Posted on 06/23/2003 9:09:41 PM PDT by Mister Magoo
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
New York, NY
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You have no idea how silly your ad hominem attacks sound. Kinda' like a DU lurker, trying to split the vote... (((SHAKING HEAD)))
Since you're not even in California, and don't have to put up with the crap going on here... You've got no dog in this hunt....
So this raises the question:
It's one of the more, but not the most. Rhode Island is far more 'Rat, and it just elected a CONSERVATIVE Republican Governor, succeeding, surprisingly enough, a RINO. You naysayers would be claiming up and down that a Don Carcieri could never win a state like RI, but he did. We can elect real Republicans in 'Rat states if we actually try to run strong campaigns.
"Why don't you read this scenario about Arnold winning, RINO or not. Whom do you think it will benefit, the Republicans or Democrats?"
What you continue to fail to understand is that any victory with him will merely be on paper, and nothing else. Some of us actually prefer real results.
Only a DU lurker would champion a RINO like Ah-nold. Nothing better than getting a member of the opposition party to do all your dirty work for you, that's why most 'Rats secretly wanted Tricky Dick last year. Now they got Tricky's puppet.
"Since you're not even in California, and don't have to put up with the crap going on here... You've got no dog in this hunt...."
You're wrong. I've got family there. I've got a young niece and nephew there. I care about their future. I know that growing up in the state as it is doesn't hold out much hope for them. Until we can get some real Conservative GOP leadership in there to turn the state around, things will never get better, and they sure as hell won't get better with a RINO pushing a 'Rat agenda as Ah-nold will do. So, yes, sir, I most certainly got a dog in this hunt.
"What's your major malfunction, soldier???"
Maybe you ought to look in the mirror and ask yourself that question, Private Pyle. I ain't supporting the 'Rats dream GOP candidate, Ah-nold.
Given that choice, I would have voted Davis, hands down, but it never got to that point because Riordan's incompetent attempts at campaigning failed. Simon wasn't a great campaigner, either, but Riordan was a far worse one.
If we had Riordan, we would be in the same mess we are now, with tax hikes and spending increases, but we probably wouldn't be able to recall him. The Davis Recall effort affords the possibility of finally electing a responsible governor.
This time, you get Davis or Ridoran or The Terminator. Those are your choices.
Not necessarily. The recall election allows almost any adult citizen resident of California to run. It's very likely that other people will run. Darrell Issa (R) and Peter Camejo (G) have already publicly stated their interest; McClintock may be interested, depending on the rest of the field. Unlike the regular gubernatorial elections, which usually have just one candidate from each party, the recall election has been called a "free-for-all," because many people can run under the same party label.
For me, the party label isn't as important as the person's characteristics. If Tom McClintock ran as a democrat last fall, I would have still voted for him because I thought he would be a better Controller than the other conservative candidate or the well-financed Democrat, Westly.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger or Richard Riordan were registered as Democrats, would your enthusiasm flag?
Depends on who the Conservative is. I'm not saying electing a Conservative for Conservative's sake is the way to go always, you need an EFFECTIVE Conservative. You need someone who can combine a strong moral platform with an aggressive economic one. Focus solely on one or the other and you're going to have a problem. There were some decent Governors who were solid on moral platforms but then didn't focus enough on spurring the economy. There are people out there who can juggle both issues. But my point all along, setting aside everything else, if we want to take moral issues off the table and deal solely with CA's horrible economic/budget situation, Ah-nold isn't the person for the job because he is NOT a fiscal Conservative. In this case, we can't afford to have liberal spendthrifts, and with Ah-nold's last little prop that passed, it's clear that he is. Even if Ah-nold was squeaky clean in his private life, it doesn't change that above fact. And to address the last sentence, winning elections for the sake of winning elections is nothing to crow about. It's about the best person for the job who has the best agenda. If both the "D" and the "R" have lousy agendas, you (and the people) win nothing, it's merely a win for a party on paper.
"You got your chance at a conservative idealog running for Governor, you got Bill Simon, and he lost to Davis when most people thought a corpse would beat him."
But this is merely a simplistic analysis. It ignores the fact that he didn't lose because of ideology, but because his fall campaign, for lack of a better word, sucked. You can't ignore that there is an absurdly long period between the primary and the general, and it can be difficult to keep momentum going in that timespan. I think the primary should be moved from March to probably July or perhaps even August. Why on Earth a primary for a November election is held 8 months ahead of time is crazy. No wonder it seems like we're in a neverending campaign cycle. No sooner has an election ended, that you've got to file and start campaigning for the next. It's ridiculous.
"Mistakes are only mistakes when you don't learn from them. Ask yourself this: 02 - Davis or Ridoran? Those were your choices. Simon couldn't win, and he didn't. The White House knew it. This time, you get Davis or Ridoran or The Terminator. Those are your choices. Deal with it. Choose wisely."
I'd go 3rd party (AIP candidate) if those are the choices. If it's going to be a liberal, let it be a 'Rat. The GOP shouldn't be tarred and feathered with that failed ideology. Have we learned nothing from Goldwater and Reagan ?
Really ? Where is your proof that Riordan is more "Conservative" than Davis ? I'd say there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two. Remember, Tricky Dick is the man who campaigned for DiFi, gave money to Maxine Waters, and fully endorsed "Aztlan Tony" Villaraigosa to succeed him as Mayor. No Republican of any respectability would've done all 3 of those things.
"Calling everybody who isn't an Alan Keys or a Tom Mclintock a liberal isn't getting us anywhere."
Who is doing that ? We've only been discussing a handful of people in this thread and others, the problem is that they tend to be at either end of the spectrum. Are there truly that many actual "moderates" in CA politics ? I can't really name any, save perhaps Fong, but he was so moderate that he had no solid groundings and became very wishy-washy. And I supported his candidacy over then-neophyte Issa because of Fong's statewide experience. So much for that...
"Oh, and BTW, the answer would be yes. If for no other reason then because Davis is a crook. I'd take an honest dem over a crooked dem any day, and in spite of what Clinton seemed to want to prove, yes, there are some honest dems."
Yeah, sometimes you can find a few hiding under a rock. :-)
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.