McClintock on H&C(Says He's Still In, Its Early, But Will Back Arnie if Otherwise Cruz Would Win)

hannity & combes | 9/10/03 | Me own ears

[Diddle E. Squat]

Just stated this, interview is on NOW.

[Concerned]

AMBROSE WROTE: "I should add that your abortion talk is a strawman argument. Abortion isn't even really an issue in this campaign. The three big issues are:"

"1.taxes"
"2.spending"
"3.illegal immigration"

"Arnold is horrible on all 3 counts."

My point with the abortion issue is that even on such an important issue for conservatives, minds CAN be changed.

I may be wrong, but I think Arnold---with such a successful ability to make money---could very well come up with ways to solve California's problems, e.g. by WISELY controlling spending and taxes, and by WISELY and INNOVATIVELY INVESTING/TRADING in California projects and the stock/options markets.

I also just heard him talk the other day about being AGAINST giving Driver's Licenses to illegal aliens. With Arnold a LEGAL immigrant himself, Bustamante doesn't have as much ground to stand on compared to Arnold on THAT illegal alien issue. The LEGAL immigrants who WAITED YEARS and YEARS to become LEGAL citizens RESENT the illegal aliens!

[Concerned]

I WROTE: ""Texas USED to be a RAT state---until Republican Bill Clements won the Governorship and became the FIRST Republican Governor of Texas in OVER 100 YEARS! Now, Texas is a REPUBLICAN state. Sometimes, it just takes TIME to get EVERYTHING we want!"

FIELDMARSHALDJ RESPONDED: "This is like comparing apples to oranges, though. The dynamics of CA and TX are quite different. If Clements had been an ultraliberal like Ah-nold, I can confidently assure you that the GOP would be as irrelevent in TX now as it is in Massachusetts."

I agree that TX and "The People's Republic of California" are quite different. However, I disagree that had Clements been an ultraliberal that the GOP would be irrelevant in TX.

For many years, TX had conservative RAT Governors---but NEVER a Republican---until Clements. And since then, TX has only had a RAT twice (if I recall correctly)---Anne "Silver Spoon" Richards and Marc White.

It's kind of like attaining the Four Minute Mile. Many people said it couldn't be done, then after ONE person did it, it has been done numerous times. It just took the FIRST one to break the barrier.

[South40]

Defense attorneys spike the most intelligent prospective jurors at first opportunity--unless they perceive a deeply -held bias that will favor their client. But they will not allow a highly intelligent, discerning, independent-minded juror to be seated if they can at all avoid it.

I see. And that would explain why an attorney, a professor, a retired CHP Officer, and a doctor were all chosen to be on the same jury. You're really smart there Kev, way too smart for me. It's no wonder you're a Mcclintock supporter.

Been there, seen that. I call your bluff.

My bluff? What bluff? It was an accurate description of a jury trial on which I was a member. It was quite an interesting trial too. I could tell you all about it but why bother. You'd probably just call my "bluff" again.

[South40]

"You've never served on a jury yet you claim to have knowledge of them?" Yes.

Oh, I get it. You watched the OJ trial. Silly me.

And what was the nature of the trial in question ?

It’s not in question. It was a very real part of my life. But I'd like to know...are you attempting to add to your vast knowledge of juries, or are you just curious?

Shall I say, they prefer "gullible" idiots. I didn't say the prosecutors like it.

That sounds an awful lot like backpedaling to me. Someone can be gullible without being an idiot, can they not? And I’ve never said you made such a claim of prosecutors...have I? I merely said prosecutors would not allow it because they won't. But you already knew that, being an expert on juries and all.

Now, now. That sounds like a personal insult. You know those aren't tolerated on FR, don't you ? :-)

There's no reason for you to take it that way. What I meant was perhaps they just didn't want a jury expert like you on their jury. Can’t say I blame them. :)

[William Tell]

South40 said: Tom may be a great conservative, but he's a lousy Republican.

Now, that is one of the most perceptive things I have read in a long time.

But you probably didn't mean it the way I would.

What McClintock knows is that some of his supporters will vote for Arnold if it appears that McClintock cannot win.

And some will NEVER vote for Arnold because he is anti-life and anti-gun. McClintock will not insult those people by suggesting that they vote in a way that he KNOWS they will not do.

[capocchio]

in Tennesse a RINO is a treachery, but in Cali, it's a vast improvement

I agree. As others have already said here, if this were a primary then let TM and AS duke it out. But it is not, there is no time to move the support to the most conservative.

Right now, AS has the support. Politics is the art of the possible. AS winning is possible, TM is not.

And remember, re-election of GW is the bigger picture. AS as governor will aid that effort. If Bustament wins and partly because of that GW loses, then we've all lost. Those who think a Dem would be better than a RINO must be counting on the Dem making such a mess of things that he loses next time around. But that assumes the rules won't change.

But if GW loses, the rules change. A Dem in the White House pays off California's debts, pardons the Dem governor, and they all live happily ever after. CA and the rest of the country gets flushed down the drain, but the Dems are happy.

The leak in the dike is smaller now, perhaps a RINO can plug it. A (D) only makes the leak bigger. If we wait and let the (D)'s have their way, the dam may fail. The Clintons can still do much too much mischief yet for us to give them an opening.

[capocchio]

no baby steps towards making the GOP more competitive

All that sounds nice, but I'm not sure it stands up to examination. It seems even on this thread the example of Reagan changing from a D to an R over several years is a counter example.

And check up on how Gingrich came to be Speaker of the House, thus leading to the "Voters' tantrum of '94".

All of these might be considered "baby steps" that did indeed make the GOP more competitive. I'm sure there are exceptions, but would you throw out the successes with the bath water from the failures? Who indeed can guarantee success? Who's pronouncements are more prophetic than another's?

Also see my posts #146 and #346 (I think).

[George W. Bush]

If McClintock cannot do that, then if he claims to be a "Republican Party Man", he must throw his support to Schwarzeneggar to remain true to his Word and his chosen Party (since I myself am NOT a Registered Party-Man Republican, I don't have to worry about these things -- I'd just vote pro-life Libertarian or Constitution; but I respect McClintock's partisan desire to see a GOP man in the CA governor's mansion).

I don't think it works this way. I don't think McClintock voters will all go to Arnie. Maybe half. If even that much. A lot of them would probably vote for Davis/Bustamonte if they vote at all. They won't see any advantage to feeding the RINOs. Because there isn't any. It's political suicide for conservatives.

But if McClintock can do that -- gain around 1% per day, every day, for the next three weeks -- then Schwarzenegger, if HE claims to be a "Republican Party Man", MUST throw his support to McClintock.

The man of honor and principle almost always loses when he offers such a challenge to an unprincipled opponent.

Besides, the absentee ballots are already coming in. Some of those votes are already trickling away.

Hopefully, Davis will beat the recall, Cali can continue to simmer in its own liberal juices until the next regular election and McClintock can run then.

Conservatives should not support RINOs. Especially not blatant RINOs that want to thwart or overthrow the national party's platform. (Whitman, Pataki, Arnie, etc.)

I do think you miss one point here. If McClintock does a campaignus interruptus, he is well-aware that over half of his voters will either not vote or would vote to continue inflicting Davis/Bustamonte on the state to teach the RINOs they can never win with a RINO candidate. In this scenario, McClintock's supporters end up contributing 5% to 8% of the vote, leaving Arnie short of victory. Then McClintock is still a party loyalist and not a spoiler but still keeps Arnie out of the governorship and keeps his shot at governor open for '06.

I would suggest that McClintock is a much smarter and less principled conservative than what you hint at.

[George W. Bush]

Even THOUGH Arnold is a LIBERAL RINO REPUBLICAN, he is still "OFFICIALLY" a REPUBLICAN! And he DOES support Bush! Just having a REPUBLICAN (of ANY kind) as Governor---helps the overall REPUBLICAN national agenda.

Whether he would spend much political capital on Bush or conservative causes is another question. And there's no great reason to believe that he can do much to change the vote in Cali toward Bush or other Republicans in '04. What he can do is instigate the complete RINO takeover of the Cali GOP and make it almost impossible to elect real conservatives in that state ever again. Tough as it is now for conservatives in Cali, it could be worse.

[Quix]

I sure feel the same way re you! THANKS.

[TankerKC]

ME: I heard him say it. He said that if he is up one week out, Arnold should drop out and if Arnold is up one week out, he'll drop out.

You: In no way, shape or form was that ever suggested, insinuated or implied during that interview.

The record:

."My support would go to Arnold if it looks like Arnold's the only hope of stopping Cruz Bustamante, and I think Arnold's support would come to me if our momentum continues and they realize they can actually have their first choice and he can win."

He also said some conflicting things. I'm confused.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Hey, I thought they did.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"I agree that TX and "The People's Republic of California" are quite different. However, I disagree that had Clements been an ultraliberal that the GOP would be irrelevant in TX."

Well, first off, if he had as many red flags go up about his candidacy before the November '78 election, it's unlikely he would've either gotten the nomination, let alone prevailed over Attorney-General John Hill. If he turned into a RINO after the election, same goes, he would've lost renomination (though he would've lost to Mark White anyway, but definitely would not have made a comeback in '86). The TX GOP would not have been in the same condition it's in now, though.

"For many years, TX had conservative RAT Governors---but NEVER a Republican---until Clements. And since then, TX has only had a RAT twice (if I recall correctly)---Anne "Silver Spoon" Richards and Marc White."

Right. Many Tory Democrats. White and Ma Richards are the only 2 'Rats since after the unbroken string of 'Rats from Reconstruction through Dolph Briscoe.

"It's kind of like attaining the Four Minute Mile. Many people said it couldn't be done, then after ONE person did it, it has been done numerous times. It just took the FIRST one to break the barrier."

Yes, but I still stand on what I said before. This is a very flawed comparison. The reasons for why the GOP didn't win races in TX are not the same ones for why we have problems in CA. One major problem in CA is internal party strife based on ideology and truly destructive personalities (Gerry Parsky, Brooks Firestone, et al), something that isn't a major problem in TX at all. That's why many arguing (from out of state) wondering why we "can't get our act together" here, that there's much more than meets the eye here. BTW, the barrier of the GOP winning the CA Governorship has long been broken. Of the 18 Governors there since 1900, only 4 have been 'Rats.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Silly me."

Yes.

[68 grunt]

That was bad! You shouldn't outta post photos like that! How humiliating!

[68 grunt]

Have you ever been to Ventura County? ...

I've been to VC. He might be able to become dogcatcher there, but he is sinking himself statewide.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"there is no time to move the support to the most conservative."

Ah, but so there is time to move the support to the most liberal ?

"Right now, AS has the support. Politics is the art of the possible. AS winning is possible, TM is not."

And what exactly do you win here ? That's the basic point here. With a RINO Governor, you win precisely nothing. You get all of the 'Rat agenda, and the ETHICS, all with an "R" label. So again, I ask you, what do you win ? I just had one of these "great" Governors, and all he handed us was an authentic 'Rat when his reign of error was over.

"And remember, re-election of GW is the bigger picture. AS as governor will aid that effort."

And this, dear sir, is the BIGGEST lie of them all. I challenge you to name all of the RINO Governors sitting in office in '00 that helped Dubya carry their respective states. Do you know that in New England, which has a plethora of RINO Governors, that in '00 the only state up there that went for Dubya was the one that had a 'RAT Governor (Jeanne Shaheen in NH). Reagan and Bush, Sr. also did VERY well in states with 'Rat Governors.

"But if GW loses, the rules change. A Dem in the White House pays off California's debts, pardons the Dem governor, and they all live happily ever after. CA and the rest of the country gets flushed down the drain, but the Dems are happy."

Ah-nold will do more to help Dubya LOSE CA than any 'Rat will. As I said above with all of those oh-so-helpful RINO Governors in '00.

"The leak in the dike is smaller now, perhaps a RINO can plug it. A (D) only makes the leak bigger. If we wait and let the (D)'s have their way, the dam may fail. The Clintons can still do much too much mischief yet for us to give them an opening."

A RINO Governor is never the solution, all they do is leave even bigger messes to clean up. Many of us know this all too well... :-|

[Diddle E. Squat]

OK, I made a mistake when starting this thread. Here is the actual quote of McClintock that I heard at the start of the interview with Colmes:

"My support would go to Arnold if it looks like Arnold's the only hope of stopping Cruz Bustamante, and I think Arnold's support would come to me if our momentum continues and they realize they can actually have their first choice and he can win."

From this thread: McClintock hangs in, says backers may not"

I incorrectly thought that when McClintock used the term "My support" he was referring to himself, when in fact the context suggests that he was referring to his supporters.

Sorry for the error on my part.

[68 grunt]

... They remind me of all thoe bimbos who said they were voting for Clinton because he was "sexy".

You know, you're right! xlinton's appeal helped to get him elected. McC's lack of appeal will ensure his loss.

Go Arnie

[68 grunt]

And if pigs could fly ...