Posted on 12/03/2001 8:33:48 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:36:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This November's election results brought discouraging news for Republicans and conservatives. Even with President Bush's unprecedented public support, Republicans managed to lose the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. The outlook for next year is pretty dicey given the usual jinx in mid-term elections on the party holding the White House. But there is a bright spot on the horizon. Republicans and movement conservatives throughout the nation should be watching a state they have ignored in recent years
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
He voted for the largest tax increase in 1991 when Wilson was Governor (some people called him conservative, too, but I never voted for him!)
And, Bill Jones may on the surface be pro-life, but he has never been an advocate for our cause, and it's almost like he's embarrassed to say he's pro-life.
Jones is *OK*, but I really want someone who is a leader, someone who passionately believes in conservative values and can articulate them across all political spectrums. That's why I like Bill Simon.
Respectfully. :-)
I hope you're wrong. Fortunately, Simon is the kind of guy that can "bring people together" (I'm trying not to gag when I say that, it sounds so squishy!) But, he can. He's hardcore, but speaks in a quiet command that demands respect. The liberals in the GOP may not LIKE him a lot, but I think that they will see that he is the kind of eloquent, commanding speaker we need to lead our party to victory.
Time will tell ... first, we have to get through the primary, which I think will be going full-force after Christmas.
Riordan is anathema to y'all, but he won - twice - in LA. And I agree that calling him a Republican, considering his policies - is absurd. But he could win. And it would be like Bloomberg in NYC: at least it would get the party points.
If that's not to your liking, I understand. And it might be reasonable to let Simon run and lose (he would), if only for exposure. But don't b.s. yourselves. Davis is down now, but unless he takes the hit for the coming budget deficit (which he can blame on Sept. 11th), or the power debacle, or killing 187 (the repugnants can't bring themselves to mention that), I don't see it. In the long run, Democrats don't blame him for any of that. And since they are the numerical majority, some of them would have to cross party lines to vote for the Republican for him to be elected. They WON'T unless they have a big problem with Davis.
Also, you're making the same mistake many other people make (so you're in good company!). Elections are not where the same people go to vote every two years and decide who they are going to vote for, Republican or Democrat. What matters is WHO decides to go to the polls. Riordan will not bring out people, particularly non-political conservatives who sat out in recent elections because there was nothing to get fired up about until March of 2000 and Prop. 22.
Simon CAN bring those people to the polls because he is an articulate conservative. Riordan can't. Riordan will get 38-40% of the vote and lose. Just like Lungren.
Sometimes, I think fine, let Riordan win the primary and I will be proven right. But I don't want to be proven right. I want to win, and that's why I want Bill Simon to be our nominee.
The fact is that Davis is vulnerable -- really vulnerable and it will take someone who can get out the Republican base FIRST, and then appeal across the board to other families. Californians are overtaxed, over regulated and dimayed over what the Dems have done to their state in recent years. Simon has a winning message.
Given a choice of Riordan or Davis Dems will vote for the tried and true liberal they know, and Republicans will stay home. The only way to win this November is with Bill Simon!
My point about Democrats is that you would have to have an election where enough of THEM sit it out or switch sides, because numerically, it just ain't happening here. Wilson was perceived as a huggable pubbie, a nice sunny suburban guy with a tan. But as I said, that was when the "hispanic" population was no more than 15%. It's now 30%, although many are not citizens (why would that stop them from voting?). If I'm wrong, than why did Davis AND Hahn go to Mexico City to pay tribute? Do you really think they believe the press release crap about "increasing trade"?
I'm saying that unfortunately, the change in demographics in CA is too overwhelming. In the presidential election just past, even Asians (thought to be economically conservative) went for Gore. Any future Republican in CA will have to get significant amounts from immigrant ethnic groups, or figure out how to get them to ignore the election. Riordan was able to do that in LA; Simon would have to demonstrate an ability to do the same. He's politically unknown, but the Demo-Demonization machine would come alive if they thought they had to, and they would basically have him painted as galloping into town with a hood on.
While I agree with Mr. Weyrich's choice of Simon, things have changed a great deal since Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California. For example, the number of illegal immigrants in this state has increased dramatically and, since no real identification is required to register and vote here, the number of illegal voters has multiplied. Clearly, the vast majority of those voters vote for Democrats since they are basically instructed to do so by "community leaders".
Until there is a concerted effort to weed out illegal voters in California, the future looks bleak indeed. Democrats will continue to control statewide government and, in the process, ruin the state that much more than they already have. Dismantling the "lock" they've created would require some sense of patriotism on their part and, frankly, the chances of that happening are slim and none and slim just left town...along with many good Republicans who simply can't bear to live here anymore.
Anyone who even mentions the idea of allowing only legal citizens to vote in this state is immediately labelled a "racist" or "anti-immigrant". But if ever there was a time when something could actually be done about the problem, it should be now since America has a newfound understanding of how pervasive the problem of illegal immigration is here. Sadly the Democrats will never give up without a fight since "party" strength and security has always been more important to them than national strength and security. More sadly, it always will be...
I think in the long run Simon would make inroads. But he IS unknown. Never been a mayor, assemblyman, dogcatcher or what ever. WE all know that's a GOOD thing, but without name recognition and familiarity, it's hard.
B.T.W., one of the worst guys in office right now is Bill Lockyer. This guy is basically a pro-criminal nutcase himself. After all the gaffes, why can't the GOP mount a real campaign against him? For instance, in what way has Lockyer gone after the gangs? He hasn't, and won't, because they are his supporters and besides, he doesn't think what they're doing is all that bad. He spends all his time on "hate crimes" and civil rights crap.
You made a lot of good points, but I thought I'd address this one.
You are correct. Democrats outnumber us. But they outnumbered us under Reagan, too. (I know there's a wider margin now -- and the Democrats are more liberal.)
However, you must also know that Republicans have the same percentage registration now as we did in 1994, and the Democrats have fallen in the same time period. We won in 1994 because we had a clear, convincing message (led by Newt Gingrich) and it resonated with the average person.
The people who gave us the majority in the Congress and in the California State ASsembly in 1994 DID NOT VOTE in the subsequent elections. Why? We didn't have a clear, convincing message articulated by an eloquent, clear speaker.
Our goal, as Republicans, must be to convince our people to go to the polls. If they go to the polls, we will win. And, you're right, we need to suppress Democrat turnout. Hopefully, Davis is doing that himself.
We have our work cut out for us, but we can win. And, Bill Simon is the Republican Party's best hope and best chance of Victory.
God bless.
Simon has a chance, just a chance, if the pubbies go ALL OUT:
- Massive negatives on Davis: the deficit (it's gonna be big), the power contracts, and - gasp - killing 187 (SHHHHH! Don't upset the Mexicans!).
- Declare WAR on crime in SoCal: compare gangsters to terrorists (aren't they?) and ask why Davis and Lockyer haven't done squat about it.
- In general, hit him hard FROM EVERY ANGLE and don't let up. Stupid he is not. Venal and vicious he is. He lost the LA Mayors race after throwing everything but the cat at the other side. He even kicked the Hahn family in the shins (no 'Rat has ever done THAT).
Simon will have to appear cool, calm and collected (like Bush) while painting Davis as a reckless, overly ambitious mismanager (he is). But under the direction of 'Mad Dog' Torres, every rotten Stalinist tactic in the book will be used against him. And the Republican Party should understand that from the beginning.
You're right about Davis: he is mean and vicious and will say and do anything to win. If Simon continues to be the reasoned, confident, inspiring leader he has shown himself to be since he began this campaign, Davis will get more vicious and more shrill just to get a response.
Then, we will know we have him.
Thanks, and don't forget to convince ten fence-sitting Republicans that they have to go out and vote in the Primary for Bill Simon!
He'd probably get arrested for making a U-turn in oncoming traffic.
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.