Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BibChr; Luis Gonzalez; Victoria Delsoul
What would McClintock's supporters do if McClintock suddenly emerged as the front-runner? I expect that would be a sure sign to his followers that McClintock's really wasn't conservative enough, and they would immediately disavow him.

If by some incredible fluke McClintock actually won, they would trip over themselves to complain about everything McClintock did once he took office. Whatever happens, the only constant is their constant complaining.

If the consequences of such self-destructive behavior were limited to California, it would be of minimal concern to the rest of us. Unfortunately, history suggests that the venom directed at Arnold is a foreshadowing of what they have in store from Bush in 2004. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see the relationship between the Schwarzenegger-bashing and the malevolence toward Bush from certain conservatives that would earn high praise from the “principled, no-compromise, true conservative” counterparts at DU.

We've seen this behavior enough times to discern the pattern. A small yet vocal number of self-described “principled conservatives” decide the leading Republican candidate (i.e., the only Republican candidate with a realistic chance to win) “isn't conservative enough,” so they back someone with absolutely zero chance to actually win, but serious chance to play the spoiler in a close contest. The predictable outcome is the election of yet another leftist Democrat.

The “we're the only principled conservatives around here” shtick is getting tiresome as well. McClintock's supporters self-congratulate themselves for their principles the way liberals self-identify as the sole repositories of compassion and tolerance. They mistake inflexibility and fanaticism for principle. By their lights, Adolph Hitler was the most principled politician who ever lived.

One wonders if McClintock's supporters behave this way in everyday life. You ask for a $25,000 raise, but the boss offers only $10,000. Insulted and enraged, you quit in a huff. Months later, you find another job at $10,000 less than your original salary. Your wife complains and you tell her that just proves how stupid/unprincipled she is! Repeat every couple of years/marriages.

Actually, the term “McClintock supporter” is an oxymoron. You cannot support a candidate who himself knows he cannot win. McClintock is not so much a candidate for governor as he is a spoiler of Schwarzenegger's chances. Let's call McClintock supporters what they really are based on what they spend most of their time/energy doing, which is bashing Arnold. Their behavior defines them as Schwarzenegger spoilers, which in turn makes them de facto Bustamante supporters.

Next year, they'll be Hillary's secret weapon.

246 posted on 09/17/2003 2:21:49 PM PDT by William Wallace (“No compromise” conservatives who help elect Cruz in 2003 are Hillary's secret weapon in 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]


To: William Wallace
What would McClintock's supporters do if McClintock suddenly emerged as the front-runner? I expect that would be a sure sign to his followers that McClintock's really wasn't conservative enough, and they would immediately disavow him.

Get real.

251 posted on 09/17/2003 2:39:36 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: William Wallace
Your whole post (#246) is a complete misrepresentation of the reality of modern political life in the GOP; and a smear job on conservatives. Unreal.
252 posted on 09/17/2003 2:44:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: William Wallace; Luis Gonzalez; RonDog; BibChr; MeeknMing; JohnHuang2; Alberta's Child
Excellent post, William, and I totally agree with you by the way.

I'd just like to add a few more facts if I may. I've been following politics since I was a teenager. It's true that Bush SR promised not to raise taxes, "Read my lips, no more new taxes." However, Bush SR. wasn't planning to go into war with Iraq. Let's not forget that the conflict with Iraq cost us plenty, our economy grew weaker and the stock market stagnated. If I recall correctly, the Dow Jones went down 18-17 percent. Unemployment rose and jobs creation slowed; as a consequence sales fell sharply. Adding to that, the interest rates were high due to the savings and loan fiasco. And the most important thing that many have forgotten about is, BECAUSE OF THE WAR Bush Sr. was forced, mainly by the Liberals, to raise taxes as part of his budget agreement.

Of course the Liberals exploited the fact that Bush SR raised taxes and Buchanan capitalized on it. As a result we got the magnificent Clinton whose ability to increase taxes fooled everyone into forgetting this little fact and just talk about Bush SR's broken promise. So, just to remind everyone, Clinton's 1993 tax hike was $241 billion over five years.

Here is a LINK of Clinton's tax record:

Clinton's 1993 tax hike not only broke America's tax hiking record but also Bill Clinton's campaign promise to cut middle class taxes in his 1992 campaign.

Sheepish at negative public reaction from his breaking of both tax hike records and his promises, Clinton admitted in 1995: "People in this room are still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. Well, it might surprise you to know I think I raised them too much, too."

Bill Clinton promised to cut taxes while campaigning in 1992.

In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes by a record $241 billion over five years.

In 1994, Clinton again tried raising taxes with his nationalized health care plan.

In 1995, Bill Clinton admits he raised taxes "too much."

In 1996, Bill Clinton vetoed tax cuts.

In 1997, Clinton finally accepted tax cuts at Republican insistence.

In 1998, Clinton again refused to cut taxes in spite of a growing surplus.

And in 1999, Bill Clinton not only again opposed tax cuts, but sought $100 billion more in taxes over the next ten years (according to CBO), despite a $1 trillion 10-year, non-Social Security surplus.

____________________

The same ploy concocted by the Liberal media and the Democrats to conquer and divide (oldest trick in the book) is being applied here regarding Arnold. He's been accused by the Liberals of being a Liberal on social issues. This, of course, won't deter Democrats and Liberals since they advocate the same issues, but is for Conservatives' consumption. With a little bit of luck the Liberals will be again laughing all the way to the bank when Bustamente wins and Conservatives are left with a deep satisfaction in their hearts while pounding on the table as they exclaim… Ha! We just taught a lesson to the GOP, and if GW doesn't do something about illegals, we're going to teach him as well. Ain't this country great!

284 posted on 09/17/2003 6:28:12 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (There aren't enough conservatives in CA to vote for Tom and still have him to win. That's a fact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: William Wallace
What would McClintock's supporters do if McClintock suddenly emerged as the front-runner? I expect that would be a sure sign to his followers that McClintock's really wasn't conservative enough, and they would immediately disavow him.

Whatever happens, the only constant is their constant complaining.

Next year, they'll be Hillary's secret weapon.



THREE bull's eyes... with ONE arrow...
great william wallace.
306 posted on 09/17/2003 9:30:26 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (robert the rino...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson