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
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.
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.
Might explain how Sean got to where he is today...certainly isn't because of his intellect.
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.
We know. You've been quite consistent in your views.
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.
I suppose that listening to the Hannity interview brought me to "his" level...articulate, intelligent...NOT!!!!
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?
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:
I like the guilt-free choice - McClintock. I've placed other votes in the past that I'd like to forget.
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
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.