Posted on 09/26/2003 12:00:31 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
There is no argument about the serious condition of our once golden state. Our debt is greater than all the other states combined, we are but a few million dollars away from bankruptcy. Our tax burden and over regulations are driving business out of the state at an unprecedented rate.
We are at a crucial point in our state’s history. The people themselves; Democrat, Republican and Independents, without the approval or help from any party have called for an election to recall this governor and replace him with another, one who will hopefully lead us out of this mess.
There appears to be a wide agreement on the first question; should we recall Governor Davis. The second part, choosing a new governor, will not be difficult for most Democrats: theirs is a party line vote with only one candidate, Lt. Gov. Bustamante. And even though he said he will raise taxes and further regulate and tax business, forcing more of them to leave, they will vote for him.
For Republicans however this election is about more than which Republican we should vote for. This election is more about the party itself; will we continue to be a party of principle, directed by the philosophy of Lincoln and Reagan or have we laid our principles aside? Do we want to win so badly that it doesn’t matter how or who, just so the next governor has an R behind his name?
The GOP has two candidates: Arnold Schwarzenegger, a celebrity of worldwide fame, with popularity and fame as the Terminator and recognized as a super star among movie idols. He is a good man. His celebrity status alone will attract a huge number of votes for the GOP from Independents, Democrats and especially young voters. Among the 18 to 30 year olds, he is Britney Spears with muscles. They wow over him. Most moderate Republicans and many regular Republicans, those who desperately want a Republican to win, will vote for him. They are prepared to look beyond his political beliefs and character; they just want to win.
Sen. McClintock, on the other hand, is an icon among Republicans. Since the first day he was elected to office, nearly twenty years ago, he has led the fight against the very forces and policies that have now badly tarnished this once golden state. He fought Governor Wilson’s huge tax increase, just as hard as he fought Willie Brown and Gray Davis. His credentials, as well as his character as a conservative Republican, are impeccable.
He has been our party’s leader and severest critic of fraud, corruption and waste in state government. From the very beginning of his career until today, he has warned that unless spending was brought under control, California would end up as it has today.
The knock on McClintock is that he can’t raise the money and so, can’t win this election. The knock on Schwarzenegger is that he is not a true Republican and carries a lot of baggage that the Democrats will probably throw at him just before the election.
Actually, Arnold is no higher in the polls than he was when he started, whereas McClintock has risen from an asterisk to double digits.
In the last election, McClintock was outspent 30 to 1, yet he received more votes than any other other Republican on election day. Had those moderates claiming Tom can’t win today contributed to his election, or given him his fair share of the money donated by the national party, he would have won. McClintock lost the Controller’s race by the slimmest margin in history. Had he been helped by the moderates controlling our state party, California would not now be in the awful mess in which we find ourselves today.
The moderates of the party and most of the GOP congressmen are just where they were prior to the last Governor’s race. On orders from the White House and Karl Rove, many "conservative" congressman support Schwarzenegger, just as they endorsed the moderate Richard Riordan.
The moderates in our party, including the New Majority and those in the Lincoln Club, are intensely interested in electing Schwarzenegger, a moderate. They believe the party’s future, especially in California, is to adopt the Karl Rove/Parsky plan; we must forgo the values of the liberals and accept the invasion of illegals, adopt the big tent, tax and spend and big government philosophy of the Democrats.
Conservatives know that our party’s losses in California, all during the past decade, are due to millions of illegals who have entered California, and – the continued split in our party between the moderate, "Country Club" Republicans and the conservatives.
While Arnold has a high rating in the polls, it has never risen above where it started. McClintock on the other hand has been continually rising, from as asterisk to double digits. There is a cry from moderate Republicans and "concern" from the media that McClintock should withdraw in favor of Arnold, else the GOP might not win and the dreadful Bustamante will become governor.
This dilemma among the GOP might not be so tragic or apocryphal if the contest was between two conservatives, say Simon and McClintock, one would drop out when just before the election the other was ahead. The same can be said if the two Republicans were Arnold and some equally famous, moderate movie star, but it isn’t.
It’s between our brightest Republican star, a conservative icon and a dazzling celebrity. Conservatives at the core of the party are incredulous at those moderates who don’t share those core values, yet are asking the conservative standard bearer to drop out. Conservatives want to win but they know that a win that asks us to repudiate our principles is not a victory, it’s a harbinger of the end.
Lieutenant Colonel Gil Ferguson, USMC (Ret.), served in the California State Assembly from 1984 to 1994.
Tom's. But Tom's not going to win, and Arnold is enough of a conservative on fiscal and economic issues that he's acceptable.
Tip O'Neill (though a liberal) had it right when he said, "All politics is local".
If we agree with that, then can we safely ignore out of state opinions? ;-)
Do you have any proof?
Why is this so hard to get through to people?
I'm glad you asked... because if everyone who thought as you do got engaged in his candidacy and voted his conscience, HE WOULD BE WINNING!
I used to live in CA. It's not as liberal as everyone says. The cities are liberal-leaning and they get what they deserve. However, I have many friends from across the state that are disengaged from politics because of the attitudes expressed here on FR.
Here's a question for all of your (R)nold RINOs: How did CA get to have one of the top ten economies in the world without people who believe in capitalism? Answer: it didn't. However, people have gotten so used to the Communist-style of voting that they are disenfranchised.
Look to the election of Pete Wilson as an example that CA WANTS A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR but keeps getting disappointed in the results.
We have an opportunity now to give these people a REAL choice. If you give them (R)nold, you will further alienate the conservative electorate.
Not true. You have to go where people are in order to reach them. (Another biblical truth which can be seen by Jesus and Paul's actions). If they are walking east, you will not be able to convince them of much if you are walking west. You have to walk east with them for a while in order to even have a conversation with them.
Arnold maintains that Californians are taxed too much, that the problem with the budget is too much spending not insufficient revenues, and that the business climate needs to be improved by opposing anti-business legislation. What's not conservative about that?
Those who claim Arnold isn't in any way conservative are clearly liars, or have chosen not to hear. Why do we bother debating them? They call us "RINOs," but most of them are clearly "MORONs".
My story is worse. I was so pissed off at Bush for going back on his no taxes pledge that I voted for the guy who promised a middle class tax cut. Talk about being a novice and an idiot.
I respect your opinions, but I highly, highly doubt that. McClintock couldn't even win statewide last time for a lesser office that seems perfectly suited to his talents - and close only counts in horseshoes. Arnold is drawing people into the party in droves - you may not like the views of those people, but they make Republicans stronger. Conservates are just not numerous enough on the ground to win statewide in California right now unless they make some effort to reach out to liberals - otherwise, we would be talking about Governor Simon and Controller McClintock and all this would be moot.
Yet another Perot voter for Arnold. I am sensing a real trend here.
Sheesh! What is it with mis-applying the Bible today on FR? It's not about WALKING, it's about BEING. Neither Jesus nor Paul EVER compromised their positions... not for pandering and certainly not to save their own lives. Your example is horrible.
Now, if you were to ask ME if I have all the answere, the answer is definitely YESSSSSS! LOL!
OK, do you support Tom Tancredo's position on illegal immigrants then? Enquiring minds from the state of California want to know the correct answer.
;-)
No, no, no. He would not. Davis would stay in office. Arnold has also appealed to mild democrats...alot of them. If you took the conservative vote away from Arnold, Bustamante would win, or the recall would fail...one or the other. Look man, I don't agree with Arnold on a lot of issues. I don't worship hollywierd. But I can take a loss to move to higher ground. McClintock cannot win in that state, atleast right now.
Why do you even waste you time on a debate?
You should just wait until the final poll numbers are released before every election and pull the lever for the _R_ that has the highest %. Why bother to argure with the people who will never follow your voting strategy?
Okeydokey, just checkin'
;-)
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.