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.
You know, as I do, that THE commonly-held view is that Simon lost because he was too conservative. Myself, I don't believe that at all. I think he lost because he (A) took (B) TERRIBLE advice. He ran a BAD campaign, the media was all over him, and he was unprepared to respond.
But that's not the point.
The point is that MOST people THINK he lost because he was too conservative. Simon's disastrous campaign was a setback for conservatism in California.
So now McC is running a divisive, petty campaign against the Republican frontrunner. He's losing, and trying to take Schwarzenegger with him. If he were to overtake Schwarzenegger (never happen in this election) he would lose. It would be said (wrongly) that this is because a conservative could never win in California. If McC stays in and siphons off enough votes to elect Bustamante, it will be said that this is because he was too conservative, and conservatives are too selfish and divisive to work together and win office.
Either way, McClintock is BAD for conservatism.
Dan
You do have a point. The general thinking is that the libs would eat an ultra-conservative alive and permanently damage any hopes of a political office of high rank for a future conservative in CA.
Here's where you change from logic to emotion in your arguments. You are imputing facts not in evidence. How do you know what McC's intent is? How do you know in advance what the result must be, historically? You are making a pre-judgement, and although it may be pragmatic pre-judgement, it is not clear-- you have yet to establish and justify the necessity-- that a judgement needs to be made at this moment.
If he were to overtake Schwarzenegger (never happen in this election) he would lose. It would be said (wrongly) that this is because a conservative could never win in California. If McC stays in and siphons off enough votes to elect Bustamante, it will be said that this is because he was too conservative, and conservatives are too selfish and divisive to work together and win office.
Perhaps, but only if events do not perturb the ratios that are projected at this moment. Again, can you guarantee events (last minute dirt bombs dropped on Arnold by Davis, for example) will not happen? What happens if Arnold is hit at the last minute, but McC had taken your advice and dropped out a week ago? I haven't seen your description for how to handle such a scenario. I'm asking for a modicum of logic here, not more emotional heat. Take the names off the marquees and treat it as a rhetorical debate problem assigned for homework if it helps you answer.
Either way, McClintock is BAD for conservatism.
Again if the polls are correct and if the projected polls continue uneventfully to the end. But the end is still several weeks or months away. Meanwhile, McC is the only political force which guarantees Arnold will not drift very far left. So McC is in that sense GOOD for conservatism. Where is the error in my logic (it's OK to criticize my logic, but with other logic, please, not unfounded assertions and assumptions)?
And you do not know for a fact that there is a backchannel between the two which demonstrates that they are in fact doing the old good cop / bad cop tag team approach on Davis / Bustamante. How do you know that this is not in fact what is happening? Recall please, Arnold is an actor.
Let's all agree that pragmatism is a good thing.
But let's see if we can all agree that even pragmatism sometimes has limits, or at least that on certain occasion alternative, and more optimal, remedies might exist in the universe. David, Goliath for example.
If Arnold and McC kiss up in the final days before the debate, and especially if it turns out they were in cahoots all along, or if Arnold succumbs to a last minute dirt bomb and implodes after a forced premature withdrawal from McC by pressure from arguments such as yours, will you be among the first to issue an apology? Or how would either of those two events (for example) be reconciled with the views you have been expressing recently here?
Try looking at things from the opposite point of view, and perhaps using less emotion, once in a while. Maybe give everyone the benefit of a doubt. Or three. Before coming to a judgement. (Similar to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.)
Who knows? you might be pleasantly surprised at the results.
You work for Parsky and the country clubbers, right?
I agree , having Ed Rollins on board was a bad,bad move.
But..
You seem to want to lay any fault whatsoever on Gerry and his buddies.
Coincidence? I wonder.
Oh, I know, you say there was no money for the CA GOP to give to candidates becuz Shawn Steel ran them deep in debt or such.
I seem to recall you or one of your buds has heaped hot coals on Shawn Steel. Is their a conflict of interest possibly? hmmm?
Just trying to clear that little item up. Enlighten me and the rest of us. Thanks