Replies

"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.

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.

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.