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

[fieldmarshaldj]

"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."

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Man, now you tell us ! Look at the mess this thread made ! ;-)

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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."

---

The fieldmarshaldj is correct, as usual. There is no way that electing a RINO such as Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California will result in Californians going on to elect social conservatives in the future. Exactly the opposite result is more likely. Before a RINO gets elected governor, real conservatives can win even in liberal states, since voters look at the totality of the candidates' views and may like more of what the conservative has to offer than what the liberal has to offer. For example, a conservative may be able to get votes from many blue-collar workers (who may agree with the conservative on social and foreign-policy issues, although not on economic issues) and also from many pro-choice, anti-gun suburbanites (who may agree with the conservative on economic and foreign-policy issues, although not on social issues). However, when the purportedly conservative party (i.e., the GOP) nominates a social liberal, this is seen as a sign that social conservatives are not "electable," and gives credence to the leftists' canard that conservative Republicans are "extremists" and are somehow comparable to the Taliban. Even worse, if a RINO serves as governor and implements policies that one would normally expect from a Democrat, it results in (i) conservatives becoming disenchanted with the political process, which usually carries over to future elections (the fact that independents and Democrats would vote for the incumbent RINO in his reelection is of no help 4 years later), (ii) the electorate and the media expecting "mainstream" Republicans to be like the RINO they're used to seing, and anyone to the right of him would be labeled an extremist (when a RINO wins, only an even more liberal RINO can succeed him---think Ryan replacing Edgar in IL and Celluci replacing Weld in MA), and, by virtue of (i) and (ii), we see that (iii) it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that only a RINO is "electable" in that state. It takes years to cleanse a state's Republican Party of the stains of a RINO governor, and until it recovers the party is doomed, especially since any attempts to move the party back to its traditional position is pooh-poohed by those who cling to the notion that if we nominate a "more electable" candidate, surely he or she will lead the party to greatness.

Let's look at California before social liberal Pete Wilson was elected Governor. George H.W. Bush carried California in 1988, so the state was still willing to elect pro-life Republicans. Why would it be necessary to nominate a RINO like Pete Wilson for governor in 1990? But the GOP did, and Wilson won, and it resulted in (i) Feinstein and Boxer getting elected in 1992, (ii) Clinton carrying California that same year, and (iii) the GOP continuing to lose strength in CA in 1994 even though it was a big year for the party in just about every other state. Wilson's governorship made sure conservatives would have nobody to vote for. And CA isn't the only state where RINO governors have made the state more Democratic---the same thing happened in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey in the 1990s. All four of those states were a lot more Republican when they had Democrat governors than they were after the RINOs got elected (e.g., Bush 41 got 45% in MA, 47.5% in NY, 52% in CT and 56% in NJ in 1988 under Democrat governorships, but Bush 43 got 32.5% in MA, 35% in NY, 38% in CT and 40% in NJ in 2000 under RINO governorships). Now, I'm not saying that residents of these states would be social conservatives if not for the fact that they had RINO governors, but I do believe that the Republican presidential vote dropped by between 12.5% and 16% in these states largely because having RINO governors convinced residents of these states that social conservatives are automatically "extremist" and thus not worthy of their vote.

A Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will have a more pernicious effect on the conservative movement not just in California, but nationally, than even a Cruz Bustamante governorship. The only option for conservatives (and moderates, for that matter) is to support the one true Republican who can galvanize enough votes to win the multi-candidate race: Senator Tom McClintock.

[=Intervention=]

*LOL* And do you do what polls tell you to do?

[=Intervention=]

Bingo. That parallels a point I've been making forever here, and which is glossed over as "so what". What happens to Arnie once he is elected? He sure won't support conservative issues, for fear of alienating the swing voters and Democrats. The longer a social liberal stays in office, the more liberal he or she becomes, and the conservatives have no voice. You're absolutely correct in that mods and libs don't do anything in terms of getting the party platform established, and in fact, make it a great deal more difficult.

The people who constantly rail against McC are usually those who have no vision, only hope in stats (and that, stats put out by liberal newspapers!) and constantly praise pragmatism, as though electing scoundrels to office is something we all should support.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thank you for expanding on my position with hard numbers. Of course, the Ah-noldista Ostrich brigades will merely stamp their feet, ignore the facts, and scream "only AH-NOLD can WINNNNNNNNNNNNNN !!!" It was Ambassador Alan Keyes who put it best about people who refuse to acknowledge facts that are as plain as the noses on their faces, they are called BIGOTS. A perfect description of the Ah-nold supporter.

[GOPJ]

LOL:

Ross McClintock

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Of course, the Ah-noldista Ostrich brigades will merely stamp their feet, ignore the facts

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.

[hole_n_one]

He (McClintock) prefaced the comment you cited with There'd be no need to pull out in that case.

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.

[capocchio]

reach very flawed conclusions

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.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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.

Possible... and you're right, I had not considered that.

Entirely possible.

[TankerKC]

I'm clear now. Thanks.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Either way, we're not making much progress convincing each other."

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/979993/posts?page=363#363

Just realized this response was written in this thread, but it presents hard cold facts in percentages and specific events regarding the difference between 'Rat Governors with regard to Presidential elections vs. RINOs. A good read.