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

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

Thinking of voting for McClintock instead of for Arnold ?? (post #544) ...
Cruz 'for me everything, for you, nada da** thing' Bustamante ...

Separated at birth ?? ...

“Bajez?! We don' need no steenkin' bajez!!”
http://mrgrumman.home.comcast.net/Stinkin.wav ...
(May need to click several times to make it work) ...

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

"tailored principles"

'Nough said

So we have run someone fairly moderate to win or risk having the Democrats keep the whole enchilada.

Quote:

"I am an extreme liberal..."
-Arnold Schwarzenegger

Agree with the "connection of the dots" Many here do not realize that a vote against the most likely to win is a vote for the one less likely to win. Clinton came in late for the elections but Bush 1 was hamstrung by Buchanan and then Ross Perot. Similar to Nader's effect on Gore's election.

Had there been no far right uprising against Bush 1, I doubt we would have had Clinton 8 years of decay. In those 8 years USA went deeper into moral abyss. There were 2 attempts to ban partial birth abortions and they were vetoed by Clinton. Two supreme court justices were appointed ---and after all folks, after all is said anddone--it is all about the judges who get in for life.

Let us unite toward one republican candidate. As I said before, Schwarzenegger is the best bet to get a republican foot in that state. If we are not careful, Democrats will win with Bustamante and the republicans will be shut out of California.

""I am an extreme liberal..."

I have listened to Schwarzenneger and he has never said that by itself. You have quoted him out of context---

Good morning, "Mr. Washington, D.C. who can't vote in our recall election" (thank God) please post the entire quote and source it. Otherwise, your continued misuse of an imcomplete quote is SPAM!

I'm still only seeing a little red x, but the properties tell me you have posted a photo of Cruz and one of SPACELY3!

Okay.

Quote:

"I am an extreme liberal on social issues."

That is his full quote.

But it doesn't matter. Every politician who claims to be a liberal on social issues but a fiscal conservative is shown by the passage of time to be a liar.

SPAM is shoulder of pork and ham...or unsolicited email.

Quoting your candidate is not.

But if Schwarzenneger wins, the principled conservtives have a foot in the door and with time and patience (like raising a child--many years of work to hopefully produce a productive adult) the republican party may take a stronger hold.

In Texas, the democrats had a stronghold. GHWB was one of the republicans who was instrumental in getting the republican party into Texas. Took a lot of roller coaster rides during those years as Texas was quite democrat and took some losses (GWB lost to a democrat when he ran for congress) but with each republican win, our message was out there better and clearer. When GWB beat the democrat incumbent governor Ann Richards, the republican party became stronger. Since then the republicans have been winning and now Texas is a republican state.

please put me on the Hewitt ping list. Thanks

If Schwarzenegger continues to ignore the principled (McClintock) conservatives, there will be no foot in the door, especially as he is ideologically opposed to them to begin with.

And I think Texans are just plain smarter than Californians.

This is the old ongoing argument to set aside conservative principles to win elections. Principles are always postponed until after the next election.

When do principles begin to matter?

If conservatives vote for candidates to get them elected but never have the satisfaction of the elected politician acting as a conservative, why bother?

Good questions. I've been asking the same thing for a long time. If Conservatives keep caving, the GOP has no reason to change.

The GOP use the same "woo and screw" tactics on Conservatives that the Dem Party uses on blacks: woos them during the election cycle, then screws them after the vote. Without benefit of a ring.

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.

What self-congratulatory tripe. Hugh still doesn't get it.
It was George HW Bush's broken tax pledge, hubrisian sense of entitlement to office, and his limp, hand-wringing campaign that set the Buchanan and Perot phenomena in motion.
Politicians who don't get elected or re-elected have only themselves to blame for their failures.

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.

No, it's Arnold's uncertain or Leftist stands on a vast array of issues that is playing into the hands of the Democrats, by turning off an essential constituency for Republican victory.
Go ahead, Hugh, ignore the obvious.

It will not be clear for some years what the real costs of the McClintock candidacy will be.

Get me a violin.
Hugh, it's been clear what nine years of RNC back-stabbing have been in California, yet you've blithely ignored the string of Presidential, Senatorial, and Gubernatorial defeats it's wrought here.
California has been overrun by Illegal Aliens. We did something about it in 1994, and the RNC turned their backs on us. They refuse to fight the battle, then complain when they lose it.

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?

Elder Bush destroyed his own candidacy in 1992. I voted for him, but I knew it then and know it now.
Hugh, it's more than likely, a decade hence, that you and other like-minded ostriches will still be hiding your heads in the sand over the campaign failures of your candidates and strategists, who think they are entitled to loyalty they're too snooty to return to the GOP rank and file.
Elected office isn't a divine legacy.
Votes are not political birthrights.
Politicians who seek elected office need to earn the votes necessary win.
Hugh, your time would be better spent advising candidates to make a sincere effort at attracting votes from within the Republican Party. I vote GOP without fail, and frequently feel like a chump for doing so. It's like I'm Charlie Brown voting for Lucy to yank the football.
For years our politicians and pundits haven proven to be simultaneously arrogant and cowardily.
Why the heck would swing voters be attracted to candidates who are boldly lukewarm?
Quit griping that the customers won't buy your product, sell a better one.
Don't blame the voters, blame the leadership.

bump

Bravo!

Amen!

Let us unite toward one republican candidate. As I said before, Schwarzenegger is the best bet to get a republican foot in that state. If we are not careful, Democrats will win with Bustamante and the republicans will be shut out of California.

))))

To those on this thread who think that voting for the less conservative choice is a compromise of their principles, I ask them to consider the result of turning a steering wheel too far in an attempt to avoid a hazard. The car cannot handle it and goes out of control. The turn away must be only as far as the capabilities of the car to maintain its contact with the road.

This correction of the California "car" toward the right is doable, if controlled .

Point Number Two: McClintock is already IN the State Govt. Wouldn't he be a teammate for Schwarzenegger, if he stayed there - with all his 'inside knowledge?'

Thank you, that it indeed terrific. Like the other editorial (Investor''s Daily?), virtually every line deserves a posted ping/quotation.

Haven't read the thread yet, but I don't suspect thought by the scorched-earthers. They're too far out on a limb publicly, and pride has them locked there. They'll retread snippets and "proof-texts" and knee-jerk snipings.

But one can always hope for the still-thinking lurkers.

Dan