Replies

"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.

"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.

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.