Tom McClintock - The conscience of a conservative?

In response to your last post to me,

I agree. I too, did not think the recall was a good idea because it had way too much potential downside (moreover, it sets a bad precedent). At this point, I don't believe the republican party will be able to claim a victory regardless of the outcome.

With that said, I think the best possible outcome at this point would be for the recall itself to be defeated. I don't believe, as most pundits seem to, that Davis would be significantly strengthened by defeating the recall, as any defeat of the recall will simply be seen as a vote against the idea of a recall (with liberals believing it a right-wing conspiracy to "steal" the election). I don't think even Davis' camp can persuade people that a defeat of the recall is a vote of confidence in Davis.

Obviously, a Bustamante victory would be terrible.

And, an Arnold victory would be bad for the GOP for the reasons I already cited, plus, I don't really think an Arnold victory would pull more people into the GOP (unless the GOP changes its platform to match Arnold's - pro-choice, pro gun control, etc.). Moreover, I doubt that Arnold will be able to get anything passed except for liberal policies, even if he wanted to advance conservative policies. He has not shown himself to be a natural politician in this campaign, he will only have a plurality at best, and he will be opposed by a hostile legislature. So, if Arnold wins, it is likely the GOP will get all of the downside of being in charge of a financial mess, with no upside, which will likely lead to democrat victories in the next election.

In the very small chance that McClintock were to win, he would also not be able to enact his agenda for many of the same reasons. So again, we would have all of the downside, with little chance of an upside.

However, if Davis remains in charge, he (and the democrats) will still suffer all of the blame for the financial mess come the next elections.

Thus, for long term thinking, a defeat of the recall is really the only outcome with any chance of a potential upside.

But, even with that said, the CA GOP would not be in this mess had it (meaning the party establishment and elites) not embraced a liberal candidate as its standard bearer for the recall. It could have gotten behind Simon, Issa, Uberoth, or McClintock from the get go - or persuaded another right-of-center republican to run in the recall. Then, if the recall failed, we at least could point out that our candidate could have fixed the problems with a conservative approach, which may have persuaded some independents to the GOP's side at the next elections.

The selection and support of Arnold demonstrates the CA GOP's complete lack of understanding of the base or (worse)a total disregard for the base, as well as a lack of ability to properly analyze strategy. It also shows the CA GOP's view of the electorate and base as being unthinking people who will vote for who they are told, without questioning. I seriously hope some GOP leaders' heads roll as a result.

And, I agree that there will be long standing divisions within the party as a result of the recall. However, I think those divisions have always been there, and have been getting worse over time. This battle was a long-time coming, and will continue in the future. The battle of "electability" vs. "principle" has always been simmering within the GOP.

The real question to me is whether this battle is something more, i.e., a battle of conservativism vs. "moderatism" (for lack of a better word). It appears to me that there are many in the GOP who do not support conservative policies, who are content with the welfare state, expanding federal government, etc., but who want some limited fiscal constraint, and maybe support a strong defense and foriegn policy, and thus want to see "moderate" or "liberal" republican candidates who will not attempt to make any changes to "social" laws. (for instance, people who say they are socially liberal but fiscally conservative [I view President Bush in this category]). I, for one, do not think that is a possible combination because I do not know how the gov't is expected to pay for all of the social liberalism if it is fiscally conservative. But, if this is the true battle underlying the Arnold problem in CA, it is sure to get much worse.

Thank you for your very thoughtful and complete reply. As mentioned, I largely agree with your point of view. May I only point out that, this year's polls are all flawed to the extent they are modeled on last year's election turnout results. Any honest pollster will say that both the volume and mix of voter turnout in this recall is unpredictable because this recall is unique.

Perhaps from the unusually high volume of voter registrations and requests for absentee ballots, one might guess that turnout will be unusually high. But it turns out that many of the registrations were from people who had either forgotten they were already registered or hadn't vote in awhile and didn't know if their registration was still valid. And it may simply be that more and more people prefer to vote absentee, so that high volume may or may not signify anything.

The point being that we could all be very surprised at the outcome should the election be held Oct. 7. If not, Davis is likely to beat the recall. This recall really is the political equivalent of jumping off a cliff into the unknown.

and a harsh, rigid, unlikeable ultra-conservative

I agree with most of what you write, but I don't think your assesment of McClintock is accurate. He's got a very clean immage, and he gives the impression that he's a straight shooter. Swing voters like that, as is demonstrated by the fact that he was elected in a district with a large number of moderate voters. He takes an uncompromising stand on some issues, but on certain issues, such as affirmative action and immigration, such stands appeal to moderates.

It is a great myth that a true conservatives can't appeal to moderates. There are several examples of "ultra-conservatives" who won with lots of moderate votes. Reagan is one prime example, as is Bret Schundler, who got elected mayor of Jersey City, though he lost the race of governor after the Jersey GOP hung him out to dry.

The reason good "ultra-conservatives" are able to get elected is that moderates are less concerned about ideology than they are about character and leadership ability. That's partly why they're moderate.P> Were it not for the recall circus, I think McClintock would stand an excellent chance in 2006. Right now, I'm not so sure.

I believe rock-ribbed conservatives WANT TO ELECT DEMOCRATS. Why do I believe that? Because I've seen such hard-Right conservatives help elect Dems over and over and over in this state for more than 10 years, then gloat about it afterwards, that's why! This recall is proving to be no exception.
______________

"What does Schwarzenegger think of the Republican Party? Most Republicans probably do not realize that during an interview published in the November 1999 issue of George magazine, Schwarzenegger stated, in reference to the vote by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives a year before to impeach his good friend, former President Bill Clinton, "that was another thing I will never forgive the Republican Party for" (impeaching his good friend Bill Clinton) "I was ashamed to call myself a Republican." If conservatives trick themselves into voting for him, they may well be ashamed of themselves if he ends up implementing his liberal stands on the issues which differ but little from Governor Davis’ own".

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.