Posted on 09/10/2003 6:07:01 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
Just stated this, interview is on NOW.
You're talking about a man's personal conversion, that has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. We're discussing the effects of RINO Governors on their respective states, state parties, and on Presidential contests within them. Remember that Reagan beat the similarly annointed liberal RINO San Francisco Mayor George Christopher in 1966. The liberal media and party elites hammered Reagan as being "unelectable", too. BTW, the man Reagan beat, Gov. Pat Brown, started out in politics as a RINO before switching to the 'Rats. At least as a liberal, he knew where he belonged. IIRC, Christopher eventually switched to them, too.
"And check up on how Gingrich came to be Speaker of the House, thus leading to the "Voters' tantrum of '94"."
I know how. He stopped acting like his accommodationist RINO predecessors, most of whom weren't interested in winning the majority but in remaining friendly with their 'Rat "betters" and knowing their place.
"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?"
Your comparisons, no matter how well-intentioned, are not particularly relevent and reach very flawed conclusions. The basic question remains here, do RINOs help us as a party, as Governors ? Do they get us baby-stepping towards a more Conservative agenda ? The answer, which I discovered several years ago, is an unequivocal "no." They not only do not get us babystepping towards Conservatism, they get us leapfrogging towards liberalism and towards more 'Rat governance. The body of evidence is there, I've researched it thoroughly. Ah-nold is not the solution, he is the problem. McClintock is the solution.
Ross McClintock
What facts? Like (R)nold playing word games to avoid admitting that he is going to pass nearly the entire debt along to the taxpayer like we are recalling Davis for attempting to do back in Jan? Naaaah, that would be too obvious. No one could be that dumb to support (R)nold if they had heard that.
When he used the term my support and Arnold's support, the support was the voters that backed them and not anything that either candidate would say or do.
I agree that without the entire context, the statement is open to various interpretaions.
The bottom line being that McClintock's current position is that regardless of what the situation is at any given time, he is not dropping out and is going to leave it up to his supporters to contemplate any change in support without any prompting from McClintock himself.
Either way, we're not making much progress convincing each other. I don't like RINO's any better than you do, but sometimes it seems that's as far as the electorate is willing to go. You'd have to convince me some of those state losses for Bush wouldn't have happened no matter who was in the governor's mansion.
Even with Reagan, as big as he won, he still could not get both houses behind him. With Bush not standing up to Demo lies in 2000, it was going to be a close race no matter what.
Whatever, within four short weeks we'll know whether (a) TM buys your rationale and stays in the race, (b) if he does, do both he and AS flame down in defeat, or (c) if he does not stay in, can AS win it? There are other physical possibilities, but I don't believe they will come to pass (e.g., TM stays in and either he or AS wins).
If TM stays the course, it's hard for me to believe in anything but a loss for he and AS. That will not be good, no matter how distasteful the opitons were beforehand. If I still lived in California, I would find that hard to stomach. Then I would do again what I have already done three times before, leave the state.
California self destructing racially, economically and spiritually will not be a pretty sight. And it will not be good for the country as a whole either, even if Bush were to be re-elected in '04. It was about there that the Civil War started 140+ years ago.
Possible... and you're right, I had not considered that.
Entirely possible.
Well, I'd hope you would do some independent research. Take a look at the trends in other states. It's out there, and it's quite an eye opener. When I started moving away from the leftist brainwashing I got in our public schools, I used to think that a Republican, ANY Republican, would be better than a 'Rat. But when I started to note that certain kinds of Republicans (RINOs) ended up creating more damage than their regular GOP brethren on par with the 'Rats, I took notice and studied up about them. One good place to start is with the MA GOP. Once one of the most preeminent bastions of Republican politics, decades of liberal elitist leadership caused the party to atrophy until it stands in the shape that it's in now. That need not have happened. In many ways, we're seeing that same thing happen to CA, but it's not too late to halt the slide. One important reason to stop people like Ah-nold, who is most certainly a part of the problem that I speak of.
"I don't like RINO's any better than you do, but sometimes it seems that's as far as the electorate is willing to go."
If that's as far as they're willing to go, it just isn't worth fighting for to get those people in. They do absolutely nothing for Conservatism. Never have, never will. They just ruin the reputation of the Republican party amongst the voters of a given state, thinking we're all like that.
"You'd have to convince me some of those state losses for Bush wouldn't have happened no matter who was in the governor's mansion."
Maybe, maybe not. But the body of evidence is there. It's a little too "coincidental" to be dismissed out of hand. I'm going to give you a link later on by a FReeper colleague of mine who produces the hard numbers of the erosion of support for GOP Presidential candidates from the '80s through to '00 in those states that had 'Rat Governors in the '80s which had RINOs by '00.
"Even with Reagan, as big as he won, he still could not get both houses behind him."
Congress you mean ? Well he did have the Senate, but there were dynamics afoot in the House that would make it difficult for the GOP to have won it in the '80s. Analyzing those dynamics would take far too long for this venue, though I'm always willing to discuss it. You'll also note that the side-effect of having elected a 'Rat President in '92 resulted in finally winning back the House. I don't think that would've happened if Bush, Sr. had been reelected. Of course, that's having to choose between two unpleasant scenarios. But sometimes that's all you have to choose from.
"With Bush not standing up to Demo lies in 2000, it was going to be a close race no matter what."
Sure. But with the argument made by many around here that having GOP Governors helps our party during the Presidential contests, having a clear majority of Governorships in '00 didn't help us out at all. Mind you, this doesn't mean I'd like to see a majority of 'Rat Governorships, but that just having an "R" Governor isn't necessarily enough.
"Whatever, within four short weeks we'll know whether (a) TM buys your rationale and stays in the race, (b) if he does, do both he and AS flame down in defeat, or (c) if he does not stay in, can AS win it? There are other physical possibilities, but I don't believe they will come to pass (e.g., TM stays in and either he or AS wins)."
Well, one thing I can guarantee you. If McClintock drops out, Conservatives won't show up to recall Davis, and this election will be rendered moot. The same went for if Riordan had been nominated last year. Conservatives would've sat it out and Davis would've won by an even wider margin.
"If TM stays the course, it's hard for me to believe in anything but a loss for he and AS. That will not be good, no matter how distasteful the opitons were beforehand. If I still lived in California, I would find that hard to stomach. Then I would do again what I have already done three times before, leave the state."
You may not perceive a loss as being good for us or the state in the short run, but I believe that keeping Ah-nold out (whether through TM's election, the ideal scenario, CB's victory or GD's retention), will be better in the long run. The enemy in CA is liberalism, whether it's being peddled by 'Rats or "Republicans." Ah-nold is simply not the solution. If I thought he was for a moment, I'd endorse him (even if I didn't necessarily agree with him on everything), but he set off alarm bells before he even decided to run. It's also really galling that AS is trying to capitalize on the hard work by real Republicans when he himself did NOTHING to help during the all-important signature-collecting phase of the recall. That's far too typical of RINOs lack of teamwork. RINO Governors are usually one-man (or woman) wrecking crews.
"California self destructing racially, economically and spiritually will not be a pretty sight. And it will not be good for the country as a whole either, even if Bush were to be re-elected in '04. It was about there that the Civil War started 140+ years ago."
CA is going to get there if it stays the course with regards to misguided liberal policies. It isn't going to matter whether a "R" or "D" is in charge, because it's the ideological agenda that has to change course. If either the "R" or the "D" refuses to pursue the opposite course, and neither the two leading candidates will, then the destruction will come, and it will deserve it. Only one candidate sees the final train wreck coming and wants to change course with solid ideas and not pay it lip service with simplistic platitudes, and the candidate who wants to make the state great again is Tom McClintock.
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.