Tom McClintock - The conscience of a conservative?

In recent days, Tom McClintock, the "other Republican" in California's recall race, has accepted a million dollars spent on his behalf by a left-wing special interest group. He has claimed that a Democrat victory in the recall election would be desirable, as it would better his chances in 2006. And he has joined with Democrat Cruz Bustamante in a boycott against fellow Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is the man we're supposed to believe represents the conscience of conservatism? At the end of the day, Tom McClintock's Faustian Pact with the Left has made one thing clear - it's all about Tom McClintock.

The $1 million to be spent on McClintock's behalf is by Indian gambling interests, a staunch Democratic special interest. I wrote about the possibility of left-wing special interests backing McClintock in order to divide Republicans several weeks back. Now it is a reality. The Sacramento Bee has announced that the Morongo tribe is spending $1 million to boost McClintock's candidacy and it's not because they want him to win. The money spent on McClintock is meant to split the Republican vote so their loyal servant, Democrat Cruz Bustamante, can emerge the winner. With enough left- wing money, McClintock can steal enough votes from Arnold to make that happen. Tom's win-at-any-cost mindset has him collaborating with leftist groups who want nothing more than a divided Right to throw the election to Bustamante. Does McClintock see that the Left is using him? Maybe there's a reason it's called "blind" ambition.

McClintock's partnership with the liberal special interests raises serious questions about his loyalty to the GOP. McClintock has said he puts his personal "principles" before the party. But there's a deeper reason McClintock doesn't care that his spoiler candidacy will doom Republicans in the recall race.

In a conversation with US Congressman Dan Burton, Tom McClintock said the following: he (McClintock) didn't mind it if Democrats win the gubernatorial race because it could improve his own chances in 2006. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Burton, one of the more conservative members of Congress, also said McClintock had seemed to suggest that it would be acceptable for a Democrat to hold the governor's office, because he might create a clamor for a Republican in 2006.". So that's what this is really about. If McClintock can't win, he can at least prevent the Republicans from winning so he has a better shot in 2006. Aren't we glad he's playing for our team?

McClintock is now collaborating with Cruz Bustamante to boycott the California Broadcasters Association's debate on the 24th as a means of showing up Arnold Schwarzenegger. Bustamante led the boycott charge on October 17th with McClintock soon followed his lead. When you see a Republican siding with a Democrat against a fellow Republican, you know something is wrong with the picture. Don't adjust your set- this is Tom McClintock, the self-styled conscience of conservatism.

As if things couldn't get any worse, McClintock is justifying his candidacy on a poll strategically conducted by the left-wing Los Angeles Times, which wants nothing more than to keep him in the race. That Times' poll has been debunked by Field and even invalidated by the Times' own reporting. It added 6% more self-identified conservatives than other polls and naturally gave McClintock an artificial 5% bump. But McClintock is clinging to this cooked poll, another leftist ploy, because it serves his interests.

What kind of a conservative lets left-wing interests drive his candidacy like this? The answer is a candidate who is so blind with ambition that he does not see how the Left is using him to their own ends. Thus far, McClintock has claimed he stands for principle, but it is obvious that his hopeless candidacy is based on personal ambition. It's no longer appropriate to view McClintock as merely a misguided crusader. He is a bigger threat to Republican victory on Election Day than Cruz Bustamante. Up until now, McClintock has responded to arguments for stepping aside with denial, delusion, and arrogance. Given his collaboration with the Left, Republicans must get serious with him. McClintock's "stalking horse" candidacy must come to an end.

Really, if (R)nold never entered the race, we wouldn't be having this problem. But he did, and with it nearly destroyed the potential to actually produce a better governor from the recall by splitting the Republican vote. Given that the liberal "Republican" won't drop out, and that conservatives won't support a liberal candidate, we are forced to once again look at the recall in a longer-term context to see what benefit can be gained. In this situation, the best a conservative can hope for is that the electorate will be begging for a conservative governor in 2006. But if (R)nold manages to win, then a conservative has to look all the way to 2010 to try and get a man in office.

Look at the top of the page. It's Free Republic, a conservative news forum. Not a Republican news forum, and definitely not a liberal news forum. If you want to push a candidate that likes gay adoption and gun bans, but don't want a hostile reception, this ain't your place.

Bush is not perfect but he is within tolerable limits overall. (R)nold is not even close.

Oh yeah, sit this one out and get Cruz. Great idea... NOT !

That's how we got Clinton, in '92; remember ? That really, really, REALLY taught GHW Bush a lesson, didn't it ?

First of all, nobody who calls himself a conservative better sit this one out, or any election for that matter. There are other issues on the ballot besides just the recall and even if there weren't, you still have a responsibility to vote. The decision may not be pretty, but it must be made.

Second, I have been avoiding these Arnold vs. Tom threads for a while now because the level of discourse has degenerated down to the playground level. I have never seen so much whining, crying, name-calling and general retardation in my time here. If it weren't for the occasional well-reasoned post, I would swear this was DU. However, there are a couple of points that I think should be made clearly and I haven't seen that done yet, so I'm going to give it a try.

We got Clinton in '92 because GHW Bush broke his damn promise. He didn't just say "I promise I won't raise taxes." He gave his best Dirty Harry scowl and said "Read my lips..." If we are going to have a viable party which actually represents Conservative interests, we have to be able to count on those who we elect within that party. If the Republican party, which is the only hope Conservatives have at the moment, becomes dominated or even just heavily influenced by liberal ideology, then the Conservative cause is lost whether Republicans win or not. The lesson of the '92 election may not have mattered to GHW Bush, but it damn sure should have told all the future candidates for office under the Republican flag a thing or two. Whether it has sunk in is another question.

A vote for Arnold is a three-fold blow against Conservative interests in California and perhaps the country. Arnold is a liberal. I don't care if he wears a suit and tie, puts an R next to his name, and spews poetry about his love for Republicans. That the man is a social liberal is undisputed, even among those who support him, but he is also a political and fiscal liberal inasfar as he would ONLY cut socialist programs if he absolutely had to, not because he believes them to be un-American in principle. So here is the three-fold blow of an Arnold win to Conservative efforts:
(1) The Republican party becomes just that much more liberal. Every step to the left in the government is a defeat for Conservative values, but every step to the left in the Republican party is a defeat for the ability even to fight for Conservative values.
(2) The liberal agenda still gets enacted. Arnold will sign bills banning guns, promoting special rights for homosexuals, and whatever else the dominant leftist political culture convinces him is the populist way. He simply lacks the political conviction to resist it. Furthermore, for those who cling to the blind faith that, while Arnold is a social conservative, he is at least a fiscal conservative, ask yourself what kind of fiscal conservative would surround himself with such liberal hacks as Buffet and co.? The campaign was five minutes old and Arnold's main financial advisor was already demanding the repeal of Prop. 13. This man is not a fiscal conservative. He will not have the conviction or influence to resist the Democrat-dominated legislature in their shrill cries for more nanny programs.
(3) Republicans (and by extension, conservatives) will get the blame for the failings of the liberal policies that Arnold does sign into law, simply because Arnold has an R next to his name when, by all rights, he should have a D.

I don't relish the idea of Bustamante as governor, nor the idea of Davis continuing in office (or in politics), but I don't see the logic in jeopardizing the future of Conservative efforts just so the faithless can say we won one in California. I would rather see Bustamante in office. At least that way, the extreme disaster that would be his governorship will serve as a warning to the rest of the country. Maybe it will even be a blessing in disguise. Once Bustamante is in office, all of the rotten truth about racist, anti-American organizations like MEChA, which thrive under the umbrella of multiculturalism, may find their way into mainstream discussion. When California collapses, and it will under his 'leadership', maybe we'll find out then whether we have the stuff to take back our state and our country.

Would you care to comment on (R)nold coming to New York City for his campaign funding? Or the fact that his biggest contributor is from Idaho?

Did either alleged funding source also contribute heavily to liberal candidates? Actual proof would be welcome.

I find it shocking that you and others are perfectly willing to give Tom a pass on taking money from the same coffers as Gray Davis does.

McClintock is using the Leftists against each other. He's run the smartest race of any of the candidates...

Really? That's not what the Domino's delivery guy tells me.

any impartial observer will tell you that, that is when you're not busy screaming "unelectable" like a banshee going through heroin withdrawal.

McWampum IS unelectable. Sorry, but he just is.

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.