Something I learned a long time ago, winners of elections get to rule, those that don`t, don`t. Got to win first. As good as he is, McC will not be the GOC. Its going to Arno;d or Bustyourmoney. take your picj. Me, Arnold is much better.
|
Posted on 09/17/2003 1:44:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
A picture hangs on my office wall that reminds of the glory years of the Reagan Revolution. It shows the White House team entry in the D.C. Nike Challenge from 1985. The six participants include Dick Hauser, then Deputy Counsel in the White House; John Roberts – newly confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then a young White House lawyer; and me, also a young White House lawyer. The captain of the "White House V-toes" was Pat Buchanan, at the time the Gipper's communications director.
Whenever a visitor's eye turns to the picture, I point to Pat and say, there's the man who put Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Only the politically inclined get it: Pat Buchanan's primary challenge to President George H.W. Bush in 1992 bled the incumbent and opened the door to Perot. Perot, of course, put Clinton in the White House, and Clinton put those justices on the highest court.
Buchanan fans sputter a lot when they hear this recounting of history, and many splendid arguments follow. They protest too much, the Pat people do, because of the impulse to disguise guilt with vigorous and emphatic denunciations. Facts, to quote Reagan quoting Lenin, however, are stubborn things. Buchanan wrought what he wrought, and honest accounting requires that the two Clinton appointees be put credited to Pat's legacy ledger. So much for the pro-life platform upon which Pat has long stood. There is no doubt that he sincerely believes in the platform – but there is overwhelming evidence that the unborn would have been far better off had Pat never launched a public career.
This history becomes relevant as the California recall vote draws near. Like Pat, Tom McClintock is a smart, talented and principled public man. Like Pat, Tom is supported by a legion of dedicated, energetic activists. Like the Buchanan campaign of 1992, the McClintock campaign of 2003 thinks it has momentum, a mirage created wholly by an elite media eager to wound a Republican front-runner. A decade ago, that front-runner was President Bush; these days it is Arnold.
And like the Buchanan campaign of 1992, the McClintock campaign of 2003 is playing the role of unwitting pawn of the Democrats to a perfection.
It will not be clear for some years what the real costs of the McClintock candidacy will be. The GOP is already damaged in California, but the real disaster will arrive only if Cruz Bustamante replaces Gray Davis, winning the second part of the California recall with a margin less than the total number of votes garnered by McClintock.
The die-hards ought to think about Breyer and Ginsburg as they launch rhetorical salvo after rhetorical salvo at Arnold. These attacks are very similar in tone and detail to those hurled by the Buchananites against the elder Bush in 1992. Whether they will result in the declaration as unconstitutional of such laws as a ban on partial-birth abortion remains to be seen, but Pat Buchanan clearly didn't set out to destroy such protections with his candidacy of 1992.
But he did. What will the McClintock ledger show a decade hence?
And afterwards there'll STILL be those who won't be compelled to vote for candidates who don't give a damn about whats important to THEM.
Weird, huh.
Never mind, I'm sure the GOP can make up those votes by moving leftward, as the party elite appears intent to do.
Something I learned a long time ago, winners of elections get to rule, those that don`t, don`t. Got to win first. As good as he is, McC will not be the GOC. Its going to Arno;d or Bustyourmoney. take your picj. Me, Arnold is much better.
|
They're not Republicans despite their claims.
That said, I think he should stay in the race until the end to keep the far right base energized and ready to vote as well as to inject as much conservative policy into the public discourse as possible. A late withdrawal will more likely aid Arnold than an early one. I for one believe he should withdraw, but not yet, the time is not right.
Tom Sullivan, local radio head and frequent sit-in for Rush, has opined that McClintock would make an excellent opponent for Boxer in the upcoming Senatorial election. His argument has swayed me. A CA conservative seldom wins an executive post, but even a Jr. Senator from CA has clout based on size and impact of the constituency. Then perhaps he can follow Wilson's path and come home at a later date if the Gov's chair is really his desire.
Personal Rant: I, for one, am tired of ideologues on both sides telling me what is and isn't ok to think. Conservatives have fallen into the same 'groupthink' mentality as the PC-Left:
If you are not an avid and public Right-to-Life advocate then you are not a true conservative...
If you believe in immigration, even reasonably regulated and enforced, then you are not a true conservative...
If you really don't care what other people do in their bedroom as long as it involves consenting adults - then you are not a true conservative....
If you believe that any (R) is better than any (D) in an election, so long as we win, then you are not a conservative...
This kind of thinking is someday going to break this party as badly, or worse, than it has the Dems ....
You have SUCH a way with words ;-)
ROFLMA errr, sorry...BO
Whoops, sorry... no room for intelligent commentary in this discussion ;-)
Well stated!
He is so focussed on how knowledgeable and clever he is that he forgot that without a successful recall everything that he keeps ranting about is irrelevant.
He is still arguing Arnold, while Davis keeps pumping money into repulsing the recall, successfuly.
What an idiot! Keep fueling the infighting, Hugh; Bustamante lover!
And one who professed to be "ashamed to be a republican" during FR's finest hour, the Clinton impeachment.
Arnold is, also, not afraid to state the truth. The illegals are here, period. Stopping the flow can only be done by the feds. States are forbidden to hunt for illegals or pass laws to remove them from the country. The National Guard at the border is another false hope McClintock tries to promote.
To regain some sembelence of order, the illegals here must be documented. Then they must be required to follow the laws of our state and be accountable for their actions. The state does have the power to enforce state laws over illegals but we have to know who and where they are. It is easy to deport foreigners who break state laws.
What's Tom's plan to solve the problem?
He will send 187 back to court. Great, back to the feds who created the problem to begin with and have already struck down the proposition. His wishful thinking and the opinion of his part time attorney will not overturn the existing federal court ruling and negotiated settlement. In the meantime, the illegal subculture multiplies and runs wild....undocumented and unaccountable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.