Posted on 09/22/2003 7:28:24 AM PDT by tallhappy
I don't know how long ago you lived in Calif. but things do drift-- slowly but surely. You seem to harbor resentment about principled conservatives in California, apparently for what you believe principled conservatives to be responsible for in Oklahoma.
It's different. Simon demonstrated in 2002 that we could take California if we had the right candidate with the right message. Unfortunately Simon was the wrong candidate (too inexperienced) with the right message. Even then, he got very close.
A big problem with Arnold is inexperience. Why don't Arnold supporters, especially out of state Arnold supporters, see that? He is vulnerable in so many ways. The election is by no means in the bag, even if every single McClintock supporter voted for Arnold as of this moment.
Principle means you can't build skyscrapers on quicksand. Arnold seems willing to say just about anything to hold his lead. He's starting to break up politically. He did this himself by choosing to chase the elusive left wing vote. In doing so, he is alienating an increasing number of his original base.
I've seen a lot of posts from you and a lot of generalisms. Feel free to start talking specifics (specifics to California, that is). If you say you can do it because you once lived in Calif. or have rental prop. in Calif., let's see you do it.
I don't critique your position simply because you are out of state. But I might pick on your position because you are out of state and out of touch, with the emphasis on out of touch.
I won't expect much of an answer, so you have a nice day too.
Those folks are going to win unless those of us opposed to Leftism resist them successfully. It is not like "playing our cards right" but more like "war to the knife."
There is too much of a Democratic constituency in California to elect McClintock. Period. If I am wrong about this, either McClintock would turn his coat (likeliest result) or the Left will make such an uproar that the Feds will have to send troops. Schwartzenegger can avoid that fate.
By the way, I see Schwartzenegger as much more honest than McClintock. McClintock is jiving you guys. Telling people what they want to hear is the oldest trick in the book.
Technically, he represents T.O., but he does not live there any longer. I would imagine at a base level, he must have an office or PO box.
Seems like he's really settled down in Sac; his wife works as an admin asst for their church in Elk Grove.
My neighbor KellynLA likes to give Sanchez a hard time for living in LA and representing Santa Ana, but his boy is pulling the same stunt.
Seems to me that if you're going to run as a 'purist' you should probably have all your ducks in a row. The more you scratch below the surface, the more you see just how much McC is wed to the entire political infrastructure.
He's just clever enough to position and package himself as the champion of the little guy, all the while being just as dependent on dysfunctional CA politics as any Dem. After all, if there ain't a problem, who's gonna champion change? (Even if you've never achieved a damn thing in over 20 years in office.)
Simon was the worst choice due to inexperience and the phony lawsuits against him which, despite their being phony, were exploited by the dem smear team.
What I find interesting now is many Simon supporters now say only Schwarzenegger can win and strongly back him.
How so?
"McClintock's economic policy" indeed. Most of the electorate in California is dependent on the government's teats. And they will vote themselves out of "their" jobs, free medical care, and fantastic retirement benefits? Be serious.
I think you're exaggerating your own position (if not, we're all doomed anyway because it's already converted to communism).
BTW I would not disagree that there is excessive reliance on state makework jobs for employment here. But what do you suggest to do about it, from a ballot box perspective?
But it should not be construed as preferring Bustamante over Schwarzenegger. Preferring a Bustamante victory vs a Schwarzenegger victory is slightly different.
My comment is a Bustamante victory would be less detrimental to the state and the nation and the Republican party in the long run than a Schwarzenegger win.
I would never vote for Bustamante or encourage anyone to vote for him.
I have always voted Republican since I had my eyes open. The one exception was Huffington vs Feinstein in 1992. I could not vote for Huffington. I didn't vote for Feinstein. I threw my vote away on a third party candidate I can't even remember.
Events since, I think, have validated my decision.
I agree that too many Republicans are too purist here. They even did this to Matt Fong. He could have won but they spread word he was pro-abortion.
Yes, to elect someone more conservative than Davis and beat him.
I am not a purist.
Also, many of the same people here who are anti-Schwarzenegger have been as strongly anti-Riordan or even anti-Wilson. I never agreed with them.
Schwarzenegger is much more left than either of those. Wilson in fact held some very strong core conservative principles.
In the primary I voted for Bill Jones. He had electoral experience and was more conservative than Rirodan. I think he could have won (but who knows).
It does not impact on my opinion of Schwarzenegger which is the issue.
If McClintock were ate 5%, I'd agree.
It is all about the numbers.
Do the math. A switch can put McClintock over the top.
If it were Schwarzenegger 39, Bustamante 41 and McClintock at 5%, you'd be correct.
But, if you see it that way, I will be voting by proxy for Bustamante in your eyes.
Don't complain.
At this point, logical minded souls consider withdrawing from the debate. AS is the issue? I thought recalling Davis and electing a Rep were the issues. Oh never mind.
Come now. You can be so rational. Your analysis is excellent and my ideas here are based on similar assessment on my part.
Schwarzenegger is not acceptable to me as a Republican representative.
So this makes the only choice McClintock despite his shortcomings.
I agree electing a Rep is an overriding concern. But there are limits to everything and Schwarzenmegger crosses that line for me and many others.
You don't have to agree, just understand that Schwarzenegger has to win or lose it himself and cannot count on McClintock supporters or those who don't support Schwarzenegger (I am the latter, not the former) to save him.
On a strategic level the conflict is mind to mind. On a tactical level the goal is to disjoint expectations and sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Horowitz is very good at this. Elect him Governor. Do not elect someone like Ann Coulter as she is all stick. The carrot is needed in one hand, the stick in the other.
Corrupt your enemy, do not be afraid to bribe his supporters.
Have very much better intelligence about him than he has about you.
You can only change yourself and how you see reality, that is learn. If you can change yourself fast enough you can win.
On the very short term, Schwartzenegger intends to bribe the Democrat's supporters. This is good tactics. "Divide and Conquer" is true as always.
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.