Posted on 09/02/2003 4:21:28 PM PDT by socal_parrot
A Democratic plot to boost Tom McClintocks candidacy at Arnold Schwarzeneggers expense has recently come to light.
On paper, the recall election should be a cakewalk for California Republicans. A cursory analysis reveals a governor with an approval rating below Richard Nixon at his low point. The only serious Democrat candidate is the states uninspiring lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, who unquestioningly followed Governor Davis through his mishaps with the budget and energy crisis. It should be a breeze for Republicans, right? Think again. Democrats are euphoric over Tom McClintocks intransigence in continuing his long-shot bid for governor. This allows Democrats to divide and conquer their way into office. Democrats are attempting to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and Tom McClintock is an essential part of their game plan.
For starters, Democrats know McClintock cannot win. They know that he has ran for statewide office twice before and lost both times. McClintocks problem is not so much that hes unknown but that Californians know about him and have rejected his candidacy time and again. Knowing this, a Democrat plot to boost McClintocks candidacy at Schwarzeneggers expense has already surfaced. According to the Sacramento Bees Daniel Weintraub, Ever since Cruz Bustamante entered the race, it's been assumed that California's Indian tribes were going to pool their money and do independent expenditures on his behalf, expensive ads that get around the $21,000 limit on contributions. Now I am hearing rumblings that the Indians might think about helping Cruz in a more creative way as well. If they spent, say, $4 million on behalf of state Sen. Tom McClintock, the most conservative Republican in the race, they might pump McClintock's numbers up while hurting Arnold and not harming Cruz a bit. Remember, Cruz needs a split GOP vote to win. That would be one way to get it. The reliably Democratic Indian tribes, loyal to Bustamante, would essentially throw their weight behind McClintock to chip away at the support of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP front-runner. The Democrat strategy with regard to Tom McClintock is: If you know you can beat em, join em.
McClintock is unfazed by this conniving scheme and is more than happy to play along. His actions suggest that hes willing to make allies with loyal Democratic groups under the logic, the enemy of my enemy (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is my friend. On August 28th, McClintock and Bustamante went together before the California Nations Indian Gaming Association to pledge their support. Needless to say, money will follow. Whether McClintock knows it or not, hes being used by the Left. If Democrat allies can keep McClintock in the game, they can put a cap on Arnolds support. A recent Los Angeles Times poll shows Bustamante with 35% of the vote and McClintock with 12%. The poll indicates that McClintock will lose decisively but more importantly, his vote will ensure that GOP front-runner Schwarzenegger loses as well.
It doesnt have to be this way. McClintock could see the light and do whats best for the party as Bill Simon did by bowing out of the race. Other than his new Democratic support, the picture continues to grow bleaker for McClintock. The Washington Post and Sacramento Bee are reporting that there will be a record turnout for the recall election. This invalidates the early calculus by McClintock supporters - that in a low turnout election, grassroots could carry the day. Further, the base is growing more familiar with Schwarzeneggers conservatism Arnold came out against partial-birth abortion, against gay marriage, and for a constitutional spending cap.
There comes a time when personal ambition must be set aside and self-affirming but false justifications for ones candidacy need to be reexamined. If McClintock stays in the California Senate, and assuming Arnold wins the governorship, he and Arnold could play the good-cop/bad-cop routine to perfection, mirroring President Bush and Tom Delays efforts at the national level. Additionally, McClintock may be well positioned to challenge Barbara Boxer in next years US Senate race. However, if McClintock persists with his spoiler campaign and throws the election to Bustamante, it is doubtful he will have any political capital for a future race.
But assuming things stay the way they are, with McClintocks help, Bustamante and the Democrats may well pull off an upset of a lifetime on Election Day.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!
Incrementalism towards moving even FURTHER left, you mean ? Your arguments still don't hold water here.
Dude, I've never hidden that fact. It's called being HONEST, something the Ah-nold sheep brigades should look into. ;-)
That's because the polls reflect that the well-known, well-funded liberal spoiler in the race is taking votes from conservative simply because he has an (R) after his name. Remove Arnold from the race and show me the polls.
As Jim Robinson said on August 19th:
Let's all do the Dialectical Leap! "Yes, there are contradictions of the Worker's Paradise exploiting and oppressing workers, but we must embrace and compound these contradictions, for only in the inherent contradictions will the glorious Dialectical Materialist leap take place to a shining future!" |
"We must provoke riots in order to force a violent and oppressive response by the police, so that then the oppressed people will rise up and overthrow their oppressors and live in peace!" |
One more time, for your edification.
I don't remember Reagan supporting any Democrats or liberals in his day. Reagan was a social and fiscal conservative who was opposed to liberalism of any kind. I know the GOP has a few RINO's in the Senate. Collins, Snowe, Spector and Chaffefy come to mind. The fact is, those people are alreday in office and I don't believe we should work to kncok them off, while we hold the majority. But that's no reason to go out of our way and increase the RINO population.
Now, I don't think that it does any good to go back and point fingers at who did what. I am certain that people know who is guilty of what, and it does no good to rehash it.
However, to both sides I will say this. All the name calling is no doubt providing a high degree of entertainment over at DU. One would think that people could refrain from infighting, but apparently not.
The downside of an Arnold win is the greater probability that he WON'T fix the state and then Republicans will get to be the undeserved bagholders of "California's downfall" in the following election (and believe me, there's plenty of the brain dead that will buy that too)...</Devils Advocate>
Post 609 points out your grave error in thinking.
The comparisons don't wash here. Remembering that Ah-nold is far left for starters and has as much in common with mainstream Republican values as the Clintons, if you wish to analyze why Bayh and O'Bannon won, it ain't because the "right" spooked the "mainstream." In '88, John Mutz lost because they wasted too much time on issues such as challenging Bayh's residency and Bayh campaigned LIKE a Republican (you also forget that the 'Rats hadn't won the Governorship since 1964, another argument for change). Bayh didn't move to far to the left and comfortably won reelection. As with the '96 race, O'Bannon won not because of the ideology of his opponent, but because of last minute problems that were out of Mayor Goldsmith's control (and also, as you mentioned to me awhile ago, the hatred that folks have for Indianapolis-based pols that even the RINOish Bill Hudnut would've been hard-pressed to overcome if he had been the nominee against Bayh instead of Mutz in '88). As I said, the comparisons between here and CA is apples to oranges.
"Answer me this: this is NOT a primary. McClintock doesn't get to defeat Arnold and THEN take on Bustamante. It's a one-shot deal. Why isn't McClintock attacking Bustamante and ignoring Arnold?"
McClintock has to defeat BOTH Ah-nold and Bustamante. Since both are ahead of him in the wildly unreliable polls, he has to go after both.
"And why do McClintock's supporters make such an effort to insult those who disagree with them?"
Ma'am, speaking as one who has endured humiliating attacks from the Ah-nold brigades all for doing nothing more than pointing out the truth, I might ask them that question.
"Seems to me you should be trying to win voters to your side, and you usually can't do this by calling people names."
You're right. But try reasoning with these people, it's impossible. No amount of facts or coherent analysis of the political dynamics is enough. It's a wild stampede to win based on a letter of the alphabet party label and not on principles. You're in IN and haven't elected a GOP Governor since 1984 with Bob Orr, that's a long time (far longer than CA). Saying that, would you sell out your values and nominate someone as radical as Julia Carson as the GOP nominee for Governor this year ? If Ah-nold were a moderate in the least, maybe he'd be a possibility, but everything from his stands to his personal character send up red flags galore. We can't afford to put this man up for anything representing the GOP, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.