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.

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.

This is purely subjective. McClintock says he didn't know about the tribe's ads until after they had aired. This article offers nothing in the way of evidence to refute that.

Also, the article assumes McClintock is -- aside from reckless and ambitious -- a very stupid man. Any willful collaberation with the Bustamante gaming tribes would give him a permanent black eye with California's moderate Republicans (Arnold supporters) as well as the state's conservatives. Conspiring with the likes of Bustamante isn't the best way for Tom to go about winning support in 2006. Given that the tribe identifies itself for all to see in the ad, it's highly implausible that McClintock had any role in its making.

In California, conservatism will only emerge from the wreckage of unchecked liberalism. Playing to the middle will win elections here and there, but it won't change anything. And if you think the "fiscal conservative/social liberal" angle is the way to solve California's problem, you're only seeing half the problem. California is a cultural wasteland and a downright dangerous place to raise a family, in addition to being an economic disaster.

I agree with McClintock's premise completely. California is terminal. The only way to save it is to let it die. Nothing can kill a state like liberalism run amock.

He can believe that, as I do, but if you're going to accuse a man of sleeping with the enemy, you'd better have some solid evidence. This article doesn't have a shred of it.

After your comment I did a search on Bob Chandra -- he also writes for ChronWatch and other places.

Here is his article in ChronWatch:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4025&catcode=13

"Arnold Is No Liberal"

by Bob Chandra
Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Editor's Note: This will introduce Bob Chandra, a new name in our Writer Roster. Bob is a freelance writer, political activist, and a public library commissioner in the Bay Area.

~~o~~

California Republicans have a historical opportunity to remove from office the state’s corrupt and inept governor, Gray Davis, who has bankrupted California and buried it in debt.

Recent polls indicate that the effort to recall Gray Davis would succeed. However, the nightmare scenario would be that Davis ally – Democrat Cruz Bustamante – would gain the most votes as a result of
Republicans dividing their votes amongst several candidates. Recent polls by Time/CNN, NBC, and the Public Policy Institute of California all suggest the same thing - Schwarzenegger is ahead of Bustamante, while the results show that Bustamante would beat both Tom McClintock and Peter Ueberroth easily. But the question arises: is Arnold a ''liberal''?

In order to make this determination, one has to plumb Schwarzenegger’s background, actions, and past statements for indications of his politics. The evidence strongly suggests that Arnold is not, in fact, a liberal. From the Wall Street Journal: ''Bill Saracino, a former head of Gun Owners of California, believes that when it comes to conservatives evaluating Mr. Schwarzenegger, ‘the glass is half full or way more.’ He notes that Mr. Schwarzenegger has opposed strict gun controls.''

In a Playboy interview, Arnold said, ''Outlawing guns is not the right method of eliminating the problem. If you outlaw guns, people will still have them illegally.'' According to NewsMax: ''Arnold has given private assurances to congressmen and Republican Party leaders that he will come out against partial-birth abortion, pederasts in the Boy Scouts, and welfare for illegal aliens. Couple that with a knowledgeable defense of free market economics gained through study of Milton Friedman and years of attending Reason Foundation seminars, and Arnold takes the wind out of his Republican opponents Bill Simon and Tom McClintock.” Arnold supported Proposition 187 to deny taxpayer-funded services for illegal immigrants. When criticized for it by the media, he did not backpedal and instead conveyed the importance of rule-of-law.

On family values, Arnold understands the importance of two parent households. In Salon.com, he called the phenomenon of broken homes one of the most pressing problems in society today. These are some of the reasons that Hugh Hewitt came out in support of Arnold in his column on WorldNetDaily (''This conservative is voting for Arnold''). Hewitt summarizes his thinking this way, ''I support the most conservative candidate who has the most realistic chance of winning. A vote for Tom McClintock, Bill Simon or Peter Ueberroth is a vote for Cruz Bustamante. It really is that simple.''

Regarding his fiscal inclinations, Arnold’s successful rise from rags to riches suggests that he respects the role of entrepreneurs in creating jobs and building the economy. According to the Wall Street Journal: ''Mr. Schwarzenegger's biography exemplifies the American dream...At age 21, he came to America in 1968 with little money and even less command of English. A natural capitalist, he bought up office buildings and apartment complexes before he ever made a film. His business empire now includes shopping malls, a Boeing 747 he leases to an airline, and a large chunk of Santa Monica real estate.

He took evening courses in business at UCLA, and earned a bachelor's degree in business by mail from the University of Wisconsin at Superior.'' Arnold’s business background suggests he will be responsible with taxpayer money and knowledgeable on financial matters. A recent Contra Costa article (''Arnold’s finances reveal a shrewd tale'') reveals how Schwarzenegger built his personal fortune through successful entrepreneurship and perceptive business moves. Arnold told the Financial Times, ''I am more comfortable with an Adam Smith philosophy than with Keynesian theory.'' He has also said, ''I still believe in lower taxes--and the power of the free market. I still believe in controlling government spending. If it's a bad program, let's get rid of it.'' According to a San Jose Mercury News report, Schwarzenegger is a ''fan of the University of Chicago Economics Department, which had provided President Reagan's economic advisers.''

There are some who call Arnold a ''compromise candidate.'' But given his past actions and statements, it’s clear that a strong streak of conservatism runs through him. At very least, he is no ''liberal.''

Capitol Resource Institute

September 19, 2003

www.capitolresource.org

The Great Divide

Capitol Resource Institute sent a number of representatives to the Republican Convention in Los Angeles on September 12th to 14th. In an effort to draw people to the CRI table, we conducted a straw poll between the various candidates for Governor. The final results of the poll showed Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock receiving almost the same number of votes.

Admittedly, a poll conducted in this environment suggests little about the possible results in the election originally scheduled for October 7th. But, the passionate conversation as these votes were cast indicates that a wall has been erected in the "big tent" over the issue of who should be the preferred candidate of the GOP.

It was no surprise that most of the passion seemed to be aimed at the divide between pragmatism and idealism; pragmatists siding with Arnold and idealists stubbornly holding out for Tom. But, it is these so-called idealists that feel the most slighted in the current battle, and they are not without a point.

Many GOP leaders, pundits, and those who want to be both, have loudly expressed their disgust for others who can?t read the writing on the wall, put aside their allegiance to certain issues, and join the Terminator?s team. In too many instances their calls to unity behind their chosen candidate are not so persuasive as they are bitter and condescending. Calling Tom?s supporters idiots (incapable of understanding the implications of continuing to support McClintock), traitors (helping Bustamante to win), spoilers or martyrs adds bricks to the ever-higher wall in the tent. But, even the more nuanced arguments will require some rework if they are intended to persuade.

GOP pragmatists are quick to downplay the ideological differences between the two candidates and simply point to the numbers. "Sure, Tom McClintock would make the better governor, but he can?t win." More and more it appears that if Tom McClintock had a vote from every person that says this, he might indeed win. Many of Tom?s supporters believe that the party elite jumped too soon in embracing Arnold. Some Republicans, who should have known better, thought the vote was for Mr. Congeniality. Immediately after Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race, they decided that public celebrity trumped political competence.

If victory is defined simply as putting a Republican in the corner office of the Capitol, it is easy to see why Arnold?s supporters are angry with those Republicans who are still clinging to McClintock. Still, "We are only concerned about the win" sounds more appropriate when commenting about one?s favorite football team than about who will sit in the Governor?s seat of the fragile-but-still-fifth-largest economy in the world.

Clearly, there is a point beyond which few Republicans would go. Had Ed Asner joined the race as a Republican, and shown well in the initial polls, it is doubtful that he would have found so many eager Republicans boosting his political hopes. And lest anyone misinterpret the point, I am not saying that Arnold and Ed share the same political ideology. But, can we agree that simply putting an R behind one?s name is not enough?

For many tagged as stubborn idealists, it is specific ideology, not celebrity or team spirit that drives their political participation. It is no minor thing to ask them to put aside the specific issues that have characterized their political ideology and often animated their political participation.

In contrast, it is not surprising that some with an R behind their name are comfortable with the switch to a candidate that is so out of step with the party?s stated ideals. Let?s admit that for many Arnold is their kind of Republican. And it is quite easy for them to ask fellow GOPers to, once again, get over those "troubling" social issues, immigration issues, environmental issues, gun control issues, educational issues and the like.

There are solid conservatives who have signed on to support the larger than life celebrity. And for many of these conservatives it is about ideology-- that which they share with Mr. Schwarzenegger, not that which sets them apart. They argue that Arnold is 55% or 70% with them because "he is a fiscal conservative."

The idealists are baffled by the math that allows Arnold to be more with them than against despite the fact that they can so readily list the differences, not the similarities. The pragmatists are unmoved. After all this election, this recall, is not about all of those other issues, especially the "moral" issues. Wasn?t it motivated by the Governor who ran up an incredible debt?

Not so fast. No governor will have the luxury of sticking just to the fiscal issues. And for those who have spent so much of the last five years criticizing this governor for his high-speed implementation of a socially liberal agenda, it is hard to look the other way to support a candidate that does not share their pain.

Further, even the recall itself was not rooted only in the State?s bloated budget. California?s unprecedented debt certainly gave rise to hostility toward Governor Davis. But he does not control the business cycles, nor did he alone pass those hefty spending bills. However, he misled the public about the State?s financial condition and he appears to have acted less than honorably in pledging public favoritism to those whom financially benefited his campaign. For those who signed the recall petitions, moral outrage certainly accompanied fiscal disgust.

Among those who have not endorsed Schwarzenegger, there is skepticism about the claim that he is on their side on fiscal issues. Bluntly put, they are not that impressed that an incredibly wealthy Californian opposes higher taxes on his income or holdings. And, they know that liberal social policies often make a demand on the public purse. Further, if affinity for a balanced budget is the test of a true conservative, they know that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean also has a right to the label.

We should not forget that the celebrity candidate supports Proposition 13. Nor should we forget that he felt it necessary to defend his position on the quarter-century old law because his chief fiscal advisor, a fiscal liberal, does not support Proposition 13. The candidate?s alleged fiscal conservative credentials simply have not been proven.

Pragmatists are at their best when they describe the uniqueness of the current campaign. Republicans do not enjoy the luxury of voting their conscience in a primary and unifying behind a single Republican in the general election. A good case can be made on simple math alone, that following one?s conscience may give the victory to the lone competitive Democrat. They argue that unifying behind the leading Republican is a must if we wish to achieve victory. And it is here that the pragmatists and the idealists part company most dramatically?on the very definition of victory.

It is inconceivable to many that any Republican could risk the possibility of a win by Cruz Bustamante in the hopes that their candidate could beat the current odds and win. But, the very people that tout the virtues of incrementalism do not seem to allow for its application on the other side. The Ronald Reagan Republicans that support Tom McClintock do not want a Bustamante win. But, neither do they want to be told that a "moderate" Republican is the best that they will ever do.

Should Schwarzenegger continue to draw conservative voters willing to hold their nose and vote for the win, leaving McClintock with the "stubborn conservative" vote, conservatives will hear about it in the next election. The very next time that a conservative is on the ballot, especially if it is Tom McClintock, they will be reminded of the conservative?s poor showing in the last race. The conservatives that gave in to the request to side with the winner will be forgotten. Ideology, not the uniqueness of this race, not an effort to unify, not funding disparities, or anything else will be the agreed cause of the conservative?s poor showing.

For those who define victory as eventually getting a conservative, not just a Republican, in the corner office, it is at least understandable to see why they are going for the win?of Tom McClintock.

Tim LeFever
Chairman of the Board

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.