BP = before present. 
Posted on 07/02/2005 2:33:57 PM PDT by calcowgirl
LONDON - In a British newspaper editorial, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged governments - including that of President George W. Bush - to face up the reality of global warming.
"The debate is over," he wrote in Britain's Independent on Sunday newspaper.
"We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate. And we know the time for action is now."
Climate change is one of the major issues to be discussed at this week's summit of the G8 wealthy nations at Gleneagles in Scotland.
But reports suggest that Bush is blocking a deal on action to tackle it and that Washington is unwilling even to sign up to a document which states that global warming is occurring or that human activity is responsible for it.
Schwarzenegger did not mention Bush by name, but called on "governments everywhere" to join action to combat climate change.
He contradicted Bush's claims that taking action will damage the U.S. economy.
"Global warming threatens California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastlines and forests - our entire economy and way of life," Schwarzenegger wrote.
"We have no choice but to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Schwarzenegger has vowed to make California a leader in the battle against global warming, calling on the state to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while increasing use of renewable energy.
He believes that developing cutting-edge environmental technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells will conserve energy, curb pollution, protect natural resources - and be good for business.
Last month, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order that calls for reducing the state's emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
"These steps are great for the environment but great for our economy, too," Schwarzenegger wrote in the Independent on Sunday.
"Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy.
"Nothing could be further from the truth. In California, we will do both."
The source of that population increase is demographically not as strong economically, and you know it.
Of course I know it; the increase is not due to legit enterprise (and employees) ENTERING the state.
crooked put-up Arnold who will eventually bring discredit to the GOP because of his policies (just as Wilson did).
Excuse me? Wilson brought discredit.. exactly HOW.
It was dishonest and virtiolic posters like FareOpinion who led that effort here, relying primarily upon the the bogus claim that Arnold was a fiscal conservative.
Did you ping FairOpinion to this post of yours? I have no idea whether the poster did or did NOT do this.
Here's what I do know. Bill Simon and Tom McClintock -- blessedly fine, intelligent men.
I'd been away from FR for a bit.
I come back on to see Tom McClintock supporters behaving as bitter ideologues in this forum.
Tom McClintock does not write, sound, or act this way. But his FR supporters did. They went personal, calling everyone who wasn't in ideologic chime with them a "rhino". In defense of positive McClintock supporters -- who kept their discourse to the ISSUES, and not going personal -- BRAVO.
Just as some posters in FR love watching political head-ons at DU; there are liberals who enjoyed so greatly, republicans bashing in the heads of other Republicans -- in this forum. Is it such a smart thing to do? No. Not in my experience or opinion. What I saw here in FR gave me a whole newer understanding of "Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow...". I saw it not as an "loyalty" oath; but that from what I saw, it struck me that ideologic speechification on both right and left on the "total Recall" election drove many straight to voting for Arnold. Like there's not enough brawling in CA, already, right? Besides, what else I couldn't understand?
El Rushbo, all talk radio was SUPPORTING McClintock (and Simon). And Arnold won. Folks can draw from this whatever they wish to.
In Europe, the politically dominant are bankers. The "global warming" scam is designed for international bankers to cash in on carbon taxes. They'll use the taxes to hamper production in the industrialized world and invest in the corrupt developing world. They believe that the tax advantages they'll enjoy will insure a fat return.
Brilliantly stated.
me: Lastly, do any of you think Tom McClintock will plan another run for Governor soon?
You: The GOP leadership will do everything in its power to stop that. That's why the fight here between conservatives and CAGOP surrogates. Don't look for it to end soon.
Carry-Okie, I agree with you fully -- it isn't going to stop soon.
I was in a meeting today with some very astute people in my new locale -- discussing politics. What many do seem to grasp? The problems besetting each region are different.
The biggest problem which beset CA long ago, IMHO, began with the MSM only focusing upon "imaging" CA as the land of flakes and "anything" goes. Didn't matter the majority of the state was conservative. Anyone from any OTHER state or ANY OTHER COUNTRY began to giggle and titter whenever the word "California" was mentioned. The MSM created the image of ALL CA, and all Californian's as flaming goofs and liberals. It was a lie. Every single Republican and Conservative politician in CALIFORNIA has had to battle this image. Not just within the US; but abroad. That was the first strike by the liberal MSM, IMHO.
Most people are simply unaware of how conservative the state is. However, the "population" centers remain near water and localized predominantly within SF and LA. Conservative politicians for over 30 years have not only been waging a stand within CA; but have had to fight off this "image". And in so doing, many have attempted a posturing that would coalesce with the "image" in order to co-opt a LIBERAL STEREOTYPE. What has happened in the meantime? Liberal Socialists (CA DEMS) continue to pass laws which make it harder and harder to fight the corruption existent within the CA system; but at the image and vote levels. Voter fraud has been a problem for so long in CA -- who the heck even tries to address it, anymore. The numbers suggest that even were Republicans to harp on this issue; the press would go full court homage to usual blather by the Dems ("Racists, homophobes, starving the children, ad nauseum") rant. That's where the "moderate" position comes into play: someone attempting to balance PRAGMATICALLY what is: AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE ALL WISHED IT WAS.
CA Repubs tried time and time again to pass BILLS in legislature to combat VOTE FRAUD -- every single time, shot down by the CA Democratic party.
So, now there's history -- there's the part of the CAGOP trying to hold to the old standard of "conservative" operations, and then there's a newer one (Freepers refer to that as "moderate") attempting by another means to rebuild the state -- as in attempting to get the state to a more "conservative" viability as a whole state. The state of CA has been the single largest stronghold of Democrat policies of any state of the union.
And you know what else? Most all our buddies in the other states have laughed at us for years and years -- suggesting that "we" brought this on ourselves. NOw, many of these states citizen's are seeing the very insidious socialist ILLs in their own states. And what are they saying? "save us!" ??? CA conservative have been silenced and censored in a big way for almost 30 years.
The socialists have fleeced CA. They are now hungry to fleece the red states.
I know many people who were very upset by the standoff between McClintock and Arnold supporters. It tore them up. Some took the position that the corruption was so far gone, that voting for McClintock was akin to closing the barn door after the cows had escaped.
Yes, there is a "rent" in the CAGOP. The bitterness is very apparent. And conservative CAGOP members who've been brawling all these years against socialist policies understandably are furious.
I don't pretend to know what the solution is. Except this: Hearing or reading the hate-bashing rhetoric (in re moderates) from the usual socialist suspects in CA, and then witnessing same from within the conservative CAGOP isn't necessarily going to awaken folks. It seems just as fearmongering as the left. Even tho it may be right. I just don't see how it's going to attract more CA GOP voters.
A tax increase, corrupt adoption and application of MTBE, and blind advocacy for large corporate interests at the expense of the GOP small business and land owner base, particularly via the use of regulatory government.
By the time Wilson was done, the State was at least in good fiscal shape, but education was visibly declining and the GOP small business/resource landownership base was being crushed under regulations, while all Lungren could offer was anti-abortion (not popular) and crime protection, while running against a tough-against-crime Davis who promised better treatment on environmental and educational issues.
Did you ping FairOpinion to this post of yours? I have no idea whether the poster did or did NOT do this.
I neglected to do so on that post, but she's been flagged to this thread so many times by me and others that it is inconsequential if you look over the thread.
I come back on to see Tom McClintock supporters behaving as bitter ideologues in this forum.
Well you should have seen the treatment we got during the campaign. It was ugly character assassination without supporting data, in a manner similar to what was done to Simon.
Just as some posters in FR love watching political head-ons at DU; there are liberals who enjoyed so greatly, republicans bashing in the heads of other Republicans -- in this forum. Is it such a smart thing to do? No. Not in my experience or opinion.
Well you should have seen what happened during the Simon campaign. It was gruesome. He may have been inept, but his funding was witheld, he was forced to accept a set of rotten campaign consultants, there was a zero GOTV effort, and there was deliberate sabotage of his base support. He lost by 325,000 votes with 1.6 million Republicans failing to vote.
When Davis showed to be the disaster he promised to be, the conservative base started the recall OVER PARTY OBJECTIONS. When the "leadership" couldn't stop the recall, they highjacked it with Arnold. Don't believe for an instant that this was an unplanned move. Arnold has been under the wing of Wilson campaign advisor, Bob White, for nearly a decade.
Arnold belongs to EXACTLY the same financial interests Davis and Wilson did. I ask that you read this post (it's part of a long and heated discussion) to understand how that could be. If you want more, consider this analysis of Arnold's environmental policy.
The biggest problem which beset CA long ago, IMHO, began with the MSM only focusing upon "imaging" CA as the land of flakes and "anything" goes.
With regard to your political thesis (and without delving into Antonio Gramsci's precedence to the Frankfurt School that infested California with cultural Marxism), consider that the transition you cite, though it began to take shape in public policy with Jerry Brown, was continued under Republican administration. The reason is simple: Republicans have done a rotten job explaining to the public why conservative social principles are necessary to long term economic prosperity and political freedom. As such, "moderates" within the Party have combined with leftists to institute policies that have manufactured more government dependents, ideological leftists, and social misfits. This is yet another reason why Arnold is so destructive to conservative principles.
That's where the "moderate" position comes into play: someone attempting to balance PRAGMATICALLY what is: AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE ALL WISHED IT WAS.
Here I disagree with you, because of the feed-forward loop to which I referred: "moderate" public policy produces more cultural Marxists. It is no compromise. What conservatives have failed to do is to show how their policies benefit traditional Slave Party constituencies: the urban poor, immigrants, children, etc.
If you freepmail me an email address, I'll send you a seventy page draft booklet I've cooked up to address just that problem.
CA Repubs tried time and time again to pass BILLS in legislature to combat VOTE FRAUD -- every single time, shot down by the CA Democratic party.
And elected "moderates" like Bill Jones who did NOTHING about it when they had the opportunity. As I said, there is a reason you'll understand with that post on the energy crisis.
...there's a newer one (Freepers refer to that as "moderate") attempting by another means to rebuild the state -- as in attempting to get the state to a more "conservative" viability as a whole state.
This is historically incorrect. This battle was going on when Reagan ran against George Christopher. It's nothing new. It was the same when California elected Earl Warren. Look what happened there?
Socialism is good for the wealthy, because they can buy a government with the power to deliver the goods. Conservatives who believe in limited government are incapable of raising those funds.
The socialists have fleeced CA. They are now hungry to fleece the red states.
By undermining them demographically. It won't take much because:
I don't pretend to know what the solution is.
I think I do. It isn't via any attempt to re-unite the GOP. It will come via direct contact from conservatives to voters at large, showing them how the "center" has been high-jacked by the corporate elite, and how conservative policies are better for them. I don't know if you knew, but that is what I have been doing on the environmental front.
I am no expert on global warming, but see enough conflicting "scientific" information to make me a skeptic. I also see many politicians and activist organizations using questionable "science" to impose unwarranted and burdensome laws and regulation on business and society, driving us to more socialism (while at the same time enriching themselves from businesses benefiting from implementation of same regulations). If those promoting this type of wrong-minded action have an (R) by their name, they can only be held accountable by other (R)s.
Our two party system provides a system of checks and balances. When one sways too far left or right, the other side will reel them in. Instead of judging an action based on the letter by one's name, I try to look only at the action. If a politician proposes a tax increase, does it matter whether they have an (R) or (D) by their name? If a politician promotes use of emminent domain, violating an individuals right to private property, does it matter whether they have an (R) or (D) by their name?
You seem to want to explain the phenomena happening in the party on 'sore losers.' You are way off base here, IMO. It has to do with keeping a set of checks and balances in place. The current administration is promoting actions that swing too far to the left and greatly deviate from a platform of smaller government, freedom, etc. If (R)s don't oppose this, who will?
When the various actions taken by this governor are highlighted on these threads, instead of acknowledging the fact that they are taking us in the wrong direction, many party faithfuls attempt to justify these actions by bringing up Bustamante, McClintock, etc. The election is over, done, kaput. Those comments are tiresome, and despite being proven wrong with links, analysis, etc., continue to be posted here time and time again. They are successful in doing one thing: taking the focus off the real issue, that we have an administration that is proposing leftist actions with absolutely no opposition.
Gray Davis was viciously attacked (rightfully so) for proposing to use debt to fund the State's operating expenses ($8 Billion in bonds). Yet party faithfuls fully supported an action far worse than this when proposed by the current administration ($15 Billion in bonds). I see post after post talking about how we need to support the reforms proposed by Arnold on the upcoming ballot. Yet, if you read some of those reforms, you find that they do not improve the things they are touted to be (e.g. the 'Spending Cap' measure authorizes yet more borrowing--to the tune of about $10 Billion).
Many people on these threads seem to think principles no longer matter, dismissing them by calling people "idealogues." Should we abandon all of our ideals, as long as there is an (R) in office? Ideals are the thing that distinguish (D)s from (R)s. Both have ideals, they are just very different. I will continue to oppose things that further the socialist ideals of the (D)s. Those things include many of the actions proposed by this (R) governor. Taxpayer subsidized 'after school programs', taxpayer subsidized solar roofs, taxpayer subsidized hydrogen highways, taxpayer subsidized stem-cell research, socialistic conservancies for economic development, continued high spending on social programs, etc. etc. etc.
The latest action taken by Arnold, standing with Kofi Annan, Al Gore, Gavin Newsom, et al at World Environment Day, declaring war on Global Warming is just another example of the leftist ideals being promoted by an (R) administration. Writing an editorial for a foreign publication, promoting this leftist dribble, is even more outrageous.
If it had been Gray Davis doing this, instead of Arnold, what would be the reaction here at FR? I think you know the answer. I need to steal from NormsRevenge tagline here:
"To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON
Fantastic discourse! Bravo!! Encore!!! (In other words... I really liked what you said!!!)(Spoken in a way I always thought I would hear FReepers speaking!!!)
sorry, i do not have a subscription to the wall street journal. i buy it at the newstand.
they've covered this global warming in an excellent manner.
just last week the reprinted again in an editorial the graph of temperatures from the middle ages to the present.
like you, i am not an expert. i'm repeating what i read.
the graph shows an increase in temperatures from about 1000 a.d. to 1500 a.d., and then the temperatures drop significantly, only rising again recently.
now here's the grab: the wsj says that a liberal scientist did a "study" and concluded that the medieval temp rises did not happen! the wsj says he's wrong.
anyway, if one accepts the liberal scientist, then the result is the so-called "hockey stick graph", i.e., withOUT the medieval temps, then the graph is horizontal until you get to the 20th c when the temps go up.
hockey stick, get it?
lol! the wsj says it's a joke. they've said this for years.
ken
The current administration is promoting actions that swing too far to the left and greatly deviate from a platform of smaller government, freedom, etc. If (R)s don't oppose this, who will?
What is more important to point out is that Schwarzenegger ran on the platform of smaller, more fiscally responsible government. He posed as a fiscal conservative invoking fiscal restraint. Since he won, HIS budgets have increased the rate of spending growth by 50%. While he ran, Arnold invoked regulatory restraint citing the teachings of Milton Friedman. At the same time, he published an environmental plan that promised the exact opposite. Arnold promised that he would not be a tool of special interests, while he was SIMULTANEOUSLY dragging down big buck donations from Wall Street, big real estate developers, and energy interests, ALL of whom stood to cash in on his proposals.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has systematically violated his promises in spades to such a degree as to render them callous and calculated dishonesty at the time they were made. His supportes were warned that such was the case and conservatives were loudly ridiculed for making Arnold's true colors apparent. Who will hold him accountable before his supporters by making that record visible? The media won't do it. The GOP won't do it. It's up to conservatives to do that job lest we get more of this fiscally and economically disastrous governance. That's why I do it, because I am sick and tired of "moderates" claiming that such management is an economic panacea and not the corrupt corporate gravy train it really is. It won't and can't work and I won't have conservative Republicans painted with that brush as a consequence.
BP = before present.
I concur. :)
Very nicely put, ccg.
:)
Part of what I do find difficult is what I consider the "isolation" issue. Permit me to try to explain this. It's something I've been contemplating for quite some time. (I'm not an economist; versed in the linguistics of "economics"). Ergo I use plain speak here.
We have moved into a newer century of trade unparalleled. Of interactions all across the world, unparalleled. (China excepted for known reasons). As I watched more and more foreign investors not only buying up American businesses, but stationing here domestically. I wondered then about "capitalism". Leftist assert that capitalism is evil; but they are huge practioners of the economic practice of "capitalism"; and their marketing programs all involve the politics of "humanism". (The standard "feed the children" linguistics.)
I saw that if America did not likewise work to maintain an edge in the "global" market, we were going to become inheritors of the dictates from another (or other countries). The late 80s and 90s saw fewer people saving and investing; and more simply consuming their income with material (non asset) goods. Tax increases are used, as I understand these, as principally "give outs" (pork) or as asset leverage in investments. In CA, the socialist capitalists had so thoroughly saturated the "market" with advertisings, the stock markets were being saturated with foreign dollars. To stay competitive, Republicans sought to outbuy the socialist capitalists in currying foreign trade and investments in THEIR countries.
I suppose one could say, our Republicans were building allies in the newer markets with their own brand of trade.
I was a small business owner in the 90s, under the Clinton Admin, crushed by their policies. And I do not forget the retro-active tax they levied on Americans. I saw that (retro-tax), at the time, as a quick infusion of cash for the Democrats to play "foreign and domestic games" with.
Ultimately, what does it all boil down to: Who's got the money. Every socialist will deny it, except maybe George Soros. Republicans are upfront about "business".
When conservatives were screaming at Republicans as being "members of the "evil" CFR" I understood their lament; but it didn't make sense to me. If you want to be on the cutting edge you've got to be near your competitors.
Laura Bush recently spoke at a WEF event. I watched to see if any in this forum dare speak ill of her, or refer to her as taking part in the "conspiracy in the "sameness" of the two parties"; but I didn't observe that happen. Americans really, really like and respect First Lady Laura Bush. But she went to where the power brokers meet. And, I applaud her for it. I've been watching after results -- seems to me Democrats are getting more desperate than ever; which tells me some "money" international interests may have moved in another direction. Dems are obviously upset.
President George Bush I, raised taxes; and did not get re-elected. President Bill Clinton not only raised taxes; his admin made some of those increases RETRO-ACTIVE. Not a word.
Yes, I was a Bill Simon supporter. I observed what happened. Didn't like it. But if big monied interests are not going to throw their weight behind Simon; nor will the Republicans - especially in a state like CA. I know this seems rather unprincipled. But if the "big donor" base, those with the large mega corps aren't going to be there to support the agenda, what's there to do? Win the battle but lose the war?
What conservatives have failed to do is to show how their policies benefit traditional Slave Party constituencies: the urban poor, immigrants, children, etc.
And in CA, those who do so, don't win. How many times have we seen this at local levels? Pete Wilson took some VERY unpopular stands. And got his head handed to him; primarily through the media artistic craft known as MSM, and their allied "monied interests". And Pete Wilson *had* political chips to play with. He still got it handed to him.
In re yours regarding Wilson and Davis using the same...Arnold belongs to EXACTLY the same financial interests Davis and Wilson did. political "financial interests". Can you name me exactly WHICH other "financial interest" org Repubs should be going to? Dems keep winning in CA. Which "other" financial interest would better benefit Republicans? What this all suggests to me, is not that Repubs are losers, per se -- but you go with the company that brings you results. Those "corporations" are running the boat, and that's what infuriates Republicans and conservatives alike, IMHO. Show me the alternative. Better Growth for America -- Steve xxx's org seems to be growing quite neatly. It could do with more supporting members. There are some I've read who will not give this "alternative newer rising org" any money and because they say: Ah! It'll turn into another Repub Sell-out.
So, what's the alternative to dealing with huge corporations and monies which are indeed what every country is interested in?
Everyone WANTS THEIR CUT -- right down to the local level. Telling your employees that "no raise today because we're standing in rebellion, or God's truth, or "humanistic endeavors" only cuts ice for a bit. Every single person, right on down to the lawn mower guy wants to make MORE money. And I'm not even addressing those on "benefits" who want more money. When the Dems came out with the SENIORS eating "dog food" I just about split my gut laughing -- their own party -- DEMS raised taxations on all levels, making it harder for the "subsistance Joe" to survive on a dole check. Who'd these folks scream at "Republicans"!! I think Republicans have gotten the message. And they learned it from the Dems: Money talks and BS walks.
I am not anti-corporation. Large or small. It's what people do. And have done so ever since they could figure out what to put on their shingle. The true socialists have a saying: "We have to destroy the village in order to save it"; but Hillary suggests the destroyed village is necessary to raise good Democrat voters. I wish individual conservatives had more money. I wish I had more money; and I'm always trying to learn ways to become more comfortable. I do so through honest, ernest means. Not through hand-outs. And making others pay for My Comfort.
What does this mean? I still have plenty of choices in this country. If I'm willing to stand up for them. If I'm willing to deal with the consequences of my choices. If I stand up to government and lose; its going to hurt. Next time, I'll try a smarter tact when making this choice.
Let me tell you what I saw in the 80s and 90s -- NOT ENOUGH CITIZENS STANDING UP. I also got to see this in the new "red states" -- this belief that the "worst" cannot happen here" mentality. It can! It does! Huge, vested monied interests are running us all in a myriad of directions. It's fine and great to stand up for the constitution. That's A-OKAY WITH ME! But, in order to support our constitution, an infusion of money to actually combat the "investors" socialist agenda is a very important matter.
Dems say that Repubs are "overly money focused". What a BS charge when it was the Dems who launched the "personal is political" and the "total honesty" media blitzkriegs (campaigns) on the heels of Watergate. And they continue to rake in big bucks and while "denouncing" capitalism "publically".
So, what is wrong with Republicans buying up positions and large stock shares to counter the BS? Shareholders have a say; board members and large share holders have an even bigger say. That's smart playing. Because that's what is really boils down to: "interests".
Socialism is good for the wealthy, because they can buy a government with the power to deliver the goods. Conservatives who believe in limited government are incapable of raising those funds.
Yes, they are. They have only just begun forming their own PACS and coalitions. Libertarians and Greenies barter also for a "place at the table" -- they can't build funds and because they are caught on the horns of their own ideology: Do we play; or do we support "feelings". Ergo, if Libertarians promote the ideology of "me, mine" they can maintain a base. Greenies play the socialist "for the children" hand which brings their funds (not much, I add, too many of their own players are in on the dole ergo, there's not much money there).
I see the bigger hand as "do we maintain America as a sovereign nation" versus "do we give up and give foreign countries their sway". It all comes from those so-called "evil" board meetings and CFR, and Trilateral and WEF forums -- that's where the players meet and greet. Play fluff, and you'll not get very far. Offer a better deal than your opponent, folks who follow the money will back you - and no matter where they are based in the world.
The left screams that "capitalism" is evil -- while they support capitalism unwittingly. They go for the "human agenda"; but those in the know in the socialist circles know EXACTLY the importance of money.
The problem is, the everyday person in conservatism knows this too. Money is important. You can give the best speech in the world, full of truth and power; but unless you have the "powers" to back it up? It doesn't fly very far.
By undermining them demographically. It won't take much because: Most red states are not heavily populated, and Federal regulations are depopulating rurual areas
Very astute. You are right. The same forces which "overtook" CA and a lot of this country in re: investors -- is coming right at them. I pray they can stop intraparty bickering, and pull it together to fight this onslaught. I wonder if the base will be just as befuddled as Californian's were way back then -- thinking "it just *couldn't* happen here".
I very much look forward to reading what you've put together Carry-Okie. You've excellent insights. Check freepmail.
From the WSJ:
To add it all up, the Earth is slightly warmer than it used to be a century ago, but no one knows why. Even if fossil fuels were the cause, Kyoto would make little difference, especially with China and India understandably bent on oil-fueled growth to lift their citizens out of poverty. And a warmer Earth may not be any worse than a colder one, certainly not for the longer growing seasons it would allow in the world's temperate zones. None of this justifies passing, for the first time, limits on greenhouse gases that would impose hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance costs on American energy production.
Thanks SW. Sometimes I just have to speak out, LOL.
As always, Republican Party loyalists are amusing.
Those who are bashing duplicitous politicians like Schwarzenegger and his opportunistic backers aren't doing so to attract or distract anyone from or to the Republican Party.
Their idea, along with the intent of this forum is to promote conservatism, not political parties. Political parties didn't evict Grey Davis, won't lead California back to financial solvency and are not a haven for the majority of the electorate in California.
If the Democrats run a conservative against a liberal Republican (ala Schwarzenegger) in 2006, almost 20% of the registered Republican electorate will vote for the Democrat. This bazaar crossover would be courtesy of the duplicitous nature of Schwarzenegger who while masquerading as a fiscal conservative has turned out to be the biggest spender in the state's history driving the state deeper into debt than all of his predecessors combined. The Republican Party in California would also share the blame since they shut the conservatives out of the partisan, political, primary process in the state.
And that's why your candidates are always winning? Is this an example of how you convince people to vote for your candidate?
Okay, try another tact. You say you are fighting for conservative principles. I believe that. And, I agree with it. Give me your choice candidate with the moneyed backers, and we'll both have a winner.
| Candidate | Votes | Pct. | Spent ($MM) |
| Steve Westly | Moderate Democrat | 45.4 | $10.6 |
| Tom McClintock | Conservative Republican | 45.1 | $2.0 |
| Result? The conservative got no support from the GOP, was outspent 5:1 by a moderate Democrat, and nearly won anyway. |
|||
| Candidate | Votes | Vote Pct. | Spent ($MM) |
| Cruz M. Bustamante | Leftist Democrat | 49.5 | $4.6 |
| Bruce Mc Pherson | Moderate Republican | 41.8 | $2.8 |
| Result? The “moderate” Republican darling of the GOP got lots of support, was outspent only 1.6:1 by an extreme leftist with no credibility, the "electable" GOP "moderate" LOST by a margin NINE TIMES larger than the unsupported conservative in the same election. Sources: vote2002.ss.ca.gov So much for "moderates are more electable in California." |
|||
Consider Bill Jones recent campaign. Virtually all of the funds raised and ALL of the organizational effort in California last year went to the Bush campaign. Once a pro-life Jones with a record of a statewide victory as SOS beat conservative Howard Kaloogian in the primary, he took the expected dive in the general election getting zero support from the CAGOP, IMO, voluntarily.
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. Would the GOP leadership EVER support another conservative candidate if we did? 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?
If it were offered that political power derives from the barrel of a gun wielded in the street by a mob of firm resolve what would be the prescription of a political hack?
Would it be to disarm the mob through legislation, or exclude them from participation by reneging on due process and tradition or should the self anointed among the republican few meet in private to represent the best interests of their constituents?
From a conservative perspective, all three, contemporaneous, executive remedies sound like a recipe for revolt or disaster or both.
Above all there is not a question whether Arnold Schwarzenegger is a conservative or a moderate. He is neither. His actions are those of a self serving opportunist who stumbled onto the train as the populist, conservative revolt left the station.
I do. President Bush arranged for the appointment of Gerry Parsky to control the money in the CAGOP. Parsky has a personal vendetta against the Simon family because he was trying to screw an Arab in a real estate deal and Bill Simon Sr. would have nothing to do with it. Parsky ate $300,000.
So when Bill Jr. ran, Parsky had control of the CAGOP money. He insisted Sal Russo sign Bill's name to the famed Log Cabin letter before he would release the money raised by President Bush. That pissed off the base. The rest is history. He starved the campaign early for GOTV money and put his backstabbing shills in as the consulting staff after the Log Cabin disaster. It was Ed Rollins who produced the bogus fundraising letter that was the final straw.
And they weren't paying attention when he encouraged and allowed that snivelly Mel Dymally to insert UN language in a bill to usurp CA constitutional law. Man, that was the lowest paid billing on "news" I'd ever seen.
Didn't hear about that one, but I'd like to know more.
Do I understand the feeling of being "used"? Heck yeah.
Got it, yeppers, shore due.
The problem is.. then where does this part of CAGOP go.
Back to the basics of political organizing. HSLDA's Generation Joshua program and the Leadership Institute have it right. That's what got Reagan elected.
Whether conservative or liberal: they vote for what will bring them the greater economic... "relief".
Or the appearance of wealth by virtue of using other people's property in a manner that pleases them. Yup, the mose selfish State in the Nation, bar none.
So, while I understand the CAGOP faithful message, I support it; until CA voters themselves wake up to the fact that has much as many have to hold two jobs to simply meet morgage, etc., conservative principles will miraculously "exorcise" the economic devils of socialism run amok in CA.
You and I both know that it's the "miraculously" part that doesn't sell. When you read the piece I sent you, I hope you'll hear that I may not make it as assimilable as it needs to be, but I've got a grip on what it will take to fix it and how to communicate it. It does need fleshing out and refinement; I just burned out on it for a while.
Just as you fight for conservative principles; there are others within the GOP who care that the DEMS do not take down 1/7th of the economy via Socialist Dem practices and policies. And for this, they get called ad hominems? There is a split in vision as to how to remeld the CAGOP.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument on details of policy out of the GOP on ANYTHING. Having redrafted the platform on several key issues, I can tell you that the thinking is really lame on all sides.
Your stories on Props 187 and 209 illustrate precisely what we have to do (both illuminating, thank you). If it takes devising multiple messages and targeting them appropriately, so be it. That's what footsoldiers do particularly well once they've been trained to be fluent in both.
We have the tools, especially email by which to communicate and train soldiers. They are cheap. We just have to use them better.
Why do you think "moderates" got backing in CA (GOP) over conservatively "principled" candidates. Do you think CA GOP is now the party of socialists? Taking over the "monied" helm of the CA Dem party?
Yes. The GOP leadership is the party of socialists who want someone else to pay the taxes. The Slave Party is the party of socialists who don't care about taxes because they've got all their money in tax-exempt foundations. Big difference, isn't it? You heard it here first. :--)
Is it possible that Republican "party" is trying to outsell the Democrats?
Rove has certainly tried it with Hispanics, and failed miserably IMHO. Open borders don't make them happier than anybody else. Kissing the butt of the education lobby was just as dumb. Republicans will never learn: you can NEVER out-pander the Democrats because they'll dump the military to fund the freebies until the brink when the voters toss them for security. Some day it'll be too late.
And doing some national scheme to permanently indebt CA, as well as the US? And if so, Why?
For the same reasons bankers indebt third whirled countries: the control of resources receivership can bring. Make a few loans and get control of the whole enchilada to wring it dry. Yep, they're evil.
You may not like some of what I have to say on a couple of things, until you rethink the last 75 years of media spin.
You seem to want to explain the phenomena happening in the party on 'sore losers.' You are way off base here, IMO. It has to do with keeping a set of checks and balances in place.
I understand. What I was referring to specifically in this context was the awful brawling I saw in this forum; which continues to rear its head. And as you write below: I fully concur: the below is as hollow and idealogic as a counter-retort (jumping to the "well, it coulda been worse"):
When the various actions taken by this governor are highlighted on these threads, instead of acknowledging the fact that they are taking us in the wrong direction, many party faithfuls attempt to justify these actions by bringing up Bustamante, McClintock, etc.
I've very much enjoyed the discourse I've had in this thread; in that I've gotten to learn much. What I've tried to suggest, throughout my posts, my hopes that both sides of CA gop might find more productive ways to address these issues than "flame throwing" at the other guy's "candidate". That can be difficult to do; I know this.
Perhaps you can help me understand another thing, cacowgirl.
You have referred here to the "moderate" GOP supporters as "party" faithfuls (or "loyalists" as per Amerigomag in another post). If indeed the conservative side of CAGOP IS the "genuine" party of the Republican Party -- doesn't that make them the true party loyalists? I don't understand why the "moderate" supporters would be referred to as the "loyalists/faithfuls", therefore.
But if this reasoning is not quite apt, and, let's assume, the GOP as a whole, as Carry_okie has asserted in post #77, this thread:
Yes. The GOP leadership is the party of socialists who want someone else to pay the taxes. The Slave Party is the party of socialists who don't care about taxes because they've got all their money in tax-exempt foundations. Big difference, isn't it? You heard it here first. :--)
Why try to stay and work within a party that is already "Socialist"? I've pals involved in the Constitution Party. And, those I've corresponded with express the same sentiments about the GOP as some in this thread. My thinking here is: If indeed one holds the position that the GOP is now socialist, or all about money and coopting "true conservatism" -- why continue to fight for a principle within a party some see as already "sold out"?
It's usually a big yuk-yuk in this forum when die-hard Dems fight for a party platform within the Dem party that has already sold out.
Not quite the same, but along the same lines, when my "church" was infiltrated and sold out to liberalism -- it was very painful. There were legal battles. People worked hard to retain the "core" of the church faithful. Ultimately, the church faithful found it simply wiser to start their own diocese. Now what is happening? More are leaving the "sold-out" church, and joining the more orthodox.
On its face, the difference may be obvious -- "we need the money"; but this also happens within religions and churches vis a vis donations and real estate.
Lastly, if indeed it is a shared view that the GOP is sold out to Socialism, I can certainly understand the viewing and calling names of any still supporting the GOP as "sell-outs". My suggestion? While telling them they are sell-outs, why not promote at same time your own newer party; or even to call yourselves the "Constitutionalist GOP". (That wouldn't work, I know and because it, as a name, tends to lend support to the GOP.)
Many people on these threads seem to think principles no longer matter, dismissing them by calling people "idealogues"
Calcowgirl, "idealogues" come in every brand, shape and color -- all across the aisle.
I'm glad you are bringing up principles. But, what I witness, by the very nature of the brawling during "total recall" -- moderates were coined as ideologues for being "party loyalists". It goes around and around...
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.