A Conversation With Tom McClintock (Would take Proposition #187 back to court)

Human Events ^ | August 28th, 2003 | Human Events Editorial Board

[hoosierskypilot]

You honestly believe that a candidate who is anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, anti-homosexual and pro-gun has a chance to change this state? I don't think such a person could even get elected, much less force the state to swallow the much needed medicine.

[Sabertooth]

There is not one chance in this universe that I'll throw my vote away, or not make one, if it would facilite the election of Cruz Bustamante.

There is not one chance in the Universe that I will throw my vote away on a candidate who is soft on Illegals, and whose victory would validate the Bush/Rove Amnesty strategery. See my tagline for more.

An openly pro-Amnesty GOP is the worst of all possible outcomes here. What, really, would be the difference between that, and Bustamante?

Ironically, with Bustamante, we'd still have a fighting chance against the invasion. That's how insidious the threat of the appease-the-Illegals faction of the GOP truly is.

[DoctorZIn]

PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

You honestly believe that a candidate who is anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, anti-homosexual and pro-gun has a chance to change this state? I don't think such a person could even get elected, much less force the state to swallow the much needed medicine.

61 posted on 08/28/2003 11:33 AM PDT by hoosierskypilot
 

Your first statement on California's current political make-up bothered me.  I think the questions you pose here are valid, but let's ask this same question about any state.  How many states could a gubenatorial candidate campaign on these issues and be certain to win election?  I don't think it's as many as you might think.  If these issues weren't skillfully promoted, you'd simply lose the election.

When you raise the issue of choice, a lot of women write you off.  You'd be surprised how many women who consider themselves to "Conservative" are influenced by this issue.  I have family members that vote Republican all the time.  If this issue was raised prominantly and addressed unskillfully during a campaign, I'm not sure they would.

Each of these issues are very important.  It is very criticial how you address them.  For example, if you address the issue of 30 million abortions, 70% of women think there should be far less.  You have to appeal to the core area where people can identify with what your goals are.  If you come out and say I want to stop women's access to abortion, it's like committing political suicide.  Of course that's what your target is, but let's get as much of the way there as we can before we cause voters to dig in their heels and oppose us.

If you approached illegal immigration on it's criminality, negative impacts on society and acknowledged the positive things illegals do, you'd be surprise how many hispanics would support you, even in California.  Hispanics are the most adversely affected group by illegals.  Most folks completely ignore that fact.  Utilize it in your presentation.  It's the truth and hispanics know it.  On top of that they think the US is nuttier than a mad hatter to allow what is going on here.  Still, Conservatives fail to capitalize on this.  A broad spectrum of the populace is just waiting for the right guy to come along and propose legtitimate measures to end illegal immigration and repatriate.  Sadly nobody skillfully broaches this subject.

Look, you may think California is beyond hope, it isn't.  Hispanics are God fearing family oriented people.  Hit them where they live.  Promise them less government intrusion into their lives.  Promise them taxes will decrease if we reduce the presence of illegal aliens and their children in our schools.  Promise them you'll help new immigrants assimilate and become prosperous.  Dont' give away the farm!

I can't tell you how poorly the California republican leadership has represented us. It's been an utter failure. You're perceptions are living proof.  Did that leadership propose solutions to state problems like 27, 189 and 207?  Hell no.  If they had you'd have known about it.  The candidate who proposed those issues would have reached the national level by now if they had.  Sadly these folks grasp of reality has led them to shun any (what they think would be) risk taking.  They just have no connection to reality whatsoever.

A Governor McClintock would change that.  He'd set a model for other states to follow.  I think he'd challenge George Bush to either get off his duff and address illegal immiagration, or suffer the consequences of opposing what actions McClintock took.  It would make for great political drama to say the least.

If you want to look for someone to hang this election on, you should go no farther than California's present and past Republican leadership.  I'll bet there was a national component to this as well.  They were the drivng force behind bringing in Schwarzenegger.  They knew it would place a sheet of ice under McClintock's political feet.  It's time for California's rank and file to tell the national republican party to go to hell.  It's time for them to rise up and force the in-state leadership to walk the plank.

You'd be surprised how conservative the Young Republicans group and even rank and file republican party actives are.  For the last fifty years, whenever the state leadership was threatened by the rank and file conservative, the national RNC would recorganize state leadership to defeat that eventuality.  This happened just a year or so again.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Great post!

Would you please add me to your ping list?

[DoughtyOne]

I WILL NOT FACILITATE THE ELECTION OF A RACIST SEPARATIST TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

If your concience allows you to, so be it.

[hoosierskypilot]

I agree with you, basically. And I'll vote McClintock.
Maybe. But, I don't think he has a chance of being elected in CA. That was my point. The only Republican who could ever be elected in today's CA will be one who holds to liberal tenets, and that's a Republican for whom I refuse to vote.

[DoughtyOne]

If there weren't a party backed Rino in this election, McClintock would fair much better. Still the media and the democrats would join forces to destroy him. I'm not convinced the state leadership would back him at all.

These are the forces that rule the state.

You can't expect true Conservatives to win elections when the Republican party leadership disagrees with them so stridently. It's not the state that has gone to hell. It's our state leadership which has.

With this defeatist leadership, the liberals have no viable opposition in the state. Simon was able to buck them in the primaries of 2002, but when the state leadership wouldn't help him and national adopted the same policy, it was a lock he couldn't win.

How can you blame real Conservatives for this? How can you judge whether the state has lost it's ability to elect Conservatives based on this? The California state republican leadership hasn't tried to elect a conservative Governor for something like 20 years. And the State office holders who are Conservative are as frustrated by that leadership as you and I are.

[Sabertooth]

I WILL NOT FACILITATE THE ELECTION OF A RACIST SEPARATIST TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

If your concience allows you to, so be it.

Will your conscience allow you to facilitate the furtherance of Cruz Bustamante's racist-seperatist's goals by establishing a GOP bulwark for Amnesty in the California Governor's Mansion?

Arnold said yesterday on Hannity that the Illegals who are already here should stay.

"Now we have to move forward with the whole thing and to look at it, what we're going to do with all the people that are undocumented immigrants here in this state. What should we do? Should we have them to stay here, which I think is the right way to do, but how do you then include them in our society, how do you make it official, how do you make it legal?"
LINK

Despite the subsequent spinning of Schwarzenegger's campaign, you know the RNC's code words as well as I do, and you know that Arnold is parroting the Bush-Rove line on Amnesty.

If Arnold wins the election under those circumstances, Bush gets his Amnesty green light.

A vote for Arnold is a vote for GOP-sponsored Amnesty for Illegals.

[jam137]

Thanks for the post. Good stuff!

[hoosierskypilot]

How can you blame real Conservatives for this

I don't blame true conservatives for this. True conservatives are the victims, not the perps. Liberals sold CA to satan, years ago. And he's not going to give it back. Ever.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

I WILL NOT FACILITATE THE ELECTION OF A RACIST SEPARATIST TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
If your concience allows you to, so be it.

Will your conscience allow you to facilitate the furtherance of Cruz Bustamante's racist-seperatist's goals by establishing a GOP bulwark for Amnesty in the California Governor's Mansion? In this reply to me, you have undercut your whole arguement. BUSTAMANTE in office trumps Schwarzenegger in office.  Say what you want about him and I'll mostly agree, is Arnold proposing to break away California from the union?

Arnold said yesterday on Hannity that the Illegals who are already here should stay.

                       "Now we have to move forward with the whole thing and to look at it, what we're going to do with all the people that are
                       undocumented immigrants here in this state. What should we do? Should we have them to stay here, which I think is the
                       right way to do, but how do you then include them in our society, how do you make it official, how do you make it
                       legal?"  Okay, you know I'm aware of this and that I don't support it.  I think it sucks.
                       LINK

Despite the subsequent spinning of Schwarzenegger's campaign, you know the RNC's code words as well as I do, and you know that Arnold is parroting the Bush-Rove line on Amnesty. I sure do, so reminding me is basicly worthless.  Of course it might wake some others up to the fact of what Bush-Rove are, but don't hold your breath.

If Arnold wins the election under those circumstances, Bush gets his Amnesty green light. And you think a brown separatist is going to be a red light to this?

A vote for Arnold is a vote for GOP-sponsored Amnesty for Illegals. A vote that facilitates Bustamante is a vote for GOP-sponsored Amnesty for Illegals AND the intallation of thousands of state appointees who sympathize with the separatist movement.  At the present time hispanics (most likely MECHA supporters, definately La Raza and MALDEF supporters) hold every top leadership position within the unions of this state.  Do you want those same folks imbedded thoughout our state government?

Whatever Schwarzenegger is, he is not a hater of the United States of America.  He loves this nation.  I beleive he is woefully ignorant on a variety of issues, that will cause harm to this state.  I have to face the fact that Bustamante is NOT WOEFULLY IGNORANT.  By design he will rip this state from bow to stern.

69 posted on 08/28/2003 12:26 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)

And so would Bustamante, but at least Arnold wouldn't do his best to break off the state and hand it to them.  Bustamante and his ilk would do their damndest to further that cause.  You know as well as I do, these are not closet racists.  They are overt and seething with dislike for anyone outside their race.  Their public statements reveal this.  You know this.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Now there's a candidate with some common sense! Why would any conservative support the liberal Arnold over the common-sense conservative Tom McClintock? Go, Tom, Go!

[DoughtyOne]

I'm not sure why you ignore the main point of my comments, but so be it. With a new conservative and vibrant leadership at the top of California's republican party, this state would be transformed in short order.

Thank you for your comments.

[Sabertooth]

In this reply to me, you have undercut your whole arguement. BUSTAMANTE in office trumps Schwarzenegger in office.  Say what you want about him and I'll mostly agree, is Arnold proposing to break away California from the union?

Look, I held out the possibility of voting for Arnold until his appearance on Hannity yesterday. He killed that when he tipped his had that he's support legalizing Illegals. He has crossed a line I will not follow, and he will not get my vote.

Further, I'd win big money in a wager that you haven't voted for more GOP Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and Presidentital nominees than I have since 1992, and you know it.

But this isn't about party loyalty or disloyalty, I will most definitely be voting for a Republican on October 7th, it just won't be Arnold, it will be Tom McClintock.

I say that because of this fact... Bustamante wants to accomplish Aztlan through the invasion of Illegals. President Bush and Karl Rove, and now Arnold Schwarzenegger, want to unwittingly assist Bustamante in that through an Amnesty for Illegals. Bustamante can't do it without their help, therefore, it's essential that my vote be against GOP-sponsored Amnesty for Illegals, period.

Is my vote for McClintock risk-free? No, it's not. For that you can thank the pro-Illegal obstinance of President Bush.

Nevertheless, I will remain loyal to the GOP, but will steadfastly oppose Republican efforts for Amnesty. This includes the gubernatorial candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[DoughtyOne]

Look, I'm a guy who plead your arguement in the year 2000, when I voted for Buchanan. Gore was a di-khead, but he didn't propose carving up the United States and handing over parts of it to other nations, or a new nation. Look what we got instead. Let's not get off on that right now, it'd take months to address, the flame wars fatal for many.

I recognize your right to vote for whoever you wish. I support that. So what I am saying here is academic in nature. I don't know how you could read that last post to you from me, yet still justify a McClintock vote if his numbers don't rise.

I don't think this election is going to hinge on your or my vote, so this isn't that cricital to me. I just can't understand you logic here any more than you can mine.

[Sabertooth]

So what I am saying here is academic in nature. I don't know how you could read that last post to you from me, yet still justify a McClintock vote if his numbers don't rise.

Because I can't justify a vote for Arnold now that he has said that he supports the legalization of Illegals. It's that simple.

The reason we're facing the threat of Bustamante is because of GOP cowardice on Illegals for the past decade. I'm not going to reward those very cowards with a vote for their boy Arnold. I'm not gong to play into any electoral Stockholm Syndrome.

I want Illegals to be front and center in the 2004 campaign, and that's not going to happen if we vote for yet another candidate who wants to pretend they aren't a problem.

[DoughtyOne]

I too would rather they be front and center with our president in 2004, but if Bustamante wins they won't be front and center with Bush. They will be front and center in a 2004 Bustamante California. They will be front and center in his efforts in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and the first few weeks of 2007. IF he's still around then, they may be front and center for all of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and the first few weeks of 2011.

If Bustamante gets our budget under control, he will be re-elected. It's hard to unseat a sitting governor.

I'm not sure if he can run in 2010. If so that front and center could last for a very long time, until the first month of 2015.

No problem. We'll have sent that message back in 2003.

[Pubbie]

*Ping*!

[truth_seeker]

"Precisely due to the fact that the popular RINO will draw votes from both quarters, some dems and some republicans, he becomes a very large obsticle to a true Conservative's advancement."

The "very large obstacle" might also be described as wider appeal, as getting more votes, etc.

This is precisely why both major parties have historically had favorable results with candidates which held much of their base, and appealed to the center.