GOP wrong about Schwarzenegger; McClintock better

Ventura County Star ^ | 29 August 2003 | Andrew Russo

[Commander8]

ping

[45Auto]

From a recent post:

Schwarzenegger Wrong for Gun Owners, Wrong for California

By David Codrea August 28, 2003

“Where else do gun owners have to go?”—Former Republican Party National Chairman Lee Atwater

-- In their zeal to rid California of the catastrophic Gray Davis and to prevent the equally loathsome Cruz Bustamante from assuming the governorship, the Golden State’s “centrist” Republican establishment has cast its lot with Arnold Schwarzenegger. On the surface, their reasoning is obvious. Famous, rich, successful, admired by millions, the superstar actor had but to cast his hat into the ring to command international attention and a multitude of star-struck followers—without ever defining where he stands on the issues beyond platitudes and sound bites.

Proving yet again how they value power over principle, the state GOP leadership has been quick to fall behind the Schwarzenegger campaign—and to discourage principled conservative candidates from running, while chastising their supporters not to “split the vote.” The alternative, they tell us, will be to retain Davis, or to give power to turncoat underling Bustamante, either of whom, they assure us, will be disastrous for California.

The problem is, a Schwarzenegger victory would be just as undesirable of an outcome for those who value liberty. Where gun owner concerns are reckoned, there is no difference between Arnold and his Democrat rivals. As far as the Republican machine is concerned, and their scare tactics prove it, the late chairman Atwater’s dismissal is still in full effect, and gun owners are once more being played for fools.

“Gun controls should be stiffer.”—Arnold Schwarzenegger

[45Auto]

see

Codrea

[Kevin Curry]

Second Amendment Schwarzegungrabber Bump.

[Cicero]

Unfortunately the country club Republicans who control the state party--with regretable support from Karl Rove--would rather die than support a pro-lifer. That's why they stabbed Simon in the back and refused to give him campaign funds.

These folks control the money and the machinery, but ordinary conservatives control the votes, and they are not going to vote for candidates who support sexual perversion and abortion.

I could see this coming, and for that reason did not support the recall effort, much as I despise Gray Davis. With Gerald Parsky in charge of the party, nothing good is every going to come of this. This editorial is right on the money.

[JoeSchem]

Any individual who seeks to be governor of California but has to seclude himself for 10 days with consultants and counselors to tell him what to think simply cannot be taken seriously.

All hat and no cattle, and not much under the hat. Ronald Reagan gave political speeches for ten years before he ran for Governor.

[deport]

With a limited campaign budget (and no personal fortune to pour into the contest), a small staff and no box office sensations to his credit, McClintock is quickly becoming the candidate to watch in the recall race.

---

LOL....... Wonder what it is one should be watching for?

[Owen]

We've been over this again and again.

You can't influence policy if you do not win. Period.

You can't win if independents and centrists do not support you. Period.

If you are too far to either the right or the left, independents and centrists will not support you. Period.

Is there anything wrong with any of those statements? I'm sure some will say yes. So let's anticipate them.

1) Sure. One can influence policy if one loses. But not in whatever bizarre way will be asserted. The way one influences policy by losing is by ensuring that the opposition's far left policy is implemented. The opposition takes your tax dollars and spends it on their priorities.

2) Is there a way to win without centrists and moderates? Sure. If either a far right or far left position outnumbers them. Does it? Does it in California?

3) Will independents and moderates support either a far left or far right candidate? Yes. If the other direction seems even more extreme. In the spectrum of politics, the farther to the right you go, the more the leftist candidate seems a centrist.

In a liberal to moderate state like California, who is closer to the center, McClintock or Schwarzenegger?

[RGSpincich]

sending the Republican Party's country-club establishment into panic.

First McClintock makes references to the country club backrooms of the Republican Party and then this article uses the same terms. Country clubs are filled with hard working self made individuals, lots of Republicans. What's with this guilt trip for being successful? It's a Democrat tactic to attack the wealthy or at least the perceived wealthy. When did Tom change sides?

[deport]

Ronald Reagan gave political speeches for ten years before he ran for Governor.

---

Heck if speechifying is the qualifier then McClintock ought to be the leader by several points. He's been giving speeches since at least 1982 when he was first elected, that's some 21 years.

Go TOM Go

[Kevin Curry]

What don't you like about Tom's positions on the issues?

Be specific, please.

[Kevin Curry]

What don't you like about Tom's positions on the issues? Be specific, please.

[deport]

Country clubs are filled with hard working self made individuals, lots of Republicans. What's with this guilt trip for being successful? It's a Democrat tactic to attack the wealthy or at least the perceived wealthy. When did Tom change sides?

---

Maybe Tom's decided he'll be elected without going after all the vorters and their support. Just alienate them as they don't matter anyway. Then again maybe his internal polling is telling him something or maybe he's getting a sense of the campaign as he makes the rounds politicing.

GO TOM GO

[deport]

What don't you like about Tom's positions on the issues? Be specific, please.

---

Tom's got the winners.....

GO TOM GO

[ambrose]

Is it McClintock's fault that Schwarzenegger's negatives are almost as high as his positives? The truth is that voters are beginning to recognize that the Hollywood megastar is, to use Texas terminology, all hat and no cattle.

Bump!

[tame]

one endorsement from the California Republican Assembly is worth a thousand endorsements from the Lincoln Club of Orange County.

Absolutely true!

GOOOOOOOO, TOM!

[RGSpincich]

His position on the Domestic Partners Bill (SB205) was what? Absolutely against it. So what? Not exactly a man of action. Seems he was MIA for the Senate vote on the bill the other day. His positions on the issues don't matter because he doesn't back them up.

His candidate filing fiasco is another example of his inability to complete a task properly.

[45Auto]

California taxpaying citizens are in deep crap no matter what the outcome of this election. If Davis is retained, nothing will change and it will be downhill to fiscal collapse, huge tax increases, a stagnating state economy, more business/job loss, and an ever-increasing turd worldization (if I may coin a phrase). The Hollywood elite and the movie industry cannot save California from the economic doldrums.

If Bustamante is elected, nothing will change for the better; he is worse than Davis (if that's possible) and a REAL racist to boot. Although states are not authorized to conduct foreign policy, this clown will throw open the doors to Mexico. The invasion from the south will dramatically transform the California economic landscape; it will mirror the poverty and the incipient violence that comes with it. Parts of San Francisco and Los Angeles already look like exact duplicates of third world ratholes in Mexico, central, and south America. Remember, the motto of La Raza is "For the Race, Everything, for the others, nothing."

If Arnold wins, there will be much fanfare but very little accomplishment as he realizes what a scummy bunch of RAT-bastards he has to deal with in the California legislature. Those vermin are well practiced and will eat him alive. BY the time they are through, he will have compromised away every idea he ever had.

If by some miracle (and I think that's what it would take) McClintock wins, the legislature will still have to be dealt with. That will be a formidable task; look what the RAT-obstructionists in the US Senate have done to Bush - and consider - they are in the MINORITY in the US Senate. California has nearly a RAT supermajority in BOTH houses; on top of that ALL elected state offices are held by RATs. These vermin will not compromise or relinguish even 1% of their perceived power, even to a veteran streetfighter like Tom McClintock. He will get no help from ANY bureaucracy, ANY state agency. They will do everything they can to stall even the most minor of changes.

The state employees unions (including the spawn of hell, the teachers union)will fight tooth and nail to maintain their stranglehold on the lion's share of state tax revenues. The welfare bureaucracy, the court system, everywhere he turns, there will be another bunch of knawing, mean, rabid, hungry, wild-eyed hysterical liberal/socialist/Marxists demanding "equality", "fairness", the whole lefty, lying litany of BS will pour out like a crap storm.

Still, a true conservative in the governor's office might scare the crap out of the RATs; enough to make them think their political days are numbered - but probably this is just my own fantasy.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Your basic thinking is flawed.

You base your assumptions on the fact that you cannot influence policy if you do not win. True as that may be (if it is), your circular thinking excuses any and all liberal statements made by any politicians that claim to be conservative.

If we base our voting habits on that assumption, it would be all right to excuse any statements made during a campaign, because "they are only saying that to win".

Not only is this circular, it is defeatist. It encourages dishonesty and corruption.