Tom McClintock will most likely be Ostracized – and he probably will Deserve It

9-30-2003 | brianbaldwin

[thoughtomator]

The excluded also include libertarians and small-government conservatives, who are the staunchest supporters of personal freedom. These groups too see nothing but retreat, even when, as in this case, they are solidly aligned with social conservatives. What explanation have you for their exclusion as well?

[Dan from Michigan]

Notice that liberal RATS hardly ever compromise, and somehow they still find ways to win over in conservative states. The Dakotas. Nebraska. West Virginia. Virginia. Mississippi. North Carolina.

[Yossarian]

[thoughtomator]

It is because they do not compromise, that they are seen as sticking to what they believe in; this in turn imputes independent value to their cause, even where there is none.

Reagan proved that there is independent value to the conservative cause, and that when you stick to what you believe in, you can win, even if you are a dreaded conservative.

[MinuteGal]

Sen. McClintock could pull out tonight and he would never be a "hero". He will never get a job from Arnold. He will be forever toast with the California Republican party.

He waited too long and created expensive strategery problems for the party's choice. He will never be tapped or supported by the party to run against Feinstein or anyone else.

Please don't shoot the messenger. This is not a comment for or against each of the candidates. It's a comment on political reality. The good Tom McC will forever be known as an obstructionist and bitter-ender by the regular party, except for his hard-core base of supporters. If the Cali Republicans are re-invigorated by an Arnold victoy, there will be no room at the inn for the stick-to-your-principles McClintock.

Politics is unforgiving in the big leagues. It's always been so with both parties.

Leni

[owl]

The excluded also include libertarians and small-government conservatives, who are the staunchest supporters of personal freedom. These groups too see nothing but retreat, even when, as in this case, they are solidly aligned with social conservatives. What explanation have you for their exclusion as well?

Since these are the groups I identify with, I'm not sure what you mean by "the excluded". These groups are better represented by Schwarzenegger than by McClintock. I realize that AS is not perfect; but he's the best we've seen for a long time and, if we blow this chance, who knows when we'll get another.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

That group is a lot smaller than conservatives, yet they see their causes continuously advance.

The homosexual lobby has two characteristics which define their ability to push their agenda:

1. They have far more money than their sheer numbers would indicate. As a group, they are amongst the wealthiest of all factions in the nation (a very high proportion of extremely wealthy artists, for one example). And they spread that money around to their patrons -- thickly. They "pay to play" and they pay in very large figures.

2. They are loyal to their patrons (the RATS), and in politics loyalty means everything. They can be relied on for money (first), publicity (there are lots of liberal groups who get all a-twitter over feeling like they are part of the modern "civil rights" movement), and their votes. They always stick with the RATS -- regardless of the positions of the particular RAT that is running. That loyalty (leavened heavily with money) brings results.

[af_vet_1981]

Hmmm. I’m thinking, maybe these American Indians want to split the Republican vote, so that Bustamante wins.

Nah, ya think ?

[KellyAdmirer]

I like that article. I like the author's suggestion about McClintock joining another party, but I would suggest he just form his own and take his 15% of the electorate with him. "The McClintock Doctrinaire Conservative Party," I like the sound of that.

[Poohbah]

Tom McClintock will most likely be Ostracized

I hope they use a dull ostracizer.

[chilepepper]

Don't worry about Tom -- he has an Ambassadorship lined up with the new Hillary Clinton Presidency in 2004...

[DManA]

If growing up means getting used to being ruled by liberals, forget it. I won't accept it meekly.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

What explanation have you for their exclusion as well?

Wasn't asked of me...but I'll give it a shot for you. Small government conservatism has been an anachronism for many generations now. Whether through the urbanization of the population (my choice), or just the much larger population generally, and through economic changes packing people into tighter and tighter urban geography (the loss of a powerfull, dominant even, rural society) -- or any of the many other factors in modern society -- the concept of a larger, more instrusive government, one that also provides a plethora of programs and services has become accepted and embraced by a sizable (huge even) majority of the society.

The government has literally evolved in that direction for at least a century and a half.

Even the greatest conservative leader of our time, Reagan, accepted the premise of a massive federal government -- he simply tried to tweak it here and there around the margins. The society, with the exception of a rather small faction, a faction which is particularly present here on this site, has fully accepted the concept of large, activist government structures.

So you are fighting an uphill battle, against the strong trends of time and evolution of the society. Which is why you have less and less success as time goes by.

[L,TOWM]

The perfect example of gaining in policy with less than the number of votes needed to win outright is the homosexual lobby. That group is a lot smaller than conservatives, yet they see their causes continuously advance. At twice that strength, why must conservatives be content with continuous retreat?

The queers have seen their agenda advance because of the "live and let live" bent that a majority of americans have. Simply put, we, as social conservatives, have been unable to persuade a majority of our fellow citizens of the value of sodomy laws and other government positions that would support decency. If we keep working, perhaps this will be rolled back at some point, but now and recently, permissiveness reigns.

I would'nt say that we are in continuous retreat, though. A small number of people have been able to expand and defend Home Schooling rights for two decades now, despite a continuous attack by the education lobby, and being relatively small in number. This is an example of the libertarian undercurrent in many of our fellow citizens being used for something good.

[NormsRevenge]

quite frankly, the CA GOP is dead.... It died of its own intolerance for conservatives and its unwillingness to support them but rather seeks to muzzle them (Simon and Issa are the latest to fall victim.).

By moving to the center they are now no better than the demRats, imo, as are the supporters of youknowwho who have brought shame to this forum by their conduct and open hostility towards "fellow conservatives".

I hope Tom does start a 3rd party as it's obvious the other 2 are only out to fleece the people and eradicate the grass-roots element of the grand old party.

[bluebunny]

There will be a split someday. I think it's inevitable now.

[sean327]

Your last comment makes me wonder if you have been hittin' the crack pipe during your lunch hour. The 20% are the true followers of Goldwater and Reagan. We stand for the principles these men fought so hard to implement. The problem with the GOP is all the damn RINO's. I have not or will not vote for a man just because he has an R next to his name. He must prove that he stands for Conservative principles before he gets my vote . I am damn sick of having to settle for the lesser of two evils!! Whether you want to believe it or not we are at the cross roads in this country, the slightest push on the wheel to the left, and we will go down the long dark road to a Socialist nightmare.
It's time to put or shut up, and quit fighting amongst our selves and tear the Liberals to shreds!!!!

[owl]

by their conduct and open hostility towards "fellow conservatives"

It seems you don't read these posts very carefully. There's much more hostility directed at conservatives by social conservatives than there is going the other way. Who is it that uses the derisive and completely inaccurate term "RINO"?

Social conservatives have done their utmost to destroy the Republican party as a political force in California. If the polls are correct, Arnold offers an excellent chance to revive the California Republican Party and restore conservative to power.

[owl]

I don't think you remember Goldwater very well. In support of allowing gays to serve in the military he said, "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight." Even Reagan, while espousing many of the ideas of the radical right, did not push their agenda that hard when in office.

The term "RINO" is an absurdity uttered by people who are neither Republican nor conservative. The notion that Republicans are a robotic army with no capacity for independent thought is simply ridiculous.

[CheneyChick]