Posted on 02/06/2006 12:36:41 PM PST by SierraWasp
ROFL
They did Bucko. The Wilsonegger gang is now in charge of the CRP. Their appeal is much broader. It's cross cultural, nonpartisan, multinational and absolutely devoid of principle.
The only goal they've yet to reach is to top Wilson's record of the largest single increase in state income tax rates in US history.
Thanks for the spotlight on the "one man one vote" destructive decision by the Warren court, AKA "Cow Don't Vote!" You should see the great article written by fellow FReeper fog724 for the Grange Magazine. I'll ping her and see if she can link us up to it once again.
Good move, sissyjane!!!
Anyone care to guess why the state moved from Republican to Democrat in the early '30s?
The Grapes of Wrath?
You are one of the more perceptive posters on the CA threads. I really appreciate your thoughtful input my FRiend!!!
New Deal Mania?
Laughable ignorance? Chill out, man. We're all on the same team.
Go back to PoliSci 101 - If you don't own a majority and your opponent is on the far side of the spectrum, in this case liberal, you should run a moderate. That's all I'm saying.
I prefer conservatives. McClintock would have been a great governor but he would not have won.
As far as the Boxer seat, the WH did not give a shite about Fong. They would have about Marin.
Well, I'm sorry if I was a little rough, but I've been making the same argument for years. Even if you're genuinely sincere, you're still missing the mark.
"Go back to PoliSci 101 - If you don't own a majority and your opponent is on the far side of the spectrum, in this case liberal, you should run a moderate. That's all I'm saying."
And it sounds good on paper, but I could teach a course on PoliSci myself, and disprove the theory. I probably do it on here upwards of a dozen times a week. It doesn't work... mind you, it SHOULD because it sounds "reasonable", but yet, it doesn't. The next step is to try to figure out why that is the case. One big problem with "moderate" candidates, is that they can't draw contrasts, they aren't dynamic, and aren't particularly inspiring. The kinds of dynamic candidates we need don't often run, sometimes its because the party is too timid to run them... and if they do run, they actively undermine them. McClintock has been a prime example of that in CA. If the party weren't so scared of REAL leaders, McClintock would now be closing out his 2nd term -- as Governor. Sometimes, they'd just simply prefer to let the Democrat extremists have at these offices, it's crazy. And it doesn't just happen in California.
"As far as the Boxer seat, the WH did not give a shite about Fong."
Why would the WH have cared about Fong ? He ran in '98, Clinton was still there then.
"They would have about Marin."
Because the WH gets involved in a contest and coronates someone guarantees nothing. They pulled that stunt in Colorado and lost a safe Senate seat with Coors. They ALMOST cost us a seat in Oklahoma with the OK City Mayor who would surely have lost had he been the nominee. I might remind you that some of us actually were intrigued by a Marin candidacy and took a good long look at her, but after finding out about her, her positions, and seeing her, we soon realized she wasn't going to be winning anything... especially not against a megalomaniacal evil incumbent like Boxer. It'll take a very special candidate to take her down, someone who is ruthless and unafraid... and, yes, Conservative. A Milquetoast Moderate won't ever be able to vanquish Boxer when a debate would include nothing but "I agree's" coming from the "Republican" candidate in an attempt not to appear "extremist" and "divisive", when it is Boxer who needs to be clearly defined by our candidate as such. The best candidate we put up against her was Bruce Herschensohn 14 years ago, and he would likely have won -- but Boxer was schooled in the vicious Phil & John Burton "destroy your opponent at all costs" method, and she did just that (yet, Bruce still nearly pulled it out). Like I said, when we grow up and run a candidate willing to beat the crap out of this evil bitch, we'll take the seat back. Nice guys don't finish first when they run against the Boxers of this world... neither do nice girls. But the party hasn't learned that yet. Not against Boxer, and not against Feinstein.
That was my first thought, too.
They consistently fault him for raising taxes, but never seem to remember the tax cuts he enacted, or the budget cuts he signed into law.
They never fail to ascribe blame for the GOP's woes to him, even though the Republican Party in California experienced unparalleled success under his leadership, gaining congressional seats, retaking the assembly for the first time in God knows how long.
I love the ex post facto reasoning of the Wilson critics, who blame him for the ineptitude of a party that only began to crater once Pete Wilson stepped down.
Nonetheless, it's a series of opinions you are completely entitled to hold dear because opinions are like belly bottons... everybody's got at least one!!!
(now-a-days the young girls are nearly all letting theirs hang right out there for all to see)(sigh!)
He and Ward Connerly were responsible for eliminating discriminatory racial preferences in higher education and contracting in that state.
Pete Wilson vetoed a proposed ban on "Saturday Night Specials," the stalking horse of the gun prohibitionists.
You can engage in your own internecine feuds-which no one but the small factions enmeshed in them even cares about-but it doesn't help the Republican Party or conservatives living in California.
People like you are an illustration of what's wrong with the GOP in that state, and by extension, within the country at large.
They whine and bitch, bitch and whine, piss and moan, and criticize people who are actually responsible for advancing conservative initiatives, while not offering any practicable solutions.
The worst that can be said of Pete Wilson is that he wasn't pro-life-although even this aspect of his record has been willfully distorted by his enemies-in a state whose voters would never even give serious consideration to electing someone who was pro-life to a statewide office.
Like I said... Although dead wrong, your entitled and that can't be argued!!!
Statements like these speak volumns at high volume!!! It even speaks to the self-conflicted statements you have on your FR home page about "talking down" to others and insulting them, just to take us all back to the old "flame wars!"
You'da thought you'd thought enough of what the lady said in that piece on your FR home page to try to live a little of it and improve yourself... BUT NOOOOOO HO HO HO!!!
You're really conlflicted there Mr. New Yorker, just like your current Governor and the mayor of your largest city!!! So don't try to "Rock-N-Roll" verbally on me when you've got nothing but "Disco Sucks," to offer as your jive weapon!!!
Based on the actual numbers (below), one can see that the increase was due primarily to new voters, plus some party-jumpers. Also, from 1922 thru 1930, voter turnout ranged from 63% to 71%. From 1932 to 1940, it ranged from 80% to 96%. Voters were certainly motivated! I did read that Roosevelt did not campaign on the New Deal platform; he did however blame the stock market crash on Republicans. Also in the mix was the Democrat platform of federal prohibition repeal. And, Senators Hiram Johnson, LaFollette and other "progressive" Republicans abandoned the party and threw their support to Roosevelt. Allegedly, the turncoats would be amply rewarded by keeping their positions in Congress.
GEN DATE ELIGIBLE DEM REP OTHER TOTAL PERCENT REGISTRATION Nov. 2, 1926 -- 21.4% 67.9% 10.7% 100.00% Nov. 6, 1928 P -- 25.6% 66.4% 8.0% 100.00% Nov. 4, 1930 -- 20.3% 73.0% 6.7% 100.00% Nov. 8, 1932 P -- 40.2% 54.2% 5.6% 100.00% Nov. 6, 1934 -- 49.5% 45.5% 4.9% 100.00% Nov. 3, 1936 P -- 57.8% 38.2% 3.9% 100.00% Nov. 8, 1938 -- 59.4% 35.8% 4.8% 100.00% REGISTRATION Nov. 2, 1926 2,989,000 410,290 1,298,062 204,510 1,912,862 Nov. 6, 1928 P 3,240,000 592,161 1,535,751 185,904 2,313,816 Nov. 4, 1930 3,463,000 456,096 1,638,575 150,557 2,245,228 Nov. 8, 1932 P 3,573,000 1,161,482 1,565,264 162,267 2,889,013 Nov. 6, 1934 3,674,000 1,555,705 1,430,198 154,211 3,140,114 Nov. 3, 1936 P 3,844,000 1,882,014 1,244,507 127,300 3,253,821 Nov. 8, 1938 4,035,000 2,144,360 1,293,929 173,127 3,611,416 CHANGE IN REGISTRATION Nov. 2, 1926 Nov. 6, 1928 P 251,000 181,871 237,689 (18,606) 400,954 Nov. 4, 1930 223,000 (136,065) 102,824 (35,347) (68,588) Nov. 8, 1932 P 110,000 705,386 (73,311) 11,710 643,785 Nov. 6, 1934 101,000 394,223 (135,066) (8,056) 251,101 Nov. 3, 1936 P 170,000 326,309 (185,691) (26,911) 113,707 Nov. 8, 1938 191,000 262,346 49,422 45,827 357,595
Los Angeles Times, Nov 1, 1932; pg. A4
HIRAM JOHNSON CLASSIFIEDWhen Hiram Johnson, so-called Republican Senator from California, reaches here this morning on his mission of treachery to the party which has given him all, he has ever had of political office and preferment, his greeting will be one of repudiation on the part of those whom, for the last of many times, he has contemptuously betrayed.
The blistering statement issued yesterday by Ingall W, Bull, chairman of the Los Angeles Republican County Central Committee, is an accurate summary of the attitude of the real Republicans of California toward this traitor to his salt. That this realization did not come sooner and thereby earlier rid the party of Johnson's nominal and self-serving affiliation therewith is unfortunate for the party; that it has come in full measure at last is a wholesome, if belated, sign.
Yet Johnson today is no different from the Johnson of four or eight or twelve or twenty years ago. It did not need his present eleventh-hour efforts to throw California to the Democrats to classify him. His malignant vilification of President Hoover in San Francisco last Friday night had its precise counterpart in his anti-Hoover utterances of 1920 and in his whole consistent record of anti-Republicanism for the past score of years. Nor can any doubt that, should Johnson need Republican votes two years from now, he will repeat the same servile, hypocritical pledges of party allegiance with which he deceived the Republican State organization four years ago.
(snip)
Bear in mind that all these treacheries, all these sell-outs to the enemy, including the present one, have been by a man who has consistently called himself, but has never been, a Republican.
He has used the party name and the party prestige to advance himself, and he has never considered anything but his own selfish interest. The mass of illogical political farrago which make up the typical Johnsonian speech are uttered for the sole, if undisclosed, purpose of , attempting to persuade the American people that no man but Johnson is fit to be President.
Schwartzenegger wants to be a stinker like this Johnson that has made CA nearly ungovernable with it's bi-level legislative process with a full time legislature AND the people legislating everything from soup to nuts!!!
Even though the flag says:"CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC," the Constitution allows it to simultaneously be a DIRECT DEMOCRAZY!!! (most ballot measures have become extreme measures and the people are becoming wary!)
The political pro's and consultants have ruined the initiative process since Prop 13 and made a mockery of democracy!!! Jesse Unruh's making the legislature "full time" has laid waste to the republic side of the equation!!!
No one knows anymore, who to lead, follow, or to get out of the way of!!! It's all turning to madness!!!
*guffaw*
As far as I know, I wasn't the one that initiated this "flame war."
But if believing that palliates you, then so be it.
I've never seen the utility of engaging in online tit-for-tat, especially when the other party is barely comprehensible.
Though I find it ironic that one of the most belligerent, irascible people on this forum feels that I'm trying to provoke him by pointing out the inconsistencies and inaccurracies of his argument.
You're a gloss on "Protagoras," only less conspicuously obnoxious.
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.