"Hasta La Vista, Baby !!"
(Click here or on the pics !)
Posted on 09/29/2003 5:15:01 PM PDT by ElephantMan
[Editorial]
Sean, Sean, Sean...
From the very minute that Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy for Governor of California, Sean Hannity's behavior has been more like a star struck groupie than a professional commentator or political pundit.
Sean has admitted many times, on both his radio and television shows, that his views are much closer to those of State Senator Tom McClintock, the real conservative in the race. Yet, Hannity supports Arnold.
He insists that he "hasn't endorsed anyone," but it's clear who his horse is in this race. Hey, we like Arnold too--and if McClintock wasn't running, we'd support him over Davis or Bustamonte without hesitation.
Sean praises Arnold at every turn. He repeatedly quoted from Arnold's "editorial" in the Wall Street Journal last week, stating his admiration for Arnold's views and citing the article as proof of Arnold's conservative bona fides--even after he was informed that the piece was ghost-written by the Club For Growth's, President, Stephen Moore. (How a seasoned political pro could even give that article a quick skim without questioning it's authorship is beyond us? Does it sound even remotely like any of Arnold's other campaign statements?)
Hannity defends his impartiality by saying that he has given more airtime to McClintock than Arnold. Even if that isn't simply because McClintock has been more available than Arnold, it makes little difference when the bulk of the interview is spent asking the same question a half a dozen different ways. The question, of course, being, "You can't win, why don't you drop out? Why are you going to split the vote? Aren't you going to give the election to Bustamonte?"
Sean maintains that he couldn't talk up McClintock early on because he didn't know enough about him prior to the debates. I maintain that part of his job is to learn more about the key players. It would have minimal effort to call a couple of his colleagues in California, i.e., Melanie Morgan, Roger Hedgecock and Tom Sullivan to find out if any of the other candidates were serious and/or viable. They would have all mentioned McClintock and Sean could have done some additional research--talked to Tom and found out that he was for real.
Sean's unequivocal and blind support from the beginning for Schwarzenegger is baffling. More importantly, his support comes at the expense of intellectual consistency. Consider the following:
Even though he thought Bill Clinton's actions 25-30 years ago were relevant to an election, as do we by the way, Sean repeatedly says that he "doesn't care about Arnold's actions from 20 years ago," and his views as expressed in the interview with a porn magazine in 1973. Sean says, "Hey, I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago." Actually, Sean, you're not the same person you were just a couple of years ago...
Based on his statements over the past several weeks, Sean thinks that we should vote for Arnold because:
1.) Arnold can win.
2.) Tom can't win.
Doesn't this sort of thinking suggest that we should only back "moderate" Republicans in all races? This would especially hold true for Presidential races--which means we should back someone like Olympia Snow or Colin Powell in '04 rather than Bush. After all, Bush is just "too conservative."
Of course, that makes no sense. And neither does Sean's support of Arnold.
And here's another thought for you Sean. What happens if the Gray Davis Dirt Digging and Demonization Machine finds the magic bullet and takes down the Terminator at the 11th hour? It's a very real scenario--and if it does happen won't we all be glad that McClintock remained in the race?
Worse, what happens if Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California were to either not endorse Bush in '04 or even announce his support of a moderate Democrat?
Can you say M-A-J-O-R D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R???
Again, Sean should have done his homework. My guess is, he would have support Tom from the start. And that being the case, perhaps Tom would be 20-25 points in front of Arnold. Who knows, maybe Arnold wouldn't still be in it? Maybe he wouldn't have ever jumped in...
We love ya Sean. We thank God for you and your (usually) firm, brave voice for conservative issues. We put this site on the web over a year and half ago--we've supported you for a long time. But on this one, Sean, we respectfully think you're wrong.
We understand the arguments for supporting the guy who can win, "it's better than Bustamonte." And we agree that Bustamonte would be a true disaster for an already ailing state.
We also understand that most of the social issues where many conservatives agree more with Tom than Arnold, are out of the sphere of influence these men will enjoy in their role as governor.
But besides standing on principle and conviction, the main reason we support Tom is simple. We believe he can do the job. He's spent 25 years working intimately with CA budget issues and can spout off a systematic plan to reversing the state's fortunes on demand. This guy knows what needs to be done. What can be cut. What needs to be left alone.
And this recall election, the dynamics of which are so unique, may provide the best opportunity to project a true conservative into the position of Governor. Squandering that opportunity just to play it safe seems foolhardy to us. If Californians were given the chance to see a conservative in action, solving the state's problems and debunking the doom and gloom scare tactics the Left has used to keep conservatives out of office, i.e., scaring senior citizens that their social security will be cut or taken away, scaring women regarding the "right to choose" and so forth.
Unfortunately, thanks in no small part to your position on this issue, California is likely to lose that once-in-a-generation opportunity. Yes, he will probably not raise taxes. But we will subject California to governance by a total novice--to deal with problems that cause even the most experienced to tremble. Should his inexperience, regardless of who he surrounds himself with (And some of those on his team gave California its largest tax hike in history!), leave the state worse for his being there, Republicans will be blamed.
Will it be cool to have The Terminator as Governor of our State? Of course. But c'mon, we're not all young teenagers. Shouldn't we make our political choices based less on testosterone and adrenaline? And lastly, do we really want a man who calls Sen. Kennedy, "Uncle Teddy" to be carrying our banner? :::Shudder:::
All the best...
Matthew Reid, Founder
www.Hannity2004.com
Perhaps, yet another thing you don't know--is that it's a poll conducted by the GALLUP organization. Perhaps, the most respected polling company in the world. USA Today and CNN simply share the cost of conducting the poll and as such, are Title Sponsers.
Discount the poll all you want. Their methodology is the best in the biz. It just shows your bias...
Of course I would. Only a blind Tom supporter wishing for the impossible wouldn't. That would be you.
Again...THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!!!!
Your assessment regarding the desperate nature and the desire/want/need pathology, etc. Except for who's the victim.
It's you Arnold groupies, who hope against the evidence. If Arnold had A (D) beside his name--you'd be criticizing his every move. If Arnold was a plumber rather than a movie star, you'd be laughing him off the ballot.
He isn't even participating in the debates!!!! Except one. Have you ever heard of that from a politician? Unbelievable.
He's surrounded himself with Pete Wilson and his team who brought you the largest tax hike in California history! He won't promise not to raise taxes. He says, "Only in an emergency."
Think about it man. He's telegraphing his every move. (If you're not too dim to see it.)
What did he say is his plan for the budgetary problems? "We're going to open up the books." Still can't see what's coming? What do you think he's gonna find when he opens up the books?
An emergency?
Hold on to your wallet!
And again, I repeat, what happens in 2004 when the Rep. Gov of California endorses the Democrat for President? Can you imagine how much fun Judy Woodruff and Bill Schnieder would have with that? It's a real possibility.
I don't know if it's the built in inferiority complex many conservatives have--the need to be liked by the enemy types. Hollywood hates us--but here's a big movie star who's "one of us." (Notice how quickly Hannity puts you on his show if you're a conservative singer/actor/etc.)
But people who think like this seem to be hoping against all hope--against all logic--that Arnold will be more conservative when he get's in.
WRONG
He'll be more liberal.
Back to the polls for a second. My analysis leaves me with the conclusion that the numbers break down as follows:
Bustamonte: Solid 30%
Not Sure: 10%
McClintock: Solid 20%
Arnold: Solid 20%
People who like Tom, but are voting for Arnold
because "Tom Can't Win": Solid 20%.
Thus Arnold has 40%.
That fluid 20% who wants to vote for Tom, but has been told over and over again that he can't win, holds the difference in this entire election.
If they vote for Tom, he wins. If they vote for Arnold, he wins. It's really that simple.
And, yes, I live in California. San Francisco-6th District.
The rest of your post is equally irrational.
But you go right ahead and vote for the man you know cannot win.
I'll vote for the man I know can prevent the hispanic supremicist from becoming California's next governor.
You'll lose and I'll win.
The irony is painfull. The person with blind support for their candidate is you! (Maybe you're an Arnold worker, who knows.)
But no matter how loudly--or pompously--or often--you say otherwise, it's you who we're laughing at!
Because, again, if Arnold had a (D) next to his name, you'd hate him...that's the epitome of hypocrisy.
[PS: Knocking a poll, just because you don't like the results might be the lamest of all political discourse.]
Makes sense. I would only caution that, in my opinion, your comment that we need to stop drafting essays for National Review is a telling indicator of the problem: it's self-contradictory.
How else can we change millions of minds unless we educate and lay out the viewpoints plainly and clearly? I fear that "ideologue" is rapidly decaying into a pejorative term when there's nothing really off-putting about it.
I might be crazy, but politics isn't just about compromise (as is so often said) but about ideas. I think that in addition to, perhaps in some cases instead of, downplaying controversial views, we should work on more ably carrying the message to Americans.
I'm not a Maha-Rushie follower, but I agree with his sentiment that, when clearly, firmly, and positively put forward, conservatism wins the day with the average American. We just need to step out and make it so.
Um, maybe you don't read the other posts, but that was for all the other people who wanted to know whether any of the people debating this issue were actually from California.
There are other people on this board!
Are you, by any chance, Brian Wilson, formerly of KSFO?
This isn't about you and me.
It's about the people of California, who will either elect a socialist racist Democrat, or a political newbie with dubious political ties and very liberal ideas who calls himself a Republican but has NO business running the world's 5th largest economy, or a pro who knows the CA budget inside and out and has been fighting for budgetary integrity (standing up to the liberal spenders) for over 20 years.
If it was for the other people why did you tell it to me?
There are other people on this board!
You've noticed that too?
Are you, by any chance, Brian Wilson, formerly of KSFO?
No. Are you?
I doubt that TM has many dems rooting for him so I would guess that his poll numbers are probably all conservative republicans. Now if TM is getting 18%, that means that AS is getting 22 pubbies and 18% dems.
If all the republicans who are going to vote for AS would vote for the real republican in the race, TM would be at 40% and AS would be at 18%. Thank god there are so many republicans who will stand for their principles and vote for AS.
NO he would'nt the people of california are not even close to being hit with true conservatism they are going to have to be weened of the liberal teet first.
Liberalism runs rampid in this country unbridled communism can damage a state as well as the country causing culture shock in california would destroy its infrastructure [what davis has'nt destroyed already !].How many communists do you think are spread out across this country ? Judging from the numbers of protestors during our conflict with IRAQ in the ongoing war on terrorism id say the numbers could be stagering !
I dont like some of Arnold policies but they are better than all the other choices except McClintock Arnold is a RINO in my book plain and simple.
BUT and you knew the BUT was coming splitting the vote is a dangerous thing we've had the experiance with Pero it was'nt worth it like Hannity said 80% of our policy is better than 0% of it. and for the sake of argument i agree i dont like it but i agree.
Please post these polls.
(Not the ones that include all 3 in them. I want to see other polls that say if Arnold gets out McClintock would lose. I haven't seen any. Just the Gallup poll that suggests Tom would kill Bustamonte.)
I think we need some disclosure here from the people who simply won't vote for Tom because he's too conservative for them. Because what I keep hearing is, "Well Arnold's the only one who can beat Cruz." But the only poll that's investigated that scenario shows otherwise.
So my question is--regardless of how you're actually going to vote----if you could "wave your magic wand," who do you wish would win."
If you really want Arnold--that's fine.
If you want Tom, but have been convinced that he can't win--that's fine too (see my previous arguments).
But until I see evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that the Gallup Poll is correct and Tom McClintock would beat Cruz Bustamonte in a one-on-one match-up. Which means...
If we want the most conservative and best suited (those are two different sets of criteria) person to win the Governorship--then Arnold should get out of the race and let Tom win.
For some reason, despite the protests to the contrary, I have a feeling that's not what these Arnold-only-because-he-can-win people want.
And for the record, I don't consider myself some superior moralist for voting for Tom. I consider myself able to read the political tea leaves and see the bigger picture. I am not falling on my sword or dying on any hill. I am simply not going to hand the Republican Party over to the liberal-moderate wing for--who knows how long?
Have you thought about that? Arnold (+ Maria) will load the government bureaucracy with libs and moderates and there will be no room for conservatives or libertarian free thinkers for a long time to come.
Consider my bastardization of what Truman used to say, "Anytime you put a Democrat up against a Democrat, the Democrats win every time."
The whole point of my initial post was to generate discussion and provoke thought.
That has been achieved.
Vote your heart--and your head. They can be one in the same.
All the best...
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.
