Die-hards and the damage done: Hugh Hewitt likens McClintock recall race, Buchanan bid

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, September 17, 2003 | Hugh Hewitt

[BunnySlippers]

*

[Brian Allen]

<< That's cool. This thread needs extra bumps anyway !! :O) >>

I'll drink to that.

B A's wife: "You'll drink to anything!

I'll drink to that, too.

[skeeter]

"Ad hominum"... See, there's that ol' strawman again.

You attacked me. For being too principled, no less.

And you claim you care about America.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...the attacks on McClintock..."

It seems to me that the attacks are going the other way. It's Arnold, and his supporters, that are being attacked here.

So I guess your opening line should be repeated.

"The essayist's theory is hopelessly flawed."

[EternalVigilance]

Fine.

California has a greater numbner of registered Democrats than registered Republicans, it's the most liberal State in the Union.

The passage of so many conservative props would seem to belie that contention. Could be that the GOP is simply incompetent, and therefore has not exploited the basic conservatism that is out there?

Someday, perhaps, there will a possibility of a conservative of McClintock's ideology making a run at the governor's chair, but not right now.

We may never know when so many 'conservatives' are willing to support a liberal.

The pendulum has to swing through the center before it swings to either extreme. Like in national politics, it is imperative that we get the pendulum to slow down the swing to the left, stop, then begin its swing to the right.

The whole 'pendulum' analogy is flawed, IMO. The country went pretty fast from Jimmy Carter to Dutch Reagan.

Pretty analagous to the situation in CA right now, if you think about it. Carter was ruining the country, and Davis has been ruining California.

[b9]

Did anyone just hear Hugh Hewitt talking about this very thread on his show a few minutes ago?

He mentioned you by name , JohnHuang2, and is surprised the thread has generated so many posts.

[EternalVigilance]

Arnold is a liberal Jerry Ford with pecs...

;-)

[Luis Gonzalez]

I attacked you?

I questioned your logic.

I also pointed out that the remedy, as you saw it, was worse than the disease.

Four more years of Bush I could not have done as much damage to this country as the end result of "integrity" voting for an unelectable third-party candidate.

Perot's (and his supporters) legacy will forever be known as the Clinton Presidency.

I don't mind principled people stading on their integrity. I just find it amusing that they never seem to want to own up to the consequences of their stand, which would seem to be rule one of people with integrity.

[b9]

>>> We should invest that vote where it causes the most good to flourish over evil <<<

It's that simple and deep.
Any motive other than this is complex and shallow.

Fellow Californians...
Arnold on Larry King tonight at 6 on Larry King!

[RonDog]

Did anyone just hear Hugh Hewitt talking about this very thread on his show a few minutes ago?

He mentioned you by name , JohnHuang2, and is surprised the thread has generated so many posts.

Let's give him something to talk about, from FR's own resident parody genius, Registered:

46 posted on 09/17/2003 12:52 PM PDT by Registered (Gray Davis won't be baaaaahhck)

[Tamzee]

I've owned up to voting for Perot... the only time in my life I didn't vote a straight Republican ticket.

A conservative family friend talked up Perot as an antidote to the two-party system and the GOP that "took conservatives for granted" I was stupid and naive enough to believe it and "vote my principles", without any thought to how a carelessly placed vote can actually empower evil.

I detested Clinton prior to the election and wound up helping put him into office....my humblest apologies to the country, the victims of terrorism he allowed to flourish, and for the sacrificed lives of our servicemen and women who now battle abroad undoing Clinton's rotten damage.

[RonDog]

See also:

Arnold Schwarzenegger to Appear Wednesday, Sept. 17th on Larry King Live
			Posted by FairOpinion On 09/16/2003 9:48 AM PDT with 54 comments TV Barn ^ | Sept. 16, 2003 | TVBarn TIcker

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The passage of so many conservative props would seem to belie that contention."

Matter of record, no contention.

"We may never know when so many 'conservatives' are willing to support a liberal."

Your label. Arnold seems to be about personal responsibility.

If you mean "liberal" in his argument that there should be some sort of amnesty for a number of illegal immigrants, then Reagan was a liberal as well, he granted the amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

"The whole 'pendulum' analogy is flawed, IMO. The country went pretty fast from Jimmy Carter to Dutch Reagan."

Jimmy Carter was preceeded by Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford...Carter was the Libs attempt at swinging the pendulum back their way...the hostage crisis saw to it that he failed.

The argument right now in California is fiscal, that's what the middle of the road voter will vote on.

My last question to you remains the very same question I posted earlier.

If Bush I was at fault for not being re-elected, due to his failure to generate enough support, then Tom McClintock should be equally held to blame for his failure to attract sufficient voters. Right?

If it wasn't Perot's fault, then it can't be Arnold's fault either can it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am in awe...

Integrity surfaces.

[Scenic Sounds]

It just amazes me that Hewitt carries on day after day like this. I just think it's inconceivable that both Arnold and Tom are both going to be in the race come election day, no matter when the election is held.

[Tamzee]

I've stated it on other threads and just get nasty comments that I'm just as wrong about Arnold... there is no getting through to some folks ;-)

[Tamzee]

Thanks for the reminder about Larry King.... now I've got to figure out where CNN is again ;-)

[b9]

A perfect illustration of the undercover campaign being waged.

Thank you, Registered! :o)

[EternalVigilance]

If Bush I was at fault for not being re-elected, due to his failure to generate enough support, then Tom McClintock should be equally held to blame for his failure to attract sufficient voters. Right?

If it wasn't Perot's fault, then it can't be Arnold's fault either can it?

Actually, if you go back and read my posts, you will see that I haven't personally taken a position on this thread about who caused what in those particular elections. If you want, I'll be glad to do so. I'll also share where I stood on each occasion as well.

What I took exception to is Mr. Hewitt brushing all conservatives with the same tar brush as is used on Buchanan. It isn't true, and it isn't fair. Buchanan doesn't represent us in the least.

Almost the entire GOP electorate stayed home in the GOP and voted for GW Bush in 2000, for example...considering the threat of a continuation of the Clinton crime syndicate to far outweigh some real problems that many had with Mr. Bush's stated positions on some key issues.

By doing what he is doing; painting all supporters of Tom McClintock as like Buchanan, he, and by extension you, are doing a huge disservice, and real damage, to the Republican coalition.

The fact is, Buchanan is a has-been, and over the course of the last few years has departed far from the mainstream conservative reservation.

And what you are ignoring, leaving out of your equation, is the fact that Schwarzenegger is so far left that many of us cannot support him, period. Not possible, and not the same as those elections in the least.

[LisaAnne]

Apparently she doesn't mind Bustamante for governor.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/982570/posts?page=528#528