Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Conversation With Tom McClintock (Would take Proposition #187 back to court)
Human Events ^ | August 28th, 2003 | Human Events Editorial Board

Posted on 08/28/2003 8:17:39 AM PDT by Sabertooth

Page 3 -- A Conversation With Tom McClintock

Posted Aug 28, 2003

On August 25, the editors of HUMAN EVENTS interviewed California State Sen. Tom McClintock via telephone. McClintock, a Republican whose district includes Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and part of Los Angeles County, is a candidate to replace Gov. Gray Davis in California’s special October 7 recall election.

HUMAN EVENTS has additional interview requests pending with Republican actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also is running to replace Davis, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R.-Calif.), a conservative who has endorsed Schwarzenegger’s candidacy.

McClintock, who graduated with honors from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1978, has long been active in GOP politics in the Golden State. He was first elected to the State Assembly in 1982, at age 26. He served continuously in that body until 1992, when he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, losing narrowly to Democratic Rep. Tony Beilenson.

In 1994, he lost by another narrow margin in an initial race for state controller.

From 1992-94, McClintock served as director of the Center for the California Taxpayer, a project of the National Tax Limitation Foundation. In 1995, he was named director of Economic and Regulatory Affairs for the Claremont Institute’s Golden State Center for Policy Studies,

In 1996, he returned to the State Assembly. Four years later, he won a seat in the State Senate. Last November, he ran again for state controller, this time losing one of the closest races in California history, falling just 0.3% the vote short of defeating Democratic candidate Steve Westly. In the process, McClintock attracted more votes than any other Republican on the California ballot.

The following is an edited transcript of McClintock’s conversation with the editors of HUMAN EVENTS.

HUMAN EVENTS: In his press conference last Wednesday, Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to rule out raising taxes. Have you ruled out raising taxes if you are elected governor, and have you signed pledges to that effect?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes and yes.

Are you challenging Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign either Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform Pledge, or Lew Uhler’s National Tax Limitation Committee pledge to promise not to raise taxes?

MCCLINTOCK: I’m challenging him to sign both.

If he does not, do you think that Californians can trust him not to raise taxes?

MCCLINTOCK: No, I do not. He has surrounded himself with the team that imposed the biggest tax increase by any state in American history in 1991 here in California—a tax increase that broke the back of the state’s economy, that turned a recession into a near-depression, and needlessly prolonged our budget problem years into the future, until the state ended in de facto receivership in 1994. He has Warren Buffett, who is perhaps the most outspoken advocate of higher taxes in the country. His aides have been waxing eloquent over the number of circumstances that would justify a tax increase--and even though later retracted, it reflects what clearly is a discussion ongoing within Schwarzenegger’s circle. The positions he’s taken have been identical to those taken by Pete Wilson in 1990, when he said he wouldn’t raise taxes, that Dianne Feinstein was the big taxer. But every time he was asked to take a no-tax pledge, he pointedly refused to do so. And of course, his first act as governor was that massive tax increase in 1991 that broke all records for state tax increases.

Senator, considering the state faces a much-publicized $38 billion budget deficit, if you don’t raise taxes, how are you going to bring that budget into balance?

MCCLINTOCK: Bear in mind that California is spending a larger portion of people’s earnings than at any time in its history and delivering less. We are spending, in inflation-adjusted dollars, three times what [Democratic Gov.] Pat Brown spent in the mid-1960s, at a time when the state was delivering a first-rate level of service, including the finest highway system in the world, the finest university system and public school system in the country. We were bringing down the state water projects and building hydro-electric dams that today are producing electricity for half-a-cent a killowat-hour. All of these works of government were costing about $1,000 per capita in year 2000 inflation-adjusted dollars. The state of California today is spending over $3,000 and delivering nothing.

So what do you do? If you simply restored to California government the same freedom that every family and business has to shop around for the best service at the lowest cost, there’s about $9 billion in savings across all departments, according to the Reason Foundation’s recent survey of the state’s finances. Streamlining the state’s bureaucracies—that means abolishing agencies that duplicate local or federal jurisdictions, that overlap each others’ responsibilities, or that are performing services the private sector could and should do by itself—involves about another $6 billion in savings.

What specific—

MCCLINTOCK: Let me go down the list here real quick. Conforming the state’s prevailing wage laws to the federal Davis-Bacon act would save about $1 billion in construction. Conforming our workers’ compensation laws to Arizona’s would save about $2.5 billion to state and local governments. It is not hard to find waste in a government’s budget that spends as much as California and produces as little.

What specific programs would you abolish then?

MCCLINTOCK: There are a lot that can be simply abolished. For example, the state of California is alone in the nation in maintaining two separate tax agencies for the purpose of collecting taxes. They maintain duplicate offices in some 16 major cities in California. I have long advocated consolidation. The State Architect’s Office duplicates—at enormous expense—what local planning departments would do anyway. The State Fire Marshall’s Office duplicates what local Fire Departments would be doing anyway. We have a range of state agencies that simply duplicate federal functions. Those are the agencies that I would first abolish, including the entire structure of corporate welfare in this state.

In his press conference last week, Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would never cut state education spending, which makes up more than 40% of the state’s budget. Would you cut state education spending?

MCCLINTOCK: California spends $270,000 for every classroom with 30 students in this state. I have two children in the public schools, and I can guarantee you only a fraction of that money is actually reaching the classroom to educate our children. I have proposed classroom-based budgeting, where that $270,000 per classroom is injected directly into the classroom toward the education of our children. I believe that most of the State Department of Education can be abolished, and those savings passed into the classroom. So the bottom line is this: Yes, I believe that there are tremendous economies that can be worked in the California public school system that will produce more money in the classroom at lower cost than California currently bears.

Senator, could you say how much the budget was in deficit?

MCCLINTOCK: The budget deficit from the year just ended was $38 billion. It is very clear to me that the next year’s budget deficit will exceed that amount. I base that projection on the fact that there is $18 billion of deficit that is in the current budget that the governor has just signed. We know that next year’s budget deficit will begin at $10 billion, and that assumes that a dramatic economic recovery takes place this year. Failing that, of course, the budget deficit numbers will be much greater. And also, the governor’s unwillingness to restrain the state’s bureaucracy even in a time of severe budget deficit, leaves me with every expectation that next year’s budget deficit will exceed this past year’s.

Given his promise not to touch education spending, it seems that just to come out even for next year, Mr. Schwarzenegger would have to cut 25% of the remaining budget. Is that realistic? Or given his refusal to sign a tax pledge—wouldn’t he almost have to raise taxes?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes, I believe you would. And what disturbs me the most is, this is not a revenue problem. As I said, $9,000 per student is what we put in at the top of the education system--$270,000 per classroom.

We face a combination of problems. No. 1, bureaucracy is absorbing so much of that before it reaches the classroom level. No.2, a complete lack of accountability over the management of our public schools. No one is in charge of California public schools today. Everyone points a finger toward somebody else. In 1965, when my family moved to California, I can tell you exactly who was in charge of the California public schools. It was a fellow by the name of Ron Randolph. Ron Randolph was the principal at Glenwood Elementary School, and there was nobody closer to God on Earth than Ron Randolph at Glenwood Elementary School. He had the authority and the responsibility to tell a non-performing teacher to shape up or ship out. Any complaints from parents were instantly handled because he had the authority to do so, and he also had a local school board breathing down his neck to be sure that he did. The usurpation of local management by the state’s bureaucracies has destroyed the process of accountability that made our public schools the first in the country, despite the fact that in those days we were spending about one-third, in inflation-adjusted dollars, what we’re spending today per pupil. In the mid-1960’s when we had the finest public school system in the country, we were spending about $3,000 in year-2000 inflation adjusted dollars per pupil. We’re spending over $9,000 now and delivering a vastly lower quality of education. That’s the problem.

As long as we have politicians who are unwilling to take on the public school lobby and insist on these basic reforms—there’s an old saying, you can’t fill a broken bucket by pouring more water in it. You’ve got to fix the bucket.

In a 1995 position paper you recommended 217 specific budget cuts—including abolishing the Board for Guide Dogs, the Board of Landscape Architects, the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers. Would you still favor abolishing such commissions, which are small in themselves in terms of the budget, but add up?

MCCLINTOCK: Absolutely. There is no line item in the budget that says "waste." It would be much easier if there was. The waste occurs in every line of the state budget, and in the accumulation of a lot of programs like those that duplicate local or federal jurisdictions, or things the private sector could do anyway.

One of the additional burdens on California public schools since the 1960s is illegal immigration and the children of illegal aliens living in the state. Prop. 187, of course, said that illegal aliens would not be entitled to public education in California. Are you willing to enforce at least that element of Prop 187 and make sure that illegal aliens aren’t going to public schools in California?

MCCLINTOCK: I intend to enforce all provisions of Proposition 187. I supported that initiative. I actually ran radio ads for it in 1994. Proposition 187 never had a fair day in court. When it was challenged it was the governor’s responsibility to defend it. He refused to discharge that responsibility. I intend to see that Proposition 187 does have its full, fair hearing in court, and the best way to do that is to begin to enforce it.

You will actually order state agencies under your control as governor to act as if Prop 187 is the law of California?

MCCLINTOCK: I will use every power available to the governor to see that our immigration laws are enforced.

And then you will move forward with an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court?

MCCLINTOCK: Exactly.

I understand that Gov. Gray Davis made a deal under the auspices of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to drop Prop 187, can you at this point simply pick it up and resume that appeal?

MCCLINTOCK: I believe that I can. I certainly will do everything in my power to do so.

Outside of enforcing the provisions of Prop 187 are there any other things that you have planned to deal with the problems caused by illegal immigration in California?

MCCLINTOCK: I intend to bring maximum pressure to bear on the federal government to discharge its fundamental responsibility to protect our borders. I intend to direct all state agencies to do whatever they possibly can to see that our immigration laws are enforced. And I intend to veto legislation such as S.B. 60 that would provide valid state identification documents in the form of California driver’s license to illegal immigrants, the only purpose of which is to undermine our immigration laws. And let me point out, in addition to $4 billion in direct costs of illegal immigration to the state government alone—and that’s a conservative estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s Office—the most damaging thing about illegal immigration is that it undermines the process of legal immigration accompanied by assimilation that is a strength of our nation, and in fact its foundation.

If the Feds refuse to act, will you as governor consider using the state national guard to police California’s border with Mexico?

MCCLINTOCK: As I said, I intend to use every authority available to the governors to enforce our immigration law.

So, you would consider using the National Guard?

MCCLINTOCK: If it is within the authority of the governor.

Gray Davis approved or signed a bill allowing in-state tuition to be given to illegal aliens in Cal-State University campuses, and the UC Board of Regents mirrored that at University of California campuses. Would you seek to reverse that also?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes. I opposed it in the legislature and I would absolutely seek to reverse it.

The argument is often made by people on the other side of this issue that Republicans that support Prop 187 and would cut off funding for various benefits for illegal aliens are in fact anti-Latino. How would you deal with that argument?

MCCLINTOCK: There are millions of Latino families who have obeyed our immigration laws and come to our nation legally with the express purpose of becoming Americans and seeing their children succeed and prosper as Americans. Illegal immigration is a process of cutting in line in front of the people who are obeying our immigration law. And that is not anti-Latino, it is not anti-immigrant. It is unfair to all of those from around the world who have stood in line to obey our laws to grant preference to those who have cut in line in front of them.

It is common belief here in Washington that the Bush White House, particularly Karl Rove, has a strategy to reach out to the Latino vote. Part of this has involved floating the idea of an amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico, also an unwillingness to engage in any policy, particularly the kinds your talking about now, that might be used to alienate Latino votes, and they would think cost them the state of California in a presidential election in 2004. How would you address those arguments?

MCCLINTOCK: Latino voters are Americans, and I heartily disagree with the notion that Latino voters are somehow different from any other voters. Latino voters care very much about exactly the same issues as every other American, and that includes a great concern over illegal immigration.

Michelle Malkin, the nationally syndicated columnist, reported last week, and so did the Investors Business Daily, that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was a member of a group called MEChA when he was a student at Fresno State University, and quoted documents from that group that arguably have a racialist point of view, and a separatist point of view. Are you familiar with this group MEChA, and do you believe that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante should disavow this group and its views?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes, I am familiar with it, and yes I do believe he should disavow his association with that group.

Why do you believe there has been almost no attention in the liberal press to Bustamante’s association with MEChA?

MCCLINTOCK: (Chuckles.) I can’t imagine why. (Laughter.)

Would you challenge the liberal press to take a look at this story in the course of your campaign, the story of Cruz Bustamante’s association with MEChA?

MCCLINTOCK: All I know is the published reports that indicate his association with that group. If those published reports are correct, I believe that Cruz Bustamante has a great deal of explaining to do, if he still supports the aims of that organization.

Ward Connerly’s Prop. 54 [the Racial Privacy Initiative, which would forbid the state government from categorizing people by race] is going to be on the ballot. Do you endorse that, and will you support it?

MCCLINTOCK: I strongly endorse and support it. I do not believe that a person’s skin color should determine how they are treated by their government.

Much has been made of anti-business regulations that the Democratic legislature has passed. You mentioned the workers’ comp laws—they expanded the benefits—and you’ve also mentioned that you can get workers’ comp benefits without any real scientific proof that you have an injury. But another big regulation that’s coming up, and takes effect next July, is the family leave law. Mr. Schwarzenegger has ducked this question twice on national television. Will you work to repeal the family leave law?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes. I firmly opposed the family leave law when it was brought before the legislature. I believe that it will devastate what’s left of California’s employment base, and its repeal must be of highest priority if this state’s business climate is to be improved.

This is something the Democrats are still defending, unlike the workers’ comp system. Do you see any way of doing this other than going to the people with a ballot initiative?

MCCLINTOCK: Given the special interest dominance of the current state legislature, I believe the next governor is going to have to go to appeal to the people on a broad range of reforms, and that is one of them.

Can you name some of the other reforms you’re talking about that should be executed by ballot initiative?

MCCLINTOCK: A complete overhaul of our out-of-control tort system. The re-enactment of the Gann Spending Limit, which was in place in the state from 1979 to 1990. It provided that government spending could grow only as fast as inflation and population growth combined. This was hardly a Draconian limit—through the 1980s, the state budget more than doubled while within the Gann Spending Limit. In 1990, the Gann limit was gutted by Proposition 111. If the Gann spending limit had simply been restored at the outset of the Gray Davis administration, the state budget would still be 21% larger than it was four years ago, but instead of a $38-billion deficit, we would have had a $5-billion surplus.

Will you rule out, without qualification, abandoning the race? And have you had anyone from the administration or within the state party talk to you about getting out of the race?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes, without equivocation, this horse is in the race to the finish line. I realize War Admiral doesn’t want a race—Seabiscuit does.

With Bill Simon dropping out, the pressures on you must be intense to clear the path for Schwarzenegger?

MCCLINTOCK: Well, if Bill Simon’s support rallies to my campaign, according to the recent Los Angeles Times poll, I am then in a statistical dead heat with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But have there been pressures?

MCCLINTOCK: No. I have received no phone calls from the White House or from any other party leaders, state or national, suggesting that I get out of the race. I have been reading veiled and not-so-veiled threats in the newspapers, but that’s the only place I see it.

Nobody’s called you?

MCCLINTOCK: No. And just to save them the fuss and bother of a phone call, the answer is, "Forget it."

What is the essential argument you’re going to make to California Republicans to choose you over Schwarzenegger?

MCCLINTOCK: I have spent 20 years in the public arena proposing and fighting for precisely those fiscal reforms that the public now realizes are absolutely essential to restore our state’s finances, and its public works and its economy. The positions that I have taken over those 20 years have been firm and unchanging. They are positions that the people of California can count on. There’s a great deal that Arnold Schwarzenegger can teach me about making movies. There’s a great deal I could teach him about the fiscal reform of the state government. The problem is, Number 1, he’s got advisors around him who are of a completely different mind, and, Number 2, there’s no time for training anyway: the new governor will take office the moment the last ballot is counted.

Will Gray Davis be recalled?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes. I think the people of California have—

The latest LA Times poll shows it tightening up—50% to 45%, just a bare majority. Do you think that Democrats will actually vote to recall him?

MCCLINTOCK: The sentiment for fundamental change in the direction of this state is far stronger than any sentiment to maintain the status quo. What the polls, of course, don’t measure, is the intensity of people’s feelings on these subjects—those who support the recall do so passionately. Those who oppose the recall are not nearly as passionate, except for those who are directly feeding at the public trough. And for that reason, I believe that you need to take the raw numbers with a large dose of salt.

Won’t you actually have to attack Schwarzenegger in various ways in order to possibly win a plurality of the vote here over Bustamante?

MCCLINTOCK: I believe the people of California want to know specifically and exactly the direction that each of the candidates would take our state. I think they will insist upon very specific answers from Arnold Schwarzenegger on all of these issues. And if he fails to do so, I believe that the public will be very unimpressed. I might add that you’ve seen all-Arnold, all-the-time, on all channels all this month, an unprecedented amount of media coverage and attention. And yet throughout this period, he has not moved a bit in the polls. He has maintained a very consistent position in the mid-to-low 20s throughout this race.

Some conservatives have been leery of supporting Schwarzenegger because of his highly publicized liberal views on social issues. Where do you stand on abortion?

MCCLINTOCK: I am pro-life.

Does that mean you would seek to prohibit abortion in California if you could?

MCCLINTOCK: I will seek to prohibit partial-birth abortion, the process of killing an infant as it’s being delivered. I think most Californians agree that that practice is barbaric. I believe and will push for legislation to ensure that parents have restored to them the right to consent before an abortion is performed on their minor children. And I will also support legislation, certainly, to prohibit the practice once a brain wave is present in the infant. At that point, I think that a broad consensus can exist in California, will exist in California, that once the brain wave is detectable, the infant unquestionably acquires a right to life that is unalienable.

Would you sign or veto appropriations that provide funding for abortion by the state of California?

MCCLINTOCK: I oppose funding for abortion. I always have.

You would veto appropriations that include funding for abortion?

MCCLINTOCK: Correct.

Arnold Schwarzenegger reportedly approves of gay adoption. As governor, would you seek to stop and prohibit, or to allow gay adoption?

MCCLINTOCK: We have a wealth of sociological data that shows that children do much better in a traditional family environment. And I do not believe that homosexual adoptions meet that criterion.

If the United States Congress approves a Federal Marriage Amendment—which has already been proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives—would you support its ratification by the legislature in California?

MCCLINTOCK: Yes.

And how would the Supreme Court justices you would nominate in California differ from those you believe Arnold Schwarzenegger would nominate?

MCCLINTOCK: The judges I would appoint must, above all else, believe in the fundamental principles of the American founding, that the purpose of government is to secure those rights, those inalienable rights, derived from the people—what the founders called the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

You mentioned before that Mr. Schwarzenegger is stuck in the mid-to-low 20s, and has been there ever since he entered the race. Given that a lot of Republicans who have chosen to support you or Mr. Simon may have already rejected the option of voting for him, do you consider his vote-pull to be a dead weight, and would you call for him to get out of the race?

MCCLINTOCK: I don’t think anyone should get out of the race. I think the voters will sort this out very nicely as the campaign proceeds.

Back to the $38-billion deficit that you think California is going to have next year. Are there other people who are supporting you on this, who support that number?

MCCLINTOCK: Again, what I said was, I think it will exceed $38 billion.

Right. Exceed $38 billion. Are there other people who support that figure?

MCCLINTOCK: I think everyone agrees that the budget deficit next year will be massive.

Davis has said, ‘Well, it’s down to $8 billion.’

MCCLINTOCK: No, no. Understand what he’s talking about. He’s talking about the structural deficit to begin the next fiscal year is $8 billion. That’s predicated on a dramatic economic recovery this year that I don’t foresee. I think that figure will be closer to $10 billion or beyond. But on top of that you must also bear in mind that the current state budget requires the borrowing of $11 billion simply to meet last year’s shortfall, another $2 billion to make its pension payments, $4.2 billion in the illegal tripling of the car tax—that will be ordered returned to the taxpayers plus interest when the courts are finally able to act. When you untangle all the bookkeeping gimmicks, and all of the illegal taxes and illegal borrowing upon which this budget is based, you easily exceed $18 billion of deficit in the current year. Add that to at least $10 billion in deficit that you will begin the next fiscal year with, and you’re already up to $28 billion and we’re only a month into that budget. Based upon past experience, I believe that this year’s budget deficit will exceed last year’s, which was, as you know, $38 billion.

Gov. Davis and the legislature have dramatically expanded the state’s pension liabilities during the last four years. Do you see any chance of rolling those back?

MCCLINTOCK: Pension obligations, once they are incurred, cannot be rescinded, but the state’s exposure can be reduced in two manners. Number one, a dramatic reduction in the state’s workforce, which I am pledged to do. Number two, the establishment of a second pension plan for new hires, which will be in line with private sector pensions, rather than the lavish benefits now accorded to public sector employees.

You can’t change it through initiative?

MCCLINTOCK: Once you’ve incurred that pension obligation, you have to live with it. That is why it is so damaging. I opposed every one of the measures that increased the state’s pension obligation, and I am heartsick at what the legislature did on this. What I can do is to make a dramatic reduction in the state’s workforce and I can also assure that any future pension obligations will be based on what is available to private sector employees.

Many well-known conservatives are endorsing Mr. Schwarzenegger—Rep. Chris Cox [R.-Calif.] last week, for example. Do you have any evidence that with the exit of Bill Simon, you’re going to pick up some people who endorsed him and were working for him among conservatives?

MCCLINTOCK: I do know this, that we had a large surge in contributions immediately following Bill Simon’s withdrawal from the race. There is a tendency among established politicians to migrate to celebrity, and I don’t expect that to change, it is human nature. I do, however, have great hopes that the vast majority of Bill Simon’s voters will rally to my campaign, and if they do so, it will place us within a statistical dead heat.

[Continued below]


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 187; immigrantlist; mcclintock; proposition187; tommcclintock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
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 11:33:53 AM PDT by hoosierskypilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


62 posted on 08/28/2003 11:34:50 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

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

63 posted on 08/28/2003 11:47:39 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot
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.

64 posted on 08/28/2003 12:03:46 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Great post!

Would you please add me to your ping list?
65 posted on 08/28/2003 12:04:50 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah (Proud card carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy since 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 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.
66 posted on 08/28/2003 12:06:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.
67 posted on 08/28/2003 12:11:03 PM PDT by hoosierskypilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot
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.
68 posted on 08/28/2003 12:24:53 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

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?

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.


69 posted on 08/28/2003 12:26:49 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thanks for the post. Good stuff!
70 posted on 08/28/2003 12:31:53 PM PDT by jam137 (see my FR homepage for CA Recall perspectives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.

71 posted on 08/28/2003 12:43:43 PM PDT by hoosierskypilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.

72 posted on 08/28/2003 12:48:05 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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!
73 posted on 08/28/2003 12:51:03 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot
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.
74 posted on 08/28/2003 12:55:22 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; Reagan Man

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.


75 posted on 08/28/2003 1:17:26 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.
76 posted on 08/28/2003 1:31:10 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


77 posted on 08/28/2003 1:38:57 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold would let Illegals stay... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971733/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.
78 posted on 08/28/2003 1:52:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Tancredo Fan
*Ping*!
79 posted on 08/28/2003 2:39:52 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"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.
80 posted on 08/28/2003 2:54:05 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson