Analysis: Schwarzenegger Increasingly Seen by GOP as Party's Best Bet

Sacramento Bee ^ | September 15, 2003 | Amy Chance

[pogo101]

LOS ANGELES -- It was only last year that many state Republican Party activists were opting to back newcomer Bill Simon over former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan.

Though Riordan was widely considered the more electable of the two, he had consorted politically with Democrats for years, and Simon sided with the party's conservative activists on social issues. Their pick won the nomination only to lose the general election to Gov. Gray Davis.

[NormsRevenge]

NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.

---

Somehow, I knew the word lie would be the key element of your response. Thanks . You just confirmed something for me and others. ;-)

[b9]

Your post #68 is a worthy read, indeed.

[b9]

lol :o)

[BibChr]

You're still channeling Bill Clinton.

You lie. That's okay, to you.

Another person says, "You lie," you say "That's a personal attack."

Denial does not make your blatant, public, unrepented lie go away.

Dan

[SteveH]

I'm sorry, please point me to a post or posts that I missed which addresses the concerns. If they do, then fine, I'll read them and see. I'm just skimming after spending a while on a totally different task, and tracking this (and any one person's posts) does not get all my attention at this time.

My response was made in good faith, and I am deliberately trying not to be negative, so why the attitude?

OK, I just went back a couple of days and did not see anything that you posted which addressed my concerns. I am interested but I'll try to refrain from bothering you again if you won't -- or can't (which is it?) -- respond to me without namecalling and condescending language.

I left out the others you cc'd because I don't know what this has to do with any of them.

[BibChr]

I don't have the time or the will to do your research for you, Steve.

So if my unwillingness to re-re-re-document what I (and many others who read me, evidently) consider general informed knowledge, I do politiely, in intent, suggest you skip my posts.

And I strongly suggest that you refrain from shifting the onus of your unfamiliarity with the facts to mistakenly alleged "emotionalism" on my part.

Dan

[NormsRevenge]

Don't waste your time on him. He couldn't be truthful if his logon depended on it. Look how he just digs his hole deeper and throws all the dirt back at you. LOL ;-)

[SteveH]

Well, in looking for your reasoning I managed to find this, from you to Sauropod:

McClintock supporters stand on principle

Posted by BibChr to sauropod

On News/Activism 09/13/2003 6:33 PM PDT #236 of 292

You'd be infinitely less surprised if you'd read my essay on the topic, or my by now hundreds of posts on the topic.

Is that my fault?

And I also found something from you which I will change very slightly and give back-- see if it fits, please?

What, you weren't there when They added to 1 John that verse about the FOURTH test of eternal life: Whether or not you vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[BibChr]

No, that's foolish, and you should apologize.

Find ONE SYLLABLE where I EVER hinted that anyone who doesn't vote for Schwarzenegger isn't a real Christian, or walking with the Lord. I don't think it, I don't HALF-think it, I don't QUARTER-think it, and so I NEVER COULD HAVE SAID IT.

With me, so far?

But by contrast, Steve, IF you have been FOLLOWING this discussion, you will have seen DOZENS of instances where I have been, in SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS TERMS, pillaried, slandered, reviled, told to change my screen name, mocked for my tag line -- all simply because I (A) plan NOT to vote for McClintock, but (B) plan TO vote for Schwarzenegger.

You owe me an apology.

Dan

[SteveH]

No kidding. I actually thought I missed something so I went back and waded through a few days of his posts.

Wow. Quite informative.

Thanks for confirming my impression. "Hang 'im High!" ;-)

[SteveH]

Dan, I did not accuse you of that. If you think I did, you are mistaken. I just responded to you using some of your own words.

All I can tell from your response is that I must have hit a big nerve when I did. I'm sorry if it hurts you, but they are your words, with a slight tweak. See how words can hurt, big fella? You should know your limitations ;-)

You owe me an apology.

I will tell you, if you will listen: you should re-examine your own responses. If you do, and I hereby invite all reading this to do, you will read about an individual who is in some kind of spiritual pain.

I hope you can learn to listen to yourself. And then you will begin to be healed, if you so choose. But not until then.

[SteveH]

It is not just superficial, it is both innane and a failing of leadership to do something like that. Tom's record is there for anyone to see, there's been enough comments made by him and about him over the years that an informed decision could easily be made. Bill Simon is not Tom McClintock, never will be.

OK, thanks.

So far as I understand, the heads of the various county GOP organizations had a private question and answer session with Arnold Schwarzenegger away from the press, and 53 of the 55 decided to support him. I was away for the weekend and I'm still catching up, I don't know if that was something that KFI 640 made up or not, but it 'feels' true.

Really?? Oh... then I would submit that this is a glimmer of hope for the Tombots, that at least some of their views might be adopted and they have had some effect, and that there is a way to break the stalemate. My gosh. People acting rationally. Who would have thunk.

Sir, you seem to be well informed and able to reason, even if you are an Arnold supporter (just kidding ;-). If you get a chance, please let me know what you think of my hypothetical good-cop-bad-cop strategy for McC and Arnold working together.

[My2Cents]

McClintock, who proudly points out that he has voted for just five of the 17 state budgets he has encountered

So, even the balanced ones he's voted against?

[My2Cents]

From Senator Ray Hayes (about as conservative as they come in the California Legislature): "Tom is a friend of mine, but Tom is not a consensus-builder." My concern as well.

[My2Cents]

Sad to say, but if McClintock had run in the Republican primary in 2002 instead of Simon, McC might have been nominated, and he's enough of a pro politically that he might have beaten Davis. In other words, he might be governor today.

[pogo101]

Well, yes, but those balanced budgets no doubt included waste, tax hikes and abort-o-rama funds. I'm not saying I agree with his votes all the time, but I think there's a sound and (more importantly to McClintock) principled, consistent explanation for them.

[My2Cents]

I doubt Lee and Melanie will invite Arnold. They consider him an interloper in a process that Melanie believes she initiated (the recall).

[My2Cents]

Lee and Melanie are hostile to Arnold's candidacy. Why would he want to return their calls? Lee Rodgers is ordinarily a cranky boor with guests he disagrees with. They can argue "public's right to know" and "journalistic imperatives" all they want, but they are hostile to Arnold's campaign. With him in constant demand, why should he go on a show where they'd try to bushwack him?

[My2Cents]

I wrote yesterday that Arnold thinks "Callie-fornians" are overtaxed, that the state spends too much money, and that the business climate in the state needs to be improved by reversing anti-business policies at the state level. In any other election, conservatives would be 100% behind a guy who took these positions. But we've seen here on FR an attitude among some that they'd rather see a guy get elected who they agree with 0% of the time rather than a guy they might agree with "only" 60% of the time -- and it's the 60% guy who is the target of their wrath! I don't get it.

[My2Cents]

Bravo!