WHICH MCCLINTOCK TO BELIEVE? TOM PROMISED HE WOULDN'T BE A SPOILER

KFI 640 | Matt Garrett

[MattGarrett]

On today's RECALL CENTRAL on KFI 640, they had the head of the "Lincoln Republicans" of Orange County. He stated that Tom McClintock had assured him that he would not stay in the race to play spoiler if it looked like he couldn't win. He promised that he would bow out before the election if his numbers didn't assure victory.

Other Cal GOP leaders were quoted as saying the same.

And yet, McClintock has vowed to stay in the race to the bitter end.

So, the question is ...

Which McClintock do we believe?

[My2Cents]

Well, you missed my point, which was that most of the people here on FR who throw around the term "RINO" aren't even Republicans at all, but regardless...

I use the "RINO" label for candidates who have said they are ashamed to call themselves Republican.

Arnold has taken heat for his comment about being ashamed of being a Republican during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I don't agree with him in that context. But I think I understand how he could say this, because I have to say that watching the incivility and strident low-intelligence of the foaming-mouth puritan contingent on FR over the past couple of weeks, if this is "conservatism," I'm ashamed to be a conservative.

[Defiant]

Or neither

No, that would be a vote for Davis.

[vbmoneyspender]

I'm interested in JimR's opinion on these issues as much as I'm interested in anyone's opinion on these issues. Just because he runs the place doesn't necessarily make his opinion more significant than anyone else's.

I disagree. I value JR's opinion much more than I would, for example, Cruz Bustamonte's opinion. Seems to me that it is common sense that you don't value all opinions equally.

[Roscoe]

that would be a vote for Davis.

That's a separate question on the ballot. Try reading it.

[EternalVigilance]

I know a goodly number of the McClintock supporters on FR--and they are generally the most thoughtful and civil of people.

They, like me, only become uncivil then treated uncivilly.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Here's a RINO that finally shed his *R*

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/6904423.htm

County supervisor switches to the Democratic Party

San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill switched his political allegiance on Tuesday, dropping the GOP for the Democratic Party. In re-registering as a Democrat, the two-term supervisor cited several departures from what he perceives as Republican philosophy -- plus his opposition to the recall election.

Hill said in a statement that the Republican Party has become one that ``works to limit civil rights, weaken environmental protections, restrict personal freedoms, and the latest tactic is to hijack the results of honest and fair elections with the abuse of the recall process.''

``I can no longer align myself with people who represent these extreme points of view on issues that are very important to me and many Californians,'' Hill said.

Hill, who had been the lone Republican on the board of supervisors, joins four other Democrats on the five-member body.

10-01-03

Good riddance to backstabbing, lying RINO trash. Maybe he can take Riordan with him.

[68 grunt]

That was very funny! Very astute!

[DoughtyOne]

Let me explain what my experience was when supporting Buchanan. I believed in his immigration stance. I had felt that our nation would pay dearly for allowing this issue to go unaddressed. I take no pleasure in saying it, but 09/11 was exactly the type of incident that I feared. Frankly, I feared far worse and still believe it is only a matter of time, but to this day our immigration issues go unaddressed. I ask you, what issue supercedes sovereignty?

A nation without enforcable borders is not a nation. We have seen what our immigration policies have done to California. We seem intent on doing that nationwide. We know that middle-easterners are coming across our southern border from the documents dropped along the border on the way in. Even in the face of terrorism, we won't put an end to it.

I argued this and other points in support of a Buchanan candidacy in 2000. I tried to debate this issue on the merits. It was impossible. I was a racist bigot and there was no problem with immigration at all. Some on the Bush team were absolutely disgusting to deal with.

On my side were some who were intelligent and would argue the issues on their merits. Others were malcontents and intollerant of any opposing view. At the mention of opposition they'd just hurl insults.

At the time I suggested that only Buchanan supporters enter Buchanan threads and only Bush supporters enter Bush threads. This was deemed a terrible idea. I suggested debates to try to move the hostility off the forum. The Bush people insulted me for even proposing such a thing.

A good number of Buchanan supporters were jettesoned from the forum. I believe that most of them were done for good cause. I am aware of one very nice individual who got caught up in the whole mess and was jetessoned unfairly, but I understand how that can happen. This saddened me, but it was understandable.

I was directly involved with some of these bannings. The perps would get slapped down, then contact me to intercede for them. In several instances they were reinstated, then went right back to causing trouble only to be banned again, sometimes for good.

When they would contact me, I'd seen what they had done and would be frank with them. Look, I saw you do X. You can't expect to do X and get a free pass. You should know that. I had more than one person turn on me for being honest with them, and I don't mean just philosophically. They got very angry and unloaded.

By the time the election was several months away, I could see that it was a lost cause. Buchanan would wind up in the low single digits. At that point I backed off and only entered debate if I felt he was being unfairly criticized. This presented almost constant instances where I was engaging not to win support, but to keep the arguments factual and rational.

No matter what the level I'd back off to, the other side was still beastly about it. If you were discussing other topics on the forum, or made a factualy observation about Bush in a reasoned manner, the "One-Percenter" epiteth would be hurled.

To this day, three years later I still get people dumping on me because I supported Buchanan. Some of them just attack on general principles if I even venture a comment about Bush, neutral or even complimentary. Several people I've never addressed before on this forum have attacked viciously out of the blue for hating Bush. I don't hate Bush. I disagree with some of his policies and support others. I think he's a good man.

I go to the Bush day in pictures threads once in a while and offer up a graphic. I may do this once every two months or so. The people there seldom address me. If I bother to make a comment it goes ignored.

We refer to the McClintock folks as overly zealous and I think that's fair to a certain degree. On the other hand I have to feel that folks get wound up and find themselves incapable of backing off in the heat of the season.

Are there some disrupters or sabetuers? There may be. We've run a number of clear ones off. I don't know what the answer is. I see some of the same desparate attempts to move people I used early in the process in 2000, being used today in the futal last moments of a failed bid. Accepting the futility of a drive to get someone elected is a very difficult thing to do. For some people it's impossible.

In 2000 I had to accept that Buchanan wasn't going to catch on. I had to accept that pushing my man beyond a certain point would aid Gore, even though I saw some serious concerns with Bush. I had to pull back and accept reality, and realize that some things were worse than my man alone losing.

After the election, I had to forget the insults from the Bush camp, overlook the despicable actions of some of them directed at me, and help organize large protests to block Gore from stealing the election.

I had to overlook the people on my side that got booted for doing what it sometimes appeared the people on the other side did, but didn't get booted.

Humans are human. The owner of this forum and the people who participate on it with his permission do what they think is reasonable. Some of the participants get out of hand when they get worked up and actions have to be taken. I support those actions even when they go against my views, which they seldom if ever have. If it comes to the point that I need to have my pants dusted for something I do, then I'm as fair game as anyone else.

I'm not convinced folks are here in an effort to disrupt. Some of them just aren't as capable as others at conducting reasoned debate. They can't rationalize as well as you may be able to. I get worked up at times and am less objective than others. That's human nature.

I'm not certain there are no disrupters here. I've seen evidence to support that theory on more sides than you'd like to discuss I can assure you. ;-)

Human nature being what it is, I think most things we see here can be explained by it. We may think it looks fishy in light of the facts, but when people get worked up, it's sometimes hard for them to recognize facts. Heck, it's hard for all of us to agree on the ramifications of just about any fact.

See. Don't get me started...

[Defiant]

Arnold is not Riordan, and LA is not the state. We know what Cruz would appoint--Aztlan backers would become our judges. Is that what you want?

[Afronaut]

Thanks goodness I only see people like these Liberal Republican supporters in these California threads. They are the main inspiration for the Republican Party to abandon the planks that contain anything that is conservative. My guess is that there are many people who have tested the waters here and have seen that conservative principles are not highly regarded here on the premier conservative website.

It started with "I'll hold my nose" and vote for Arnold and now its a total adoration for his very existance. There will be no going back from here.

[Saundra Duffy]

Radio Ad:

Hello everyone, this is Dr. James Dobson, I very rarely get involved in partisan politics, but the campaign for California governor is too important for any of us to just sit on the sidelines.

You have a wonderful candidate in Tom McClintock. He is a principled, pro-life defender of the family. Tom McClintock has the courage to stand and fight the left-wingers who have overrun the State Legislature. They have made California a laboratory for disaster for families, and it will take a strong hand to steer California back on course.

Tom McClintock and I have discussed what changes must be made, and I am absolutely convinced that Tom is the only candidate who can get the job done.

Please know that I am speaking as a private citizen and not for any organization. But I also speak with great hope in what California can become again, if we do not settle for less that the best.

On October 7th, vote yes on the recall, and then vote for Tom McClintock...the only candidate who will restore common sense in Sacramento.

[Roscoe]

Arnold is not Riordan

Politically he is. Has Arnold said that he won't appoint Democrats like Riordan did?

[pogo101]

(re Separate thread on Monday with McClintock %ages predictions)

Sure, why not. I don't see how, BTW, many other responders are saying 10%, particularly given the likely Tom-heavy absentee votes already sent in for him, perhaps 20% of those. The only way he'd crater down to 10% is if HALF or so of those "poll-answering" for him, who HAVEN'T yet mailed in an absentee vote for him, either don't vote at all on Question Two OR decide to vote for Arnold (with noses held).

[EternalVigilance]

God bless James Dobson.

He is one of the top two or three conservative leaders in America--and for good reason.

[pogo101]

IMO Arnold is a touch to the right of Riordan. Riordan has endorsed Democrats. I don't think Arnold has. Perhaps this is an immaterial distinction to you.

[L.N. Smithee]

First, he's not a stinkin' lyin' politician! Second, he's the better candidate! He has behaved with dignity and honor throughout this campaign. Third, he has never lied to me! He speaks candidly and off the cuff. This is wonderfully refreshing. Fourth, in examination of the debate text he was the most proficient at addressing the questions. Fifth, because I see in him the coming of a new era, much like I saw with Ronald Reagan! I could go on, but I'll skip to number eleventyseven and that is I like Arnie! I made the analogy to Gengis Khan the other day, and I'm standing by it. Let the 'slimes' throw their last minute dirt, Arnie will laugh at it!

Oh. Sorry, I thought that your support was based on emotionalism. </sarcasm>

You still haven't addressed what Arnold will do to "dis-empower unions."

[jmc813]

I think the powers that be on FreeRepublic have let these flame wars go on too long, without any enforcement of civility.

According to Jim, if he were to crack down on the uncivil behavior, there would be almost no one left on either side. Unfortunately, I think he's right.

[Defiant]

On part 1, you either vote for or against Davis. On part 2, you either vote for Arnold or Cruz. There are no other options. I'll be reading the ballot this Tuesday, but more importantly, I'll be understanding it.

[68 grunt]

Sure hope you ain't talking about me, because I've had the vision all along. I predict a year from now I will be saying 'I told you so' about all the miraculous things that will be occuring, or eating raw crow, and willingly, if I am wrong.

[pogo101]

(re Dobson radio ad endorsing McClintock)

Is that running currently?

Starting today, I heard (twice already) a similar ad by Bruce Herschensohn.

Personally, I worry that such ads are coming so late, with Tom so far behind, that they risk deepening the intra-party schism.