McClintock, Schwarzenegger Spar On Radio Show

KCRA Channel ^ | September 12, 2003

[danmar]

Courtesy of justshe) ~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life (Chapter 26, p. 171) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' "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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and you said you know President Reagan? Huh!
Who is the juvenile here! You better check your facts pal, your rails are all screwed up!

You do not know nothing about President Reagan and spare me the phony outrage.

[SteveH]

Hello?? Tom was at the first debate and Arnold! was M*I*S*S*I*N*G I*N A*C*T*I*O*N.

There were no advance questions that I am aware of at the first debate (someone will no doubt swoop in and tell me if I am wrong here, but there's more...).

Tom has spent dozens of hours on the talk show circuit answering impropmtu questions (so I have heard) and giving off the cuff answers.

Tom's supporters want to see evidence that Arnold! has the guts to go one-on-one with Tom. It's about time he did.

Please don't blame Tom for Arnold!'s shortcomings and please don't make excuses along the lines that certain candidates deserve to be treated with kid gloves on account of their Hollywood fame, or their popularity with teenieboppers cruising Venice Beach on rollerblades, or that one should expect that they need training wheels, or whatever. This is the big league and Arnold! needs to step up to responsibility of dealing with hardball questions if he or anyone else thinks he deserves to be governor.

The longer we put off sheltering Arnold! from an environment in which we have an opportunity to see how he handles himself under pressure, potentially, the more we all have to lose... at the state level and beyond.

From the longer term perspective, winning the election is not the end of the game-- it is just the beginning-- and the stakes are very high.

I think the point that Tom-supporters are trying to make is let's make sure we are united behind the right candidate. Unity behind the wrong candidate will only cost us big time down the road.

Time for Arnold! to stop hiding behind the curtain and step out into the sunshine. Maybe some Arnold! supporters can help him see this??

(Hey Arnold!, are you out there lurking??? Hear the words I am saying ;-)

[68 grunt]

Hey Arnold, hear the words I am saying. Continue to be polite to the opponent, and reject any temptation to humiliate him in public. Just one quip and he would be shattered, unable to even get his 8%.

Vote for Californian Change - Vote for Schwarzenegger

[Reagan Man]

There you go again.

This isn't about Ronald Reagan and your attempts to change the discussion won't work. You guys either ridicule Tom McClintock, bring up poor old Ronald Reagan, or revert to some other silly diversionary tactic. But you won't debate the facts of the recall election.

Look, Ronald Reagan had a political life that went well beyond his Governorship of California. What Reagan did 37 years ago, has absolutely no bearing on the current recall election or Arnold's lack of seriousness and understanding of the current issues facing California. Period.

The topic here is McClintock versus Schwarzenegger and the overriding issue is, who would make a better representative for the conservative Republican agenda in California.

The other night, I gave you an extensive list of issues where Arnold differs from the conservative agenda and the GOP party platform. I asked you to defend Arnold's positions and you said, quote, "I'm not going to debate with you... That's the answers I get from most of you "Arnoldnauts" here on FreeRepublic. You won't debate the issues. Period.

I will answer one issue you raised.

>>>When Reagan ran for Governor was he pro-choice or pro-life? Pro-choice, wasn't it, not pro-life until he was thinking of running for President?

First off, before the late 1960`s state abortion laws that preceded Roe v Wade, abortions were illegal and there was no such thing as a person being pro-life or pro-abortion/pro-choice. Reagan did say the following in "Reagan In His Own Hand" page #380. "It was a subject I'd never given much thought to and one upon which I didn't really have an opinion". Reagan goes onto say how he did extensive research and "soul searching" that led him to reach the pro-life position he would hold the remainder of his political career and public life.

If you read "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", you'd better understand where Reagan was coming from. Reagan's post Roe v Wade position on abortion is part of his legacy and what really counts today. OTOH, Arnold favors abortion on demand. That's not a conservative position nor does it agree with the GOP platform.

[Tamzee]

Okay, which is it? Arnold is stupid or smart?

It would have been the dumbest "empty suit" move possible for Arnold to join that first debate... slanted in favor of the liberals and they would all have teamed up against him as the front-runner. It was SMART Politics not to join, especially when he already agreed to large official debate scheduled toward the end of the campaign.

You folks keep crowing that he's a light-weight, well, only an idiot would have joined that debate. He spends that day campaigning instead and you folks crow that he is scared?

Tom would have skipped the first debate, too, had he been in the lead. And you folks would have been proud of his savvy decision.

[Tamzee]

No, the constant topic at hand is how DARE we supposed CONSERVATIVES consider voting for Arnold who holds some liberal social stances?

And how DARE we vote for a man who has not signed in blood that he couldn't possibly ever raise a single tax as Governor?

We've also had it hammered at us (incorrectly and overblown) that Arnold is not going to steel-toed boot every last illegal immigrant immediately out of California.

And then we get self-righteous conservatives telling us that we have to elect rigidly-conservative but unpopular McClintock instead... and using Reagan as the perfect example of how McClintock can still SWEEP into the hearts and minds of Californias because, hey, Reagan did it! LOL

[Reagan Man]

I heard something about Arnold saying he doesn't want the questions in advance. When I hear it for myself from Arnold, I'll believe it. Until then .... But this isn't a big issue.

More importantly. For a novice candidate running for the leadership position of the largset state in the union, Arnold should be turning down no debates. It makes Arnold look bad and it makes him look weak.

Tom McClintock asked Arnold point blank today on some radio show, that both men should debate each other. Arnold said, flat out NO!!!!! LOL What's Arnold afraid of? He's acting like a coward and a chicken s*** to boot.

[Tamzee]

No, Arnold said that they were already scheduled to debate together soon... a bit of a difference there :-)

Not that some folks seem to care about details or facts around here.

--

Be honest here... is it generally considered politically wise for a front-running candidate to accept MORE or FEWER debates? :-)

[SteveH]

Arnold! could have tag-teamed with McC against Busta in the first debate. Remember, Busta? the evil political eneby of all Republicans? The guy you guys claim you don't want to see elected under any circumstances?

Arnold! instead was totally MIA... Tom showed up and debated Busta. Tom was deemed the winner, and scored points with all viewers. Remember?

Arnold! supporters are all over the map trying to explain away why Arnold! pulled a no-show against the evil Bustamante.

Arnold!'s own words are that he welcomes all comers to the party and to the election, including Tom. If you take Arnold! at his word, and it seems that you guys always do, then you should follow Arnold!'s lead, without whining.

All Arnold! skeptics have a right to reserve judgement on Arnold! and his skills until he shows up for a debate.

What would Lincoln do???

(Obligatory sheesh.)

[Reagan Man]

I've posted that numerous times, but in context.

I hate to disappoint you sonny, but you're using a quote out of context. It has nothing to do with the recall election between McClintock and Schwarzenegger.

Reagan was talking about dealing with what he called "radical conservative" legislators and how they wanted all or nothing at all. Reagan's philosophy of life, gave him an outlook of the glass being half full. Some of his critics in the California legislature saw things differently, as the glass being half empty.

You really need to brush up on Ronald Reagan. You definitely have a lot to learn about the man life and his political, philosphy. I've got several quotes on my profile page that may interest you. I suggest you buy a recent book that was released. It's called "Reagan In His Own Hand". Good stuff. Read it, you may learn something. There's also a newer book out by Lou Cannon, but the title eludes me right now.

[Tamzee]

McClintock would have attacked Arnold at that debate EXACTLY as he has been doing continually through this campaign... even ambushing him on air today while Arnold was giving an interview.

Don't tell me that McClintock would have teemed up with Arnold against Busta-budget... he's had weeks to do so and has only been interested in drawing blood from the OTHER Republican.

[Reagan Man]

I'm sorry you've had your feelings hurt and have gotten so emotionally upset. All I can say is, if you can't take the heat, stay away from the fire.

The truth is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes and face reality. Tom McClintock is a tradional Reagan conservative and a loyal member of the GOP. Arnold is a liberal Republican, whose positions aren't consistent with the conservative agenda of the GOP party platform.

I've told you this before, but your so caught up with being infatuated and enamoured with Arnold, that you've lost your focus. But I'll say it again.

No one is saying that the situation in California tends to favor conservative Republicans, but supporting Arnold is nothing more then a sell out. Setting aside ones principles and surrendering ones conservatism, isn't the way to go about securing a real political victory. Republicans shouldn't be voting for liberals. Period. That's a defeatist position. Politics is about winning and holding power, but not at any cost. For a conservative Republican, "not at any cost" means, not at the cost of electing a liberal. I know most of this goes right over your head, but I tried to get through to you. So be it. =^)

[SteveH]

OK, last week it was that we should unite for the good of the party to battle Busta... I thought that was the overriding message of Arnold! supporters to Tombots. You can't change history, Tom could have taken swipes from Arnold! too at that debate. If Arnold! was the better debater, then Tom would have deserved it too.

You Arnold! supporters are equivocating on why Arnold! was a no-show. Admit it. Just admit it.

[Reagan Man]

That would be the prior agreed to debate on Sept24th.

That's it. There are no other debates that Arnold will be part of.

>>>Be honest here... is it generally considered politically wise for a front-running candidate to accept MORE or FEWER debates?

I don't view Arnold as the frontrunner. That distinction belongs to Bustamonte. This is a three man race and McClintock has a shot at winning it. You may not like to hear the truth, but that's the truth my dear. ;^)

[SteveH]

Speaking of attacks, I heard that post by someone got pulled rather recently...

[Tamzee]

Oh, please. I haven't had my feelings hurt, even the teensiest bit.

I have, however, grown frustrated and annoyed with lies, accusations and hypocracy, especially gift-wrapped in pretend "principles".

It is no more a sell-out to vote for Arnold today, than it would have been a sell-out to vote for Reagan when he first ran for Governor. Had we listened to folks like you, Reagan would never have become President.

Thanks, but I'll take my advice from Hugh Hewitt, Dana Rohrabacher, John Cooper, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, and Pat Robertson. Or are they "infatuated and enamoured" with Arnold as you accuse me of being... simply because they disagree with your amateur assessment, also?

[SteveH]

I guess all these guys are "amateurs", too... Bruce Herschensohn, Joseph Farah, Gun Owners of America, Andy Russo, National Catholic Register, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Brian Wilson...

[Tamzee]

Who, my post?

[Reagan Man]

>>>It is no more a sell-out to vote for Arnold today, than it would have been a sell-out to vote for Reagan when he first ran for Governor. Had we listened to folks like you, Reagan would never have become President.

WTF are you talking about! LOL You're losing it now. I thought you where an intelligent person. Stop the sophistry and the whining already. I was campaigning for Reagan when he tried to secure the GOP nomination in 1976. If more people had listened to the members of the "Reagan Army" of foot soliders, he might have beaten PresFord, stopped Jimmuh Carter in his tracks and went on to the Presidency four years earlier.

And in my conservative book, voting for a liberal is a total sellout to ones principles. It shows bad decision making and poor judgment.

[Tamzee]

Answer me... you are hinting that one of my posts was pulled because I attacked someone?