Replies

This is a serious question and I would be interested in your views......you say that the conservative abandoned Calif and such.....that the Repub party here is weak. Well, and again, I'm honestly anxious to hear your views cause you guys know what you are talking about...Why did the Bush Convention Committee and I assume Mehlman, Bush, Rove and others approved this, why did they showcase Giulianni, Arnold, McCain, Pataki etc at his convention and not showcase true conservatives. Did the national party also sell out in the effort to gain more moderate votes. I know you said the Calif Repub party sold out, but didn't the national party sell out as well. I voted for Bush not only because I am a Repub but thought he was the best man for the job........the same reason I voted for Arnold because I thought he had a decent chance of winning.....but what does that say for Bush and his staff that he would showcase those moderates at the expense of conservatives if only to garner votes.......I again seriously want to know your opinion on this matter because you have demonstrated your acumen of politics and have researched much of this...thank you

You won't find me commenting much on this stuff, because I am not involved in party politics. IMO, the gamesmanship has become so extreme, that there is no longer any truth in either side of the political spectrum. Tactics and strategery have overtaken principle. Without principle, no politician will truly represent me, nor can they be trusted to do what they promise.

Instead of campaign tactics, my posts will mostly deal with specifics, usually legislation, and the pros and cons. What amazes me is the lack of truth in campaigns. There is a wave toward political speech being accepted as free speech, with little need for it to be accurate, and no accountablity when it is not. The two party system is what usually kept that in check, but 'big tent' attitudes make it hard to discern what people stand for.

For example, when Gray Davis proposed selling $8 Billion in bonds (to be paid back over a 5 year period) to solve the deficit problem in 2003, the Republicans screamed, filed lawsuits, wrote articles, etc. condemning the action. (The final deficit as of July 2003 was less than $8 billion.) When Arnold came in November 2003, he proposed selling $15 Billion in bonds (to be paid over approximately a 15 year period) for the same purpose. Did the GOP scream? No, they either went silent, or lined up behind him.

I don't care whose position it was, if (D)Borrowing is bad, then (R)Borrowing should be bad also. (I personally think borrowing is destroying the state and is leading us into a death spiral). The Dems will not attack Arnold for this, as it supplements continued high spending. If members of the GOP (or fiscal conservatives) don't speak out, who will?

I am equally amazed at the GOP now lining up behind what is being called a "Spending Reform." Buried in that initiative is an additional $10 Billion (roughly) of borrowing. This is money that probably should not have been promised (these were the behind-the-scene education deals), but was to be repaid out of revenues within 3 years. The idea was, that increased reveunues would cover it. Well, there have been increased revenues, but the current budget proposal continues to spend those on other programs and shifts this $10 Billion worth of promised spending increases (debt) into the next 15 years, with interest. What happened to cutting up the credit cards?

There are also tenuous problems with the "Pension reform." It will cost more in the short term and savings, if any, will not come about for 1-2 decades. It does however shift the power to Wall St. There are some big power plays happening that are not necessarily in the best interest of California, IMO.

Last year, we saw Arnold promote the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, something that JF Kennedy, Jr. put into AS's "environmental platform." This was an outrageous assault on property rights, one of the fundamental rights of United States citizens and a passionate issue among conservatives who value liberty. Those kind of actions cannot be easily undone, if at all.

The issues I have are ones that extend way beyond Arnold. It isn't him, or wanting him not to succeed. It is all about holding him accountable to his promises and avoiding long-term missteps that we will have to live with for years after his name is in the history book.

I hope someone else can answer your question more directly. But hopefully you understand my motivations more than before.

Did the national party also sell out in the effort to gain more moderate votes?

I assume that this query was sarcasm. Just in case someone, a new lurker, not so sophisticated, read this; here's the answer.

While the Republican Party did not exactly "sell out" it did in fact, under the guidance of Carl Rove, embark upon a course to eliminate the Democrat Party. This tact has the Republican Party headed left of center in an effort to collapse the allegiance of at least two key constituents of the Democrat Party; blacks and Hispanics.

This tact has drawn criticism from many conservatives and the division it has created is best manifest in two areas. Immigration "reform" and the size of government.

I'm honestly anxious to hear your views cause you guys know what you are talking about...Why did the Bush Convention Committee and I assume Mehlman, Bush, Rove and others approved this, why did they showcase Giulianni, Arnold, McCain, Pataki etc at his convention and not showcase true conservatives.

Worse, why did Carl Rove arrange for the appointment of the current CAGOP leadership, especially Gerry Parsky, who has refused to support ANY conservative Republican nominee?

That's just what happens when we elect GOP moderates. Think Pete Wilson, or Nixon.

?I know you said the Calif Repub party sold out, but didn't the national party sell out as well.

It did indeed, but you have to understand the hierarchy.

However inept Bill Simon's campaign may have seemed, the worst of it was done by his own Party. Had the CAGOP supported their candidate wholeheartedly, Simon would be governor now, despite that ineptitude (which one has to question considering the way he crushed Dick Riordan). As it was, Gerry Parsky and the GOP leadership refused to raise the money promised when they took the job, withheld funds raised by President Bush until Simon's campaign manager (Sal Russo) signed the Log Cabin letter, Parsky refused to fund GOTV or registration efforts, and stipulated Simon hire Wilson/Jones (remember "Fire Gray Davis"?) and Ed Rollins (the famous fundraising photo) as campaign consultants. As a result, Simon lost by 350,000 votes when 1.6 MILLION registered Republicans didn't vote.

That Simon came as close as he did with those kinds of handicaps is PROOF that a competent conservative CAN win. That's the dirty little secret of the California Republican Party, and the one thing they don't want is for those who would otherwise support Tom McClintock, but don't believe he can win, to realize it.

Consider Bill Jones recent campaign. ALL of the funds raised and ALL of the organizational effort in California last year went to the Bush campaign. After Jones beat conservative Howard Kaloogian in the primary, he took the expected dive in the general election getting zero support from the CAGOP.

The behavior of GOP "moderates" during the Simon campaign is the principal reason I have so little patience for Arnold supporters when they demand I support him. They put up Riordan, lost, screwed a conservative in Bill Simon, lost, resisted the recall petition drive, lost, and then inserted their "centrist" excuse for a Republican telling us to support him while accusing conservatives of splitting the vote! They were perfectly happy to keep Gray Davis until conservatives succeeded in the petition drive despite them and then get crappy when we don't fall in line behind them.

So, let's say conservatives supported Arnold, will the GOP leadership EVER support another conservative candidate? The record says, no way. They'll expect us to keep giving them money, keep doing the legwork, and keep accepting the consequences for their "social liberalism," which ends up costing the State a fortune and manufactures ever more Democrat dependents... for what?

There was a time when I thought a forum like this would consolidate (boil) political opinion down to the bare bones of conservatism. In some ways it has. In other ways it hasn't.

It seems that most of us have a fairly common view of what conservatism is. The problem is how best to achieve the most conservative society we can. I can tell you what my views regarding your question are. Others will come along and make valid points that contradict what I have to say. You'll wind up having to sift through the offerings to develop your own unified theory of relativity. And that is as it should be.

One person on this thread came along and posted some September 2003 stats regarding McClintock versus Bustamante. Those stats seemed to indicate that McClintock could have won that match-up. Would those numbers have shifted before election day? I would imagine so. I simply don't know if that would have helped Tom or not. The question is academic at best, because the field expanded. Once the field expanded, the game was over in my opinion. There is a sizable faction of California posters on this forum that is convinced Tom would have won if I and others had been more supportive of him in 2003. I don't think that is true, but it is a view that they hold none the less.

The very moment that Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show, I thought the election was over. I thought that he was the 300 lb gorilla in the room, and that he would suck all the (press) oxygen out of it. I did not see the other two men gaining any traction for that reason. That was my take then. That is my take today. I did not think the Republican party that masterminded Schwarzenegger entering the race was going to be instrumental in helping McClintock in any material way. Without that help, I didn't see him as having a snowball's chance in hell of being viable.

A lot of people don't see it this way, but I tried to stay neutral regarding McClintock as late as possible in the race. I voiced my thoughts on his viability, but I tried not to damn folks for supporting either side until after the absentee ballots started being cast. To varying degrees, I think I did a fairly good job of that. Some won't see it that way, because they were desirous of me throwing my full support behind Tom. Had I thought he was viable, I would have supported him. Some call this expedience. Hey, perhaps they are right. I am comfortable with having voted for Schwarzenegger, because I didn't think Tom had a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, and there wasn't one chance out of 1 gazillion trillion quintillion (if there were such a thing) that I would take a chance on a separatist sympathizer being elected governor.

When Schwarzenegger does things we don't like, there are those who remind others and myself that we should have known what we would get. That's to be expected. They are still frustrated by the outcome of that election and this is their opportunity to neutralize a little of the sting from that defeat. I knew what we were going to get with Schwarzenegger. I suffered no delusions about what his Governorship would produce for the state. There's no convincing them that Bustamante could have possibly been elected, although they are convinced that Tom could have been, and he got roughly one half the votes Cruz did. Some will probably address this issue on this thread. That's life.

We didn't like what Bill Clinton was. He was the consummate production of a new political animal crafted by a political strategy known as "The Third Way". The Third Way was a new connivance that sought to pass off a candidate as something he wasn't, in ways that hadn't been tried as slickly and deviously before. Whether one agrees with this or not, it was an acknowledged tactic, with the obvious results. The media played off Bill Clinton as a brilliant individual with sterling political credentials, and the better men lost. I would argue that to a certain extent the same tactics were used when Bush ran for the Presidency. His compassionate conservatism was a way to reach out to leftists. Once again, others will disagree, but I see both Bill Clinton and George Bush as going against the political grain at certain points in their presidencies.

Bill Clinton, faced with reality, championed welfare reform. (Like he had an option with a Republican Congress) George Bush championed a medicinal enhancement to Medicare. Clinton had the Republican Congress force upon him fiscal responsibility. With Bush, this same Congress opened the purse strings for massive spending, above and beyond the needs of military and security matters. The lines of what is and isn't conservative, have been smeared almost beyond recognition. Some people understand this and draw meaning from it. Others deny it. Those who accept it, have varying opinions about the overall impact of it. These varying takes cause dissension among the ranks. I feel this is incredibly divisive. It splinters the rank and file. The end result is that we bicker within our own ranks. We are weakened by this.

On this very thread, we have people who desire the same things mostly. Rather than focus on that, we focus on our differences. Some can't wait to engage the debate, winning a small skirmish but doing nothing for our overall endgame strategy.

Each of us wants smaller government, lower taxes, restored land rights, the lives of the unborn protected, the sovereignty of our borders respected. the laws of our nation adhered to. With a Republican party returned to sound conservative values, we'd all be pulling in the same direction. For whatever reason, the Republican party has deemed this not to be desirable. Through triangulation, they provide the bare-bones requirements that will allow us to vote for a candidate, and that's generally against the vilest of opponents. Schwarzenegger/Bustamante, Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, what choice was there?

I'm not here to trash Bush. A lot of what I have said to this point could be construed that way. That's not my goal. A reality check is my goal. Over the next twelve months we have some of the most important issues that will ever face our republic. Premier among them is the move to create a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. The FTAA is a surrender of our sovereignty to a non-governmental organization (NGO), that will see something like two representatives from every member nation, sit on a committee that will decide policies on behalf of member states. When it starts, Canada, Mexico and the United States will be members. Our two representatives will go up against four representatives of other states (Canada and Mexico). That doesn't sound too good with regard to our chances of prevailing on issues, does it? How much better will it be when Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama, Brazil, Belize, Peru and all the other American nations are members? We will have two representatives buried among fifty. This is one program our leaders are thrilled to be considering on our behalf.

Triangulation has brought us this reality. Triangulation has brought us Schwarzenegger. It has brought us Bush. It has brought us open borders. It's about to bring us a situation where trade and anything even remotely related to it, and many things you didn't think were, will be determined by a transnational NGO. And here we sit bickering, neither side willing to give an inch when it comes to a governor who is a travesty to the state, yet seemingly the only option to many of us on election day 2003.

Was Bush right to use the people you mentioned at the convention? I believe so. Being the person selected by the party, he should have done whatever it took to get elected. What he did succeeded.

We are not fortunate today to have the people we do in office. We are damned fortunate not to have the people we could have had. I'll be the first to state that these blanket comments are somewhat flawed. None the less, overall, they are true. Bush has been brilliant with regard to Iraq. We avoided biting the bullet when Schwarzenegger got the driver's licenses for illegals repealed.

On many issues, these man have both been miserable failures. The Sierra Conservancy was Schwarzenegger's worst. The push for a new worker program for illegals has been Bush's. His medicinal enhancement of Medicare was a close second. His increase of the education department budget was a close third. If he pushes through the FTAA, it will be the most flawed policy pushed through by any president since we became a nation.

Those who oppose Schwarzenegger should read the following closely. As a person who voted for him, I'm going to say something that is important. Voting for a person who doesn't support your values, yet runs from your party, is the most surefire way to make sure your policy preferences will NEVER be implemented, that there is. Whether it be Arnold Schwarzenegger, or George W. Bush, conservatism will be eviscerated as long as either remains in office. Despite this reality, there are worse things. Our policy preferences could be destroyed at an even faster rate under people like Kerry and Bustamante.

We simply must put aside the bickering between us. I may be as dumb as a brick, but those who wish to drive through conservatism need me as much as I need them. We should be looking for the next 'great white hope' (just being figurative folks, don't get excited) right now, so that in the spring of 2006, we can drive them through to victory, in a closed to outside parties primary. If we don't, we're going to see Schwarzenegger win that primary because none of us will want what the other side foists upon the electorate.

Folks, it isn't 2003 anymore. I'm happy to see stats that prove what a miserable failure Schwarzenegger has been. It's just that I'm not convinced that any of us is suffering any delusions about what kind of a governor he was going to be, or has been. I voted for him. I supported his first borrowing. I did not approve of his high Sierra fiasco. I will not approve of any future borrowing. I will not vote for him again, unless I am forced to. I will only be forced to, if we spend our time bickering and fail to loft a sound conservative candidate that can beat him and the democrat challenger.

As conservatives, we are in a world of hurt in this nation. We have people in office that are willing to sell out much of what makes us who we are as a nation. Frankly, the choices have not been the greatest, for us to be able to avoid this situation. And now we either must put our past differences aside and come up with a game-plan, or we are doomed.

That's how I see it for the state. That's how I see it for the nation.