California recall: Does one man hold key? [McClintock]

Christian Science Monitor ^ | 9-25 | Christian Science Monitor

[massadvj]

It gives us all some real context and puts a human face on the costs of liberal governance.

Thanks but you wouldn't want to use my face. I'm an ugly cuss.

[68 grunt]

What did he say wrong?

[68 grunt]

Hey EVie, he's what we got and we like him!

[Snerfling]

country club nor am I a socialist - but Arnold certainly qualifies on both counts.

Guy comes here with nothing and becomes a multi-millionaire. Yep, sounds like someone 'born of the manner' as the country club set would call it. And along the way, he rejected all the free-market principles that enabled his wealth-creation for the advantages of socialism which he saw/experienced first-hand in Europe.

The typical FR poster is too intelligent to post such unreasoned comments. Be gone please.

[Roscoe]

"Warren Buffett is more than just a committed Democrat – although he is definitely that. He is a flaming liberal who is deeply involved in social engineering. His support for abortion on demand would have made Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and her friends in the Eugenics Movement proud."

http://www.americandaily.com/item/2032

[68 grunt]

I don't listen to Rush anymore. Did he really come out against Arnie?

[68 grunt]

JOHN GALT? Have you even read the book?

[EternalVigilance]

Yep.

[fqued]

My post was in response to #123, where that person listed some pro-Tom, anti-Arny sentiment.

to that I responded:

An amusing exercise is to line up the various conservative talk-show hosts and commentators pro or con Arny:

You mentioned a couple con: Coulter and Limbaugh

on the pro side, though: Hugh Hewitt, Hannity, and apparently also Medved and Ingraham.

Anyone want to add to the lists? Only nationally-knowns count.

[massadvj]

Guy comes here with nothing and becomes a multi-millionaire.

People think differently after they become rich. Their primary motivation is to hang on to their wealth rather than to create opportunities for others. Ahnold supports an end to offshore drilling; affirmative action; social welfare for illegals; state-funded abortion; an expanded state role in education. As he says "all da programs for all da people." That qualifies him as a socialist country clubber in my book.

[68 grunt]

That's you man, I dubbed you that last week! Speaker of lies and deceit, whose mission it is to sow discontent and morass.

[buwaya]

According to your standards, neither was Goldwater.

[EternalVigilance]

One of the good things about conservatives is that they make up their own minds; being generally quite well-informed and led by core principles rather than other's opinions.

Endorsements probably make less of a difference to this group than any other.

But having said that, I have no doubt that this race would be a dead heat right now if everyone who claimed to be conservative had stayed on our side of the lines instead of defecting to a liberal.

Some of us won't soon forget who the defectors were, either.

[Roscoe]

It's been educational.

[EternalVigilance]

Goldwater got progressively less conservative the older he got.

Must have been dementia. Most folks get more conservative the more maturity they attain.

[EternalVigilance]

Sure has.

Hope everyone is milking this for all the learnin' they can get. The more eyes that are wide open, the better.

[Jorge]

You have a strange definition of "greatness of spirit."
A man "great in spirit" does not bend to political fashion and expediency when great principles are at stake.

I don't get it. Are you saying that it is better for a Dem to win?
Than for a Republican to bend on any principle?

I don't believe for one minute that all McClintock supporters won't bend a single conservative principle for political expediency.

McClintock is not the messiah.

IMHO those who are willing to throw the entire election to the Dems rather than vote for Arnold are hypocrites to their professed conservative principles.

[Roscoe]

I don't believe for one minute that all McClintock supporters won't bend a single conservative principle for political expediency.

It appears that many of Arnold's supporters would readily engage in the wholesale abandonment of conservative principles for the sake of perceived political expediency.

[68 grunt]

Would you explain how you joined 12/98 and just started posting this month? I'm curious.

[fqued]

you wrote: "But having said that, I have no doubt that this race would be a dead heat right now if everyone who claimed to be conservative had stayed on our side of the lines instead of defecting to a liberal."


Assuming that by "liberal" you mean Arnold [and since he is not a liberal, but neither is he a conservative, those appellations are both incorrect in reference to Arnold],
you are incorrect.

The conservatives in California are greatly outnumbered. There is NO evidence that Tom could beat Busty straight up, and ALL the polls indicate exactly the opposite.

Thus, since Arnold has a fighting chance of winning, conservatives have a quandary: do they stick by their guns and vote for an un-electable, thus possibly ending up with Busty, or do they vote for the non-conservative/non-liberal Arnold and have at least a Republican in office, thus advancing some, but by no means all, conservative principles??