Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads! 
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin
Posted on 09/17/2003 9:49:12 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Tom Receives First Editorial Board Endorsement of the Campaign Hollister FreeLance: McClintock Best Choice in Recall
Back when a gubernatorial recall election was just a gleam in U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa’s eye and an ongoing drain on his bank balance, we editorialized against recalling Gov. Gray Davis. We urged readers not to sign Issa’s petitions on the grounds that a recall would be a waste of taxpayer money and just reflected political sour grapes from the party that can’t seem to field an electable gubernatorial candidate.
But now the recall election is a reality - whether it be Oct. 7 or next March, we believe it is important to revisit the issue. On Monday, a federal appeals court postponed the election, ruling the historic vote cannot proceed because some votes would be cast using outmoded punch-card ballot machines. Recall backers have vowed to appeal the ruling.
By the slimmest of margins, we now endorse a “yes” vote on the recall ballot.
Why the change? Because voting no won’t prevent the state from spending millions to hold the election, the more important issue becomes whether or not there is a better choice than Davis to lead California. We think there is.
Deciding which of the 133 candidates is the best choice was difficult. Like most Californians, if you believe the polls, we had little consensus on who is the best choice to replace Davis if he is recalled. We limited our discussion to the top five candidates, with much gnashing of teeth over the withdrawal of Republican Peter Ueberroth, a fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidate.
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Democratic many describe as to the left of Davis, is basically more of the same, most of the editorial board agreed. And the same isn’t working. Bustamante’s fund-raising tactics, while technically legal, are grossly reminiscent of Davis‚ strongarm, pay-to-play politics, and his status as a longtime Sacramento politician means many hold him as responsible as Davis for the state’s problems.
What we need now is a fix for the major hemorrhage going on in California. It’s about the money - the jobs that are fleeing the state, the long-term energy contracts Davis signed which are pickpocketing every Californian, the skyrocketing costs of workman’s compensation and the shrinking tax revenues causing cutback after cutback throughout the public sector.
Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, is the fiscal conservative California desperately needs. Though we’re concerned about some of McClintock’s conservative social views, we believe his no-tax-increase pledge and plans to cut state spending make him the best candidate.
Like California, our board split deeply. Bustamante is the choice of one editorial board member. Green Party candidate Peter Camejo and independent progressive candidate Arianna Huffington were considered seriously before being eliminated because with both candidates polling in the low single digits, it seems likely that a vote for Camejo or Huffington is a vote wasted.
Then there’s Arnold Schwarzenegger. His initial appeal - a wealthy political outsider who doesn’t need to take money from special interests, who tells the people the truth - has been diluted by his reliance on Sacramento political handlers, refusal to attend the recent debate, shifting stories about his now-infamous Oui magazine interview, acceptance of money from businesses and individuals and confusion about businesses being special interests. Sadly, Arnie’s no Ronnie.
Schwarzenegger, who would need the leadership and charisma of a Ronald Reagan to be effective in Sacramento, falls short.
Those who won’t vote for McClintock say that, like Bustamante, he is a longtime Sacramento politician who shares responsibility for the state’s energy and budget crises, and that his far-right social views make him unacceptable.
McClintock advocates counter that a liberal statewide electorate and a Democratic-controlled state Legislature will limit his ability to advance a conservative social agenda.
In this wide-open, frustrating and unprecedented race, McClintock garnered three of five votes on the editorial board. We recommend voters choose Tom McClintock to replace Gray Davis.
In a field of 133 candidates, garnering 20 percent of the vote in the recall balloting might be enough for McClintock to pull it off.
If he does, he just might right an economic ship that is floundering and restore the lustre which paved the way for California to be known as the Golden State.
Oh sheesh, yeah, they're real Republicans all right.
AS's supporters are saying McC will never be elected because of his social conservatism, but this election isn't about social issues - its about survival. People worry about social issues when they aren't worried about keeping their jobs.
If ever there was a time in CA where people - republicans & democrats alike - would be willing to respond to a candidate who makes solid promises on economic matters, regardless of what else they believe, it is now.
This is conservatism last chance in this state, and its really discouraging to see so many 'conservatives' surrendering before the fight has started.
You know I used to think this was true but after doing some research I have come to the conclusion that McClintock is totally unsuited to be governor
In his whole legislative career, McClintock hasn't accomplished anything. Sure he's been a fiscal conservative (whatever that means) but his only concrete accomplishment according to the bio on his website was the Mello-Condit-McClintock Tax Rebate Act in 1987. That was 16 years ago. What has he done lately other than complaining and voting against state budgets?
Speaking of accomplishments, what exactly will McClintock do as governor? He seems to have four things in mind: 1. End the car tax 2. Void the energy contracts 3. Fix worker compensation 4. Cut funding to redundant agencies. Well everyone wants to end the car tax so join the party. 2 is totally unworkable because he can't just rip up a legally binding contract without spending years in lawsuits and risking the chance that utilities will simply cut off the power to California. 3 and 4 sound good but I can't see how he's going to it. Apparently, his plan of action is to tell the legislature "Do this or I'll complain about you to the public". Yeah, that's really going to work. More likely the state will end up totally in gridlock with everyone blaming everyone else.
Now a lot of people on this board (mostly out of state it seems) have fixated on McClintock's conservative social views regarding abortion, gun rights, gay rights etc. vs. Arnold's "liberal" views. However, what has McClintock done regarding these issues? Unlike Arnold he had 20 years in the legislature and he did absolutely nothing. How's that any better than Arnold?
Finally it seems that McClintock and his campaign are fixated upon Arnold. I have never heard, seen, or read him saying anything critical about Davis or Bustamante. It has always been "I'm gaining momentum, Arnold is an amateur, so vote for me instead of him". Why doesn't he mention Davis or Bustamante? Does he even care about them? Isn't he even going to try to get the support of moderates and independents? Is McClintock running a serious gubenatorial bid or is he just trying to spite the California GOP?
In essence, McClintock has accomplished nothing in 20 years other than talking and going on ego trips about how he knows everything and everyone else is an idiot for not listening to him. His idea of leadership is "Do this or I'll tell" and his plans to fix California are typical of a career politician - they sound good but are totally unworkable in practice. He says the "correct" things regarding certain social issues but it's clear that he hasn't and won't make a stand on them. Finally, even his motives about running for governor are questionable. Exactly why is he running this campaign?
Now contrast this with Arnold. Since his teenage years, Arnold has achieved everything he wanted to achieve. He wanted to be a world class body builder and he won the Mr. Universe a record six times. He wanted to be an actor and he's now one of the world's best known. He wanted to be a businessman and now he's raking in millions a year. When Arnold wanted to get into the politics with Prop. 49, he was successful by a wide margin. Now Arnold wants to be governor with the goal of fixing California. Given his track record as a doer and a winner vs. McClintock's track record of a talker and a loser (after all he lost every statewide election he's been in), who would you seriously vote for?
A lack of vision can be corrected with time and experience. A 20-year record of fast talking and zero-leadership ability cannot. Talk about short-sightedness. Just because someone (especially a career politician) says what you want to hear doesn't mean they can or will do what you want them to do.
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.