McClintock Key to Democratic Victory in California

Intellectual Conservative.com ^ | 9/2/3 | Bob Chandra

[Cultural Jihad]

Thanks for the ping. A recent member does not make one a troll. I haven't seen any trollish behavior by that individual, have you? All I see is someone who is politely advocating for who he honestly sees as the best electable candidate.

[heleny]

But the larger story is what Issa did after he spent a million dollars to help make possible a race he was destined not to enter. He stepped down for the good of his party.

Issa knew he couldn't win. He polled lower than Simon, McClintock, Schwarzenegger, and Riordan, and Issa had high negative ratings because Davis was already demonizing Issa. He also appeared to be hijacking a grassroots project by buying into it many weeks after it started.

[Yossarian]

Liberal newbie trolls agree, RINO Ah-nold Bustaschwarzenkennedy is their man. Get lost, troll. This is a REPUBLICAN forum.

Oh brother - this is getting really pathetic!

Look, I don't like some of Arnold's positions, and some of his advisors. But he's showing he can build enough of a consensus to win - and that's exactly what he'll need to do to lead once elected.

Compare this to McClintock and his, ah, promoters here on this forum. He has the ideas I like, but he can't build an effective team. That's really sad for the conservative cause, and I hope he learns from this experience.

As for those that want to treat fellow Republicans in the incredibly rude and bullying manner as I've seen here, I'll remind you of

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandmant!

I'm just somewhat glad Ron can't really fathom what is happening to the party he led just a few decades ago....

[A CA Guy]

It's either going to be Arnold ot Bustamante, the others could be spoilers, but at best are also-rans.

[jmstein7]

Woah. McClintock is no Reagan.

[Cultural Jihad]

Please let us know when you or McClintock decide to attack Democrats instead of Republicans.

[TheAngryClam]

You're wrong. Arnold will come in third. Mark my words.

[fieldmarshaldj]

A recent member does not make one a troll, no. This recent member make a troll he is, yes.

[Tamzee]

Your Post #87 -- absolutely correct and I agree!

Well, thank you kindly :-) I've been in awe of some of yours!

/note to self... stay on PhiKapMom's GOOD side...

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Wow, August 25, 2003? Now was his old name "68 grunt" or was it "CarmetyVillie"?

Did you hear (R)nold on John and Ken just now stammer so bad on tax policy that he hung up on the largest audience during drive time after 6 minutes. Please come back from the dark side. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/974788/posts

[pogo101]

Another "compromise pact" scenario is:

1. After a hard but not vicious campaign through late September, Arnold agrees privately with McClintock that, if McClintock drops/endorses, he (McClintock) shall be Arnold's budget director, with extensive independence -- i.e., he is not just some Arnold appointee or flunky.

2. McClintock agrees, and drops/endorses, but makes it very clear that he will continue to speak out against wasteful spending AND unfair taxes, even if such is not the position of the Arnold "administration" ... and that he's ONLY agreed to drop/endorse because he has been assured of such independence. Arnold reiterates that, yes, Tom would be an independent budget director and that he (Arnold) wants Tom's penny-pinching expertise, even if it's tough to hear.

3. Recall succeeds. On successor ballot, Arnold wins, but not by much, over Cruz.

4. State economy turns around between '03 and '06. McClintock gets much of the credit. Grateful GOP party apparatus ("grateful" for his having bowed out in recall race, plus his aid in transforming the state thereafter) makes clear to would-be GOP gubernatorial contenders that Tom Has The Pary's Full Support Whenever He Chooses To Run.

5. McClintock serves two glorious terms as governor, '06-'14, transforming the state into a model for efficient growth, and ushering in GOP dominance in the Legislature for the first time in decades.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandmant!"

Ah-nold is not a Republican.

[jmstein7]

Yeah. . . except for the fact that letting the Dems have the Governor's Mansion in '04 gives them a BIG pulpit from which to bash Bush and the GOP. Even putting a RINO in there deprives them of that sniper's nest -- and it's a BIG sniper's nest.

[A CA Guy]

Just think, McNadertock can at best muster a third of Arnold's vote.

[heleny]

Bust-a-move is out in 2004? 2006? via term-limits.

You aren't from CA, I gather.

[Cultural Jihad]

Nice troll image you posted. Apparently holocaust survivors are simply to be used to score cheap political points by McClintock's trollish goons. Shame on you.

[NewsGal]

Amen.

Do you know what the poll results are on FR on this issue. I just voted but could not locate the percentages.

Hopefully, California Republicans, Independents, and Democrats will do they right thing and vote for Arnold.

[PhiKapMom]

How are you going to advance a conservative agenda if you continue to support candidates that allow DemocRATs to win?

There were 10 Republican Senators on impeachment that didn't feel it was the right charges against Clinton. But then I think he should have been brought up on treason and that the Monicagate was all a scam to cover-up China and the real treason.

Guess you put Fred Thompson in the liberal category since he didn't vote for both articles of impeachment.

Actually I thought the way the impeachment of clinton was handled was an embarrassment as well. The House members were left high and dry! Senators saw the handwriting on the wall that the evidence made no difference to the RATs, they would never vote to remove. The RATs wanted a full blown trial so they could use it on Republicans in 2000! The Senators didn't take the bait but yet get dumped on here by people that voted for Perot in some instances in 1992 to teach Republicans a lesson. The real culprit in impeachment was allowing the Clintons to turn it into a sex only deal which doomed impeachment from the beginning.

Why would I expect some of you to understand that either? I keep hearing that it was President Bush's fault in 1992 that allowed Perot to take away so many votes and gave us Clinton. Guess Carville meeting with Perot's Lt's had nothing to do with it. Clinton's people praised Perot as well. See any similarity -- I have my doubts you do!

[Reagan Man]

>>>You wouldn't know satire if it jumped up and bit you in the McClintock.

You can't see, but I'm laughing. Laughing at your silly whinings. Hahahahahahaha

And I do believe you're a disruptor, from DU or one of the other anti-FReeper websites. You've been here for eights days and you know all about the term disruptor. I'd venture a guess, this isn't the first time you've nailed for what you really are.