Sean, Sean, Sean (Hannity Supports Arnold Snubs McClintock)

Hannity2004.com ^ | 9/29/03 | Matthew Reid

[truthandlife]

Why would you say "star struck"?

Did you see his interview with Arnold tonight on H & C? Talk about barf alert. I thought Sean was going kiss the guy. It was embarrassing. I think Sean is star struck with Arnold's success.

[CheneyChick]

Good post.

[Kevin Curry]

Would McClintock be running away with this thing if people like Sean had supported him from the beginning?

As has become very clear, Tom would coast to the finish line jogging backwards while Bustamante lay wheezing for breath ten feet out of the starting blocks.

But Arnie's supporters (including three-watt Hannity) prize liberalism above conservatism, and desperately want the California to continue its death spiral.

[EllaMinnow]

But Loretta Sanchez said how much she respects and admires McClintock voters!

Doesn't that make you happy?

[Brian S]

I thought Sean was going kiss the guy. It was embarrassing...

Might explain how Sean got to where he is today...certainly isn't because of his intellect.

[Dog Gone]

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."

That's faulty reasoning, because each race has to be analyzed in its own context. To say that a true conservative can't win a particular race in Massachussetts doesn't mean than one can't win in Wyoming or Texas.

I don't think Arnold would stand a chance of election here in Texas, but I don't think McClintock stands a chance of election in California next week.

People who think in terms of absolutes in politics almost always end up as losers. This lesson should be clear by now, but for some reason it is not.

If this were a general election, McClintock would be well served by running toward the center. That is how elections are won.

But this isn't a general election; it's a unique electoral event. The normal rules don't apply, and McClintock either can't or won't see reality for reasons I can't comprehend.

A far right candidate, who continues to emphasize those points one week before an election in California has zero chance of being elected. The demographics are overwhelmingly against that strategy.

And before I get criticized for calling Tom a "far right candidate", I'm speaking only in terms of California. He'd be mainstream here in Texas.

[CheneyChick]

I guess FR is the last place to find anyone that will agree with them.

[AnnaZ]

Love it!

 

('Specially this part: "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... "... LOL!)

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Your post #56 shows your maturity and ability to articulate intelligent thought.............NOT!!!!!

[SunStar]

Sean's stance in this Recall election race completely contradicts his book, "Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism" There is no more liberty-minded candidate in the race than McClintock.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

As has been made abundantly clear here and on other forums, political expediency trumps principals every time. Win at all costs even if the cost is betrayal of your avowed belief.

Getting an (R) behind the name of the next governor is so all encompassing that any (R) will do, even if that (R) spells (R)ino.

Get used to it, thats the future of America since most principaled individuals have been brow beat and cajoled into accepting the sacrifice of whats right for whats right for the Party.

[Russell Scott]

I would not want to ponder Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt alone in a room with Arnold. They would be lighting candles, and asking Arnold to forgive them for being conservatives.

[SunStar]

Tom has tried to sabotage the race against the Republican party.

We know. You've been quite consistent in your views.

[Afronaut]

"have had enough of the self-definded "principle" that spews from the McClintock supporters."

Here is some Principle for you then...

Women for Arnold sponsored by the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition = ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER SUPPORT $50,000

This defines it for me.

[Brian S]

Your post #56 shows your maturity and ability to articulate intelligent thought.............NOT!!!!!

I suppose that listening to the Hannity interview brought me to "his" level...articulate, intelligent...NOT!!!!

[SunStar]

Well, Hannity should not have created this problem for himself.

Absolutely right. Rush hasn't had this problem, because he never showed a bias towards either side. Besides, Sean isn't even a Californian. Why dig a hole with half of his listeners?

[edchambers]

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.

Uh, Bush IS a moderate while he may be socially conservative he is definately a fiscal liberal split the difference=moderate.He can call it "compassionate conservatism" if he wants to but I calls em like I sees em Bush41 moderate,Bush 43 moderate,Jeb moderate.

[truthandlife]

Getting an (R) behind the name of the next governor is so all encompassing that any (R) will do, even if that (R) spells (R)ino.

Get used to it, thats the future of America since most principaled individuals have been brow beat and cajoled into accepting the sacrifice of whats right for whats right for the Party.

You are correct. You might want to check this out:

The Party of Death vs. The Party of Slow Suicide

[SunStar]

So, it's a perplexing situation. Do you vote your heart (knowing he won't get in) or do you vote Arnold to keep a rat out?

I like the guilt-free choice - McClintock. I've placed other votes in the past that I'd like to forget.

[CaptBlack]

I think the thing that just has me completely amazed is that no one ever addresses the concept that Arnold has the ability to "reach out to independents and even some democrats."

How else can you reach out to someone without appealing to them on some basis? I submit that it is in the very act of "appealing" to those normally opposed to conservative ideas that we lose what is essentially conservative.

A visiting preacher once said "what you've won them with, is what you've won them to." I'm sure the same principle will obtain here. I'm guessing that many pro-Arnold folks agree but have the idea that once Arnold is firmly esconsced in his seat as governor, they'll be able to dispense with the liberal "bait" and reveal the conservative hook.

Seems to me, at any rate, that you'd want the most conservative position going into the governer's office because you're already going to have to compromise. I'd want to start from the closest position near my principles as I could instead of already conceding ground from the get-go, ground that you'll have to compromise from again.

So even though, for reason just mentioned, and on biblical grounds, I TOTALLY find the reach-out-liberals concept anathema, I do think we should be on the watch for turning this into a completely rancorous, divisive, bitterness-fest between conservatives.

For those that are upset that some of us out-of-towners are chiming in, I would only submit that, considering that California is THE economic big kid on the block when it comes to the States, and that this election is a test case (as I see it) of how the leaders in the Republican Party leadership tends to operate, I think we have some standing to comment (even such an one as Medved does, and he's here in Seattle like me).

Thanks,

Steve