McClintock Offered a Deal from Arnold Camp?

Belly of the Beast Blog ^ | September 11, 2003 | Eric Hogue

[SteveH]

McClintock himself has been unfair to Schwarzenegger

?

???????????????????!!???

[StriperSniper]

Did I mention grouper?

Hey! don't drag(HT100 washers please) me into this!

And I never even met her, I didn't grouper, I never touched her! ;-)

[Smogger]

Forget that! I recommend McClintock kick Arnold's butt in the campaign time that is left. Arnold is way to far to the left. Even for California Republicans.

You can tell that from Kentucky eh? Well let me tell YOU how to vote, after all I can tell what's best for Kentuckians from here in California.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You mean you've been listening to me and you haven't begun to rethink things?

But of course, but you have to understand, about April I got so encouraged and motived that I only came on FR to talk about CA. I read Ernest's old ping lists, did searches for CA and recall and Davis, I didn't even look at other threads. All I did was debate the recall, because I know the best way to understand a situation is to debate it. The reason it appears that I blew off the Bustamante arguement was that I heard it before. Not from you, but it had dealt with in my eyes reasonably in many incarnations. Whether it be the ballot measure history, Ronald Reagan's first campaign, the number of Democratic Govs since the mid 60s, the mythology that Democrates are a shoe in in CA was a familiar topic. I wasn't being dismissive of your points, it was more a familiarity with their merits.

It might be true though, although not for the reasons you think, about Busta. A funny thing happened on my way to recalling Davis; (R)nold's brilliant announcing ceremony on the Tonight Show. I will credit him with showmanship, and the Democrates definitely know showmanship when they see it, because that is all that party has, and has had since the McGovern fiasco. Do you remember who broke ranks and entered the campaign immediately after that? McAullife holds them in line without this.

Before then, the elites thought as you do, it wouldn't pass because of the nature of State. That underestimation worked in our favor. Now this Triangulation works against us in so many ways.

First being, the base Independents here are actually disaffected conservatives, waiting for an articulate candidate or ballot initiative or not voting. They won't vote for (R)nold because they can't trust him. The polls aren't the only factor here, as in all our election--its all about turnout. Recalling Davis for a new future was turning out the conservative base like never before. It was pure populism, and Issa and Simon could have given that to us, McClintock without parallel.

Now the base is told that they have but 2 choices, again, and this whole enterprise appears "risky". Times cameout with a poll today. McClintock continues to gain, now 18, (R)nold 25, Busta down to 30--but its got bad news. Very bad news. The recall passing is now dead even. I knew this would happen, that is why I have been so angry with you about the 2 choices line, you will disenfranchise the base with that. You must understand, Davis will survive if (R)nold is our only hope because quite alot of us "weren't born yesterday" and we know Stealth when we hear it. I am not the leader here many give me credit for *smiles* I am following a political reality too. Tom dropping is a lose-lose-lose proposition. In fact, the only gain is that it should prove conclusively where (R)nold to win and Davis to be recalled that don't turn to untested, undebated celebrities in times of crisis. That is gonna be a terribly costly lesson for me, my company might pick up and move to tax free Nevade or Wyoming.

So am I a troll? Hardly, more like a canary bird in the mines of Republican party. The vitriol towards me you have seen should give you an insight into the GOP's future.

So its all bad news huh? Hardly, but you have to do your part. You wanna know a secret? Getting nearer the election, if it breaks down as McClintock 20- maybe 25%, Busta at 30 and (R)nold in the mid teens, we finally dispense of the "electability" canard and conservatives feel free to "not be throwing their vote away" for Tom, I'll make you an ironclad promise. You ready? Tom is in 2nd to Busta---Tom is the next Governor of the Golden State of CA.

Why? Well, Field and Gallup and others have a history of completely underestimating the populist conservative results in CA. Prop 13, Prop 187, these were HUGE, over polled issues, they never saw what was coming, both passed overwhelmingly contrary to their predictions. Look at the results in Alabama for the tax increase, they were wrong there too.

This would be the zenith of turnout leaving their numbers in the dust. You can quote me, Tom isn't finished in this race by a long shot, unless his own party tries to destroy him first.

So am I troll? I'm a fighter....and I'm the only hope you got.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

How unfortunate that all 3 of you Know It Alls are from Out Of State. Irrelevant. What happens in California affects the rest of the nation.

I didn't mean that you shouldn't care, or that it is unaffecting you in Texas. It will VERY MUCH affect you in Texas. I'm talking about Triangulating the vote, by not understanding the mood on the ground here. (R)nold isn't nearly as popular as the polls say. I don't know one, and I mean ONE person here across the spectrum that likes the guy...at all. I know liberals that loath him more than me, they say "anybody but Arnold" I was shocked. (this was without my help, I normally avoid talking politics to those morons) The moderate/liberal calvary is NOT charging towards the media to stop them from slamming him near the election, and when the DNC does the Standard Operating Procedure 10 days out, the conservative base will be shocked what they can talk about.

Things are not as they seem.

[brownie]

>>>"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

I understand what a compromise is, but please explain how (R)nold is 75%, or even 50%, of what conservatives want. Hell, demonstrate that he even offers 25% conservative issues.

That is the whole problem w/ stating (R)nold is a compromise. Generally, when you give up something (or in this case, almost everything), you get something in return. What is the return for conservatives for voting for (R)nold?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You seem to believe that the way to get McClintock elected is by being unfair to Schwarzenegger

Tell me how. You refused to answer the question repeatedly. It was comical really. You know in your heart of hearts that this guy isn't going to lowering taxes in a debt, let alone not raise them. Now conversely I know that not lowering taxes in our debt is the worst thing that could happen, because that will mean taxes will need to be raised. Sounds contradictory? Tax revenue isn't a 0 sum game, its based on market forces, and we are teetering on an edge of a knife here, waiting for the other shoe to drop. If that drops on the taxpayer, all hell will break loose.

As for the hate, that was directed more towards the other two than you, I just thought you should read that.

[PhiKapMom]

Just another nail in my conservative coffin eh?

Just remember you are in GREAT company on here with the rest of us RINO's! Who would have thought all of us would have lost our conservative badges courtesy of the McClintock supporters with their my way or no way approach.

What I wonder is how this is going to carry over into the 2004 election. We have already witnessed one of the McC people saying he supported Dean over Bush. Does make you wonder about the people calling the rest of us names!

[Weimdog]

Government must learn that it cannot spend more than it takes in. During difficult economic times, when government has less money that means taxpayers have less money. Rushing out to raise taxes hurts everyone. As governor, Arnold will reign in reckless spending in Sacramento.

"Maria and I teach our kids the basic principals. We teach them don't spend more money than you have. That's what I teach my six year old. And I promise you, that is what I will teach Sacramento.”
- Arnold Schwarzenegger

The problem simply stated: Since 1998 the state has grown 21%, revenues to the state have increased 28% - and state spending increased by 36.5%!

"The problem is not that Californians are under taxed, the problems is the politicians have overspent."
- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Besides cutting spending, Arnold says we must say no to new spending. If someone comes up with a new program or new idea - no matter how good it sounds - Arnold says during these tough economic times we must ask: Can we afford it?

”So we have to look at everything, and before we promise anything to anyone right now, I think stop. Stop, stop, stop with the spending. And then let's analyze the whole thing and see what the problems really are.”
- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold says California must have a constitutional spending cap tied to population and inflation growth. If we had such a cap the last 5 years, instead of a $38-billlion deficit, California would be enjoying a surplus!

Arnold plans to appoint an independent auditor to audit the state budget as soon as he becomes governor.

”One thing I've learned in business is that you can't make sound decisions based on faulty information. After becoming Governor, I would immediately appoint an outside auditing group, free of political influence, to examine the books and find out how bad the situation really is. This will be a 60 day review that will result in immediate steps to address the operating deficit.”
- Arnold Schwarzenegger

I'll grant you that Schwarzenegger isn't the ideal candidate, nor is he the best qualified candidate, but as conservatives, we aren't going to get what we want NOW. The democrats took over this state incrementally, and that's how were going to have to take it back. A little at a time.

Bottom line, On October 7th, I will vote for the Republican, (R) or (r), who is leading in the polls.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

This past Wednesday, on Sean Hannity's radio show, the ping-pong about raising taxes came up. When cornered on this question, McClintock's evidence that Schwarzenegger would raise taxes basically came down to something like this (paraphrasing): "Well, Pete Wilson said he wouldn't raise taxes, and look what happened!"

So now Schwarzenegger has to answer not only for what he will do, but for what some other individual did - as though there is no question he will imitate it?

That's not fair, any more than all the suggestions we saw that our current president would do things that his father did, just because he was the man's son.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Tell me how. You refused to answer the question repeatedly. It was comical really.

The question was comical, yes. You're not asking a question - you're asking for a prediction. I am not clairvoyant. I couldn't predict 9/11, and I can't predict what circumstances either McClintock as governor or Schwarzenegger as governor might face that would cause either of them to make such a move. I can't predict Schwarzenegger breaking a pledge or keeping it, nor can I predict McClintock breaking one or keeping it.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Should I try to pin you down on who's going to win the Super Bowl in 2006 for a few days? Sheesh.

[SteveH]

???

Give me a break.

GWB has absolutely no choice as to who his biological father was. I do not judge him as the son of George HW Bush, Sr.

OTOH, Schwarzenegger obviously CAN and DOES control who his buddies are, INCLUDING Buffett and Wilson.

Think straight, please. You know a person by his friends. Got any kids? Think about it.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

No - YOU think straight.

If you and I are friends, and I spend $50, does that mean YOU will also spend $50?

You people amaze me.

[SteveH]

???

No, of course.

But I thought we were discussing the California governor's race... and in politics, associations speak louder than campaign promises...

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Rudy Guiliani and President Bush are friends, but that does not make President Bush pro-choice, right?

[SteveH]

OK, you got me there, I don't know their relationship and I am not really a big follower of the abortion controversy myself, but please forgive me if I harbor the suspicion that GWB didn't know Guliani very well before the presidency. After winning in 2000, it is the duty of the president as titular leader of his party to be on familiar terms with all the party higher-ups across the country.
So I don't necessarily read anything into the GWB-Guliani thing. Feel free to correct me if you like, but I don't think a scattering number of counterexamples disproves my general point, which I think remains. Recall my example: if I have a kid, I want to keep tabs on who his friends are. If my kid ends up a doper, chances are that as a parent I had missed an opportunity to sense it and put a stop to it a lot early just by monitoring who he was hanging out with. THINK

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Should I try to pin you down on who's going to win the Super Bowl in 2006 for a few days? Sheesh.

If I was telling you that you absolutely must buy Seahawk tickets for the 2006 Superbowl...otherwise there is an absolute 100% chance of the Raiders getting into the 2006 Superbowl, yes, you should try to pin me down to predict that.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

But you're talking about children, and the way they are influenced by their peers. By the time a man is in his fifties, I would imagine what his peers think is less of a concern for him.

In my view, you are absolutely correct not to predict what GWB will do in every circumstance based on what his father did. Consider this: They have a very close relationship, and they are probably closer than friends - they are certainly closer than casual friends. Yet you recognize that GWB is his own man.

As for Guiliani and President Bush - if it's flawed, I'll give you a different example. President Bush has close advisors - like Condi Rice - who hold different positions than he does. It doesn't seem to have an impact on him politically, that I can see.

All I'm asking is that Schwarzenegger be judged by what he says and does, and not by what his friends say and do.

McClintock ought not try to use Pete Wilson to make his point. If he thinks Schwarzenegger is lying, he should come up with a better way of communicating that.

[strela]

Bush has yet to address the issue of the downturn of economy and jobs in California. RNC telemarketers do not have it in their talking points when they call. So it's your argument that is irrelevant.

Nowhere in my response to PRLA did I mention "Bush" or "The RNC" in any way, shape, or form. What in the world are you babbling about?

[strela]

Now maybe out of staters can stand up for just a little bit of fairness in the process and resist the temptation to kick a good conservative candidate who happens to be the underdog at the moment.

How is it a violation of "fairness" to point out that a candidate doesn't have the organization, the infrastructure, the money, or the popularity to be elected to the office he seeks? To point out that the emperor has no clothes is not being "unfair," it is possibly preventing one from exposing one's bare butt in public next time.