Replies

Well, get ready for the revisionists who will pretend that Bill Simon was even a tenth as forthright, therefore "conservatives can't win in California."

I would agree that Simon wasn't 1/10th as good as McClintock. Like you, I would not agree that a conservative cannot get elected. There are several things that make that a difficult proposition though. First, any Republican candidate (Simon an excellent example) should receive state and when possible national level support. Simon recieved every little of either. IMO, this is what cost him the election. True enough, I didn't particularly care for his campaign, but with more state and national party funds, he could have raised the level of his campaign. That's the point. If McClintock were the lead man going into this election, would the state abandon him because they had wanted Schwarzenegger, like they did Simon because they wanted Riordan? Then there's the issue of a spoiler. When you get a RINO like Schwarzenegger in the mix, a RINO that is wildly popular with the public, it makes it very difficult for a guy like McClintock to pull in the support he must have to win.

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.

In this election I think McClintock has gotten a lot more coverage than I would have expected for a true Conservative. I have wondered if he would have gotten that coverage if it weren't for the leftist media wanting to take Schwarzenegger down a notch or two for Bustamante. Butstamante contrasts much better against McClintock. I think he'd much rather run against someone he can demagogue to the max. With Schwarzenegger, a man you guys have pointed out shares some of Bustamante's views on certain topics, it's going to be very difficult for Bustamante to place a wedge between him and the more liberal voting block.

The liberal voting block is concerned with social issues. Well Schwarzenegger isn't a threat there. And frankly that concerns us. This isn't something I relish, but the fact is, even liberals discern a need for fiscal conservancy at this time. With liberal issues not a concern and Schwarzenegger a fiscal conservative by appearances, the left will vote for this guy. As some have pointed out, he'd have made a cracker jack democrat. Unfortunately he jumped in on our side and we have to deal with that.

McClintock: A rock solid conservative that correctly addresses every issue that concerns them (including me)
Schwarzenegger: A somewhat Conservative fiscal stance with clearly liberal leanings on social issues and even some economic issues
Bustamante: A brown racist separatist who's policies are antithecal to anything a Conservative stands for

This is what voters will be assessing. With A.S. in the mix, this is going to be a rocky road for real Conservatives

Republican Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and Presidential candidates, whether conservative or moderate, who are too timid to address California's massive problem with Illegals have failed to win here in every election since Pete Wilson won in 1994.

And that has cost them a lot of support. I just can't fathom why ANY "Conservative" candidate would fail to endorse a set of policies that would appeal to the voters of Proposition 187, which passed by a large margin.

I'd go further than you did. It is insulting that those candidates abandon talk of just about any Conservative values during the election process. Ronald Reagan championed Conservatism. He won converts! The folks we have today are almost embarassed to be caught advocating core Conservative values. McClintock is the first person in a long time who clearly gets it. And I believe he will win converts to Conservatism. No salesman sells product unless he makes a pitch. For far too long Conservatives have failed to make that pitch. McClintock is doing the right thing on the right issues. Good for him. Good for us. Good for our future.

Laughably, these self-congratulatory, so-called "political realists" hold Wilson up as an example of how to lose in California; nevermind that Wilson won at the top of the GOP's statewide ticket (Senatorial and Gubernatorial) four times from 1982 to 1994.

I am a political realist. I'm not laughing. I'm not sure how anyone could use Pete Wilson as an example of a loser. He served two terms as governor. I did not support his candidacy for President. He was too much a RINO for my liking. And as for Pete losing based on the fact he endorced Proposition 187, I don't know how a guy could be effected negatively by supporting something 60% of California supported.

This hasn't stopped the media from making that claim several times over the last few weeks. I've also seen them refer to him as Senator Wilson when his last held office was Governor. That seems inappropriate.