive article on Tom McClintock. As a NYC GOP activist, I know that in spite of Giuliani's national popularity among GOP circles, his brand of "moderate"/RINO politics has left the NYC GOP in worst shape than when he was elected in 1993. Case in point: Bloomberg and his tax hikes and capitulation to public spending. Also, Rudy's RINO background made him turn the other way in hiring RAT operatives in his administration which had no interest in promoting GOP candidates in the grassroots. Ditto for Ah-nold and his Wilson cronies.

[Redcloak]

I don't think that Tom can beat out Aaaahnold, but it would be pretty funny if he bounced Bustamante out of second place.

[DM1]

I read a new poll saying Ahnold was ahead again. I have mixed feelings about this Recall thing. I would love to see a conservative Repub like McClintlock get in. Granted i dont know much about him but from what i read he seems like a decent conservative. That being said California has been taken over by the loony left for quite some time so i really dont think he could get in. I would hope that if Ahnold could agree to appoint some conservatives to offices and help energize the GOP by attracting other unaligned voters then that would be acceptable. Still in a perfect world we would have conservatives winning everywhere right :)

[hresources]

Obviously written before the KABC Poll that has Arnold at 45%. I don't know why anybody would quote that phoney LA Times poll.

[Thud]

McClintock is DOA. Simon's entry did him in. I wish McClinock could be governor but he has no chance at all, and should drop out with an endorsement of Schwarzenegger. McClintock is just a spoiler now. All his staying in at this point does is increase the chances of us being stuck with another incompettent Democratic governor. I hate to say this but that's the way it is.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Why haven't I seen any comment on this mostly positive article on Tom McClintock.

I continue to support Tom McClintock for governor, but I don't live in California and can't vote for him. The article is very good and the candidate is even better. McClintock stands on the principles of fiscal (and social) conservatism. He has a specific economic recovery plan for California and has led the anti-tax movement in the state legislature for 20 years. McClintock is responsible for the 1995 economic analysis called, "A Citizens Guide To The State Budget Mess" and also for the recent BRAC legislation that he pushed through the state Senate.

Rnold Schwarzenegger is a liberal, with an R next to his. Too bad that R stands for RINO. Rnold is no fiscal conservative and he continues to refuse to release his economic recovery plan for California. Rnold has offered NO specifics and NO details. Rnold says, that's something he will do, after the election. LOL I guess he mean, should he win the recall election.

Go Tom Go!

[pogo101]

McClintock ping

[DiamondDon1]

McClintock is gaining popularity and will be given a shot. If three weeks out, he isn't in it, he will not spoil anything.

What is good, is that Arnold is going to the RIGHT to try and get us to vote for him and that is because of McClintock...

DD

[tophat9000]

The prospect of Gov. Schwarzenegger worries him. "There's a dirty little secret about California tax policy: It takes a Republican to raise them," says McClintock.

Why haven't I seen any comment on this mostly positive article on Tom McClintock.

Because there are people here that don't want to hear it... they just want to believe in Arnold, in the "R" by the name...... Arnold will raise taxes .... he will not change workers comp because he will not fight the dem that hard on it.... California is a state thats bleeding (jobs) to death.... and Arnold will not do what’s needed... and Californian will pay

[Thud]

Not enough money. He's toast.

[DoctorZIn]

PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.

[Rome2000]

"You could say the same thing about him," he says. "He's spoiling my chance to become governor."

Well, you could say that, but you would be lying.

[jam137]

The prospect of Gov. Schwarzenegger worries him. "There's a dirty little secret about California tax policy: It takes a Republican to raise them," says McClintock.

That's because tax hikes require a two-thirds majority in the California legislature. Although Democrats dominate both houses, they still need to pick off a few GOP votes to raise taxes. "When a Democratic governor proposes a tax increase, we can count on Republicans to unite against it," says McClintock. "When a Republican governor proposes a tax increase, however, he can always bring along the necessary number of Republicans."

McClintock continues: "That's what happened in 1991, when Pete Wilson imposed the biggest tax hike any state has ever had in American history. He had just won election saying he was against tax increases but he refused to rule them out. Now all of his people are advising Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Schwarzenegger is saying the same thing Wilson did. That concerns me."

This can't be emphasized enough, IMO.

[DiamondDon1]

Not enough money. He's toast.

Still Arnold moves RIGHT with McClintock...which is a good thing...

DD

[Princeliberty]

And the blacklash will fall on the entire Republican
party both by swinging the swing voters against
Republicans and depressing the base turnout.

As a result not only a Democrat in 2006 but
fewer Republican state reps. and and state senators.
And maybe even Republican congressmen may go down.
And the Democrat in 2006 would probably have 2/3
plus then. And so he could then really spend
and tax like never before on top of the taxing
and spending Arnold will do.
So Arnold will in reality do more harm than Davis
and produce a Democrat governor after him who
will do even more harm than him or Davis.

[Thud]

I don't consider that a victory. I supported McClintock because he's the best man to deal with the disastrous budget deficit, not because he is the most conservative. I'm a moderate Republican and tend to go for the best man for the job who is a Republican. McClintock is that man now, but he doesn't have a chance for lack of money. California is just too big a state. His only chance was to the only meaningful conservative in the race, and Simon's entry killed him.

Furthermore there isn't much conservatism a conservative governor can impose on California through his office. Rather he has to do it like Reagan did - by using the governor's chair as a bully pulpit to convince people that conservative ideas are right. No one would ever accuse McClintock of charisma and salesmanship. He's just smart and right (pun intended). So McClintock in office would be a major disappointment for conservatives. But boy would he whack the defict. It won't happen. Sigh.

[tophat9000]

Bottom line if you’re a Republican you normally should believe that Republican policy’s (i.e. less taxes, spending and regulation)work

Also if you’re a Republican you normally should believe Democrat policy’s (i.e. more taxes, spending and regulation)fail

So what happens when a Republican follows a Democrat policy’s (i.e. more taxes, spending and regulation... think Bush Sr. in 91) ....they fail...... and the Republican party takes the blame ....

So why would you want to vote for a Republican that will follows Democrat policy’s and then fail and then take the party down with them....

If you truly believe Arnold will govern with Republican policy’s (i.e. less taxes, spending and regulation) and will succeed well I can respect that...I disagree that Arnold will govern with Republican policy’s ....but I can respect that people might honestly believe he will govern like a Republican

However if you only care that Arnold can win and could care less on how he will govern the CA economy..... your inviting disaster on the party... because the party will take the blame if he fails

Bush Sr lost not just because of Ross Perot but because the economy tanked caused by raising taxes... and that was because Bush Sr folded to the Democrat pressing to raise taxes... Republican following Democrat policy’s fail...... and the Republican party takes the blame ....

[yeswecan]

If Tom stays in the race until the end and ends up coming close to or exceeding Ahno's percentage of the vote, will Ahno's supporters still accuse McClintock of ruining the party? Why isn't it the other way around?

Here, there is clearly a three-way race that conservatives could win by backing a solid conservative, but many supposed conservatives refuse to believe that such an outcome is possible. They accept the notion that conservative voters, who tend to be much better educated, intelligent and informed than their liberal counterparts, are also swayed above all by "name recognition" and charm. Hence, there is no choice but to vote for the movie star.

Here's another hypothetical situation worth pondering. Let's say that in the final days before the election, Bustamante is polling 35%-40%, Ahno is polling 20-25% and McClintock is polling 15-20%. You know that neither Republican candidate is likely to win. What do you do? Do you vote for McClintock to bolster the influence of conservatives within Republican ranks, or do you vote for Ahno to ... (insert a reason here other than "I think he has a better chance of winning")?

Why is it always the hard-core conservatives that are being asked to sacrifice their preferences for the sake of party unity? Why shouldn't it be the Ahno conservatives who are called on to sacrifice their preferences to get on the McClintock bandwagon?

I am not a California voter, but I have several times been in a situation where I had to sacrifice the more "purist" option in order to have my vote meaningfully effect the outcome of an election. However, this time around I am glad to see that a lot of folks seem to be intent on backing McClintock, even if the ultimate result is Bustamante. At some point there has to be a consequence for taking the "lunatic fringe right wing" for granted as part of any liberal Republican's electoral calculation.

As for the calls for McClintock to get out of the race, one should think twice about that. Ahno is not going to gain much more ground on the Left. This is clear. The only way he can pick up more votes is by "moving" further to the right in hopes of having more conservatives feel better about the prospects of a successfuly Ahno governorship. The longer and stronger McClintock stays in the race, the more it will be clear to Ahno that he has to do something substantive to gain the confidence of the "right wing".