Skip to comments.CA: Tom McClintock Ballot Recommendations (June 8, 2010 primary election)
Posted on 05/14/2010 4:43:29 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
On the Propositions:
Prop. 13. Seismic Retrofits. YES: Earthquake proofing your house shouldnt trigger a tax increase until youre ready to sell. Any questions?
Prop. 14. Distorted Primary. NO: This was the result of the corrupt deal for the tax increase engineered by Abel Maldonado that included this measure to by-pass party primaries in a manner Maldonado believed would enhance his future election prospects. Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jerry-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely.
Prop. 15. Taxpayer Funded Elections. NO: The real purpose of this measure is to allow the legislature to tap taxpayers to finance political campaigns. Jefferson said it best: To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Prop. 16. Utility Elections. YES: Cash-guzzling city governments have been taking over the territory of utilities through eminent domain and PG&E wants to put it to a vote. This measure gives you the choice upon whose mercy your future electricity bills will depend: the monopoly of city hall or the monopoly of your utility. Heres a better idea: restore the freedom of individual consumers to choose among competing providers who actually have to earn their business. Alas, that part was left out by the suits at PG&E.
Prop. 17. Insurance Rates. YES: A simple question: should drivers be able to take their continuous coverage discount with them when they change insurance companies? A simpler question: why are our laws such a micro managing mess that we have to vote on something as self-evident as this in the first place?
On the statewide races:
For Governor, Steve Poizner: Steve had the courage to support Arizonas decision to enforce our immigration laws when Meg Whitman cut and ran. He opposes the bank bailouts, rampant borrowing and environmental extremism that Meg Whitman embraces. And unlike Whitman, Steve Poizner was never a huge fan of radical leftist Van Jones. This time, lets have a governor from the Republican wing of the Republican Party.
For Lt. Governor, Sam Aanestad: Sam was my seatmate for many years in both the Assembly and the Senate. He never wavered from his devotion to Republican principles of limited government. Abel Maldonado broke his signed taxpayer pledge and bears responsibility not only for the biggest tax increase in Californias history, but also the budgets that ran California off the fiscal cliff. No single race on the ballot more clearly defines the difference between the Party of Reagan and the Party of Schwarzenegger.
For Attorney General, John Eastman: I worked with John Eastman at the Claremont Institute a public policy think tank devoted to restoring American founding principles to the public policy debate. John is a nationally renowned Constitutional advocate and scholar whose leadership is desperately needed in the Attorney Generals office. Imagine having an Attorney General who not only respects the Constitution but who understands and reveres it.
For Insurance Commissioner, Anybody But Villines. Mike Villines was another of the sell-out Republican votes on the massive tax increase that crushed what was left of our states economy last year, after signing a no-new-taxes pledge. Liars dont belong in government.
For U.S. Senate, Chuck DeVore: Chuck is a conservatives conservative who has always stood on principle, even when it has meant standing virtually alone. Ive never heard him give a speech without thinking I wish Id said that. I rank him up there with Sam Aanestad as one of the finest people Ive had the opportunity to serve with in the legislature. He would become an instant leader in the United States Senate.
I like Tom, but Poizner? Absolutely not. He should just run himself.
love, love, love Tom McClintock...
Tom doesn’t want to get gang-raped again by the Ah-nold and Pete Wilson RINO brigades.
-—”I like Tom, but Poizner? Absolutely not. He should just run himself.”-—
Great, now McClintock is a RINO.
Way to go, McClintock!! Go DeVore!!
No, he’s not a RINO. Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are, though.
If youd like ON or Off this ping list, let me know here or via FreepMail
Sadly, using their system, McClintock is indeed now a RINO.
For Attorney General of the United States
Sam Aanestad is our Senator. He is a real jerk. He supports removal of the 4 Klamath River dams, even though his constituents adamantly oppose it and many will be directly hurt by it. The local Republican Central Committee wrote a platform piece against dam removal that was supported by many North State Central Committees. Aanestad got up and shot it down at the state meeting.
He held a town hall meeting back in December where he lied about being told the Board of Supervisor’s stand on dams. (He threw them under the bus after they left to attend another meeting.) He spoke demeaningly and very rudely to constuituents and the Republican Central Committee reps at that meeting. Please do not vote for him. Do not give him any more power!
Sounds good to me.
Tom doesnt want to get gang-raped again by the Ah-nold and Pete Wilson RINO brigades.
Just stay out of OC and LA and SF counties and he should be OK. They talk a different brand of conservative there.
Sigh, indeed. You just don't get it, do you Titan?
It seems you think ANY criticism of a Republican official on this forum means the freeper is automatically calling them a "RINO". Not so. McClintock is a fine conservative. His endorsement of Poisoner is wrong. McClintock is human and is not perfect 100% of the time. The same is true of any other conservative politician. Ronald Reagan was the greatest President in my lifetime. But I certainly won't defend or support his endorsement of Richard Schweicker for VP in 1976. Sarah Palin is a solid conservative but has made some endorsements I don't like. And so on, and so on.
In fact, the only person on this forum who seems to bring up the word "RINO" on these threads is you. I think you're projecting. You seem desperate to "prove" that any ounce of criticism posted on FR is proof that we hate someone and we're out to "get" them and purify the GOP. Very thin-skinned. Only you seem to think a freeper is claiming so-and-so is a RINO scumbag if the poster offers anything less than gushing praise for everything that person does.
“I like Tom, but Poizner? Absolutely not. He should just run himself.”
Mebbe. But Poizner’s on the move.
“Whitman gets 39% today, Poizner 37%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released 18 days ago, Poizner is up 10 points; Whitman is down 10 points.”
There are ramifications of using the ‘If you endorse a RINO, you’re guilty by association’ rule.
“His endorsement of Poisoner is wrong.”
Who do you support, btw?
CA-Sen. 2010: Palin Defends Fiorina Endorsement at SBA List Breakfast (RINO Alert)
If I had a dollar for every time Sarah Palin has been called “not Conservative” or a “RINO” at Free Republic by the haters..........I'd be Mitt Romney.
-—”Only you seem to think a freeper is claiming so-and-so is a RINO scumbag if the poster offers anything less than gushing praise for everything that person does.”-—
Why do you even take the time to post such nonsense? You know the Sarah haters are blasting her on every freaking thread, sometimes to the point of dehumanizing her. Trying to pretend they aren't calling her a “RINO Scumbag” or worse is willful blindness, or dishonesty.
She has been called an “Enemy of the USA” by some at FR, a “whore,” a “ditz”, a “fraud,” “stupid,” “scum,” “less coherent than a trained monkey,” an “airhead,” a “RINO”
Heck, here's just a partial list:
“I was going to vote for Sarah Palin, but now she's lost ALL of her Conservative credentials by endorsing McCain.”
“I can't believe Sarah Palin is throwing Conservatives under the bus for John McCain! Now I'll never vote for her!”
“She can't WIN! She quit on Alaska, and that's all her opponents need to say!”
“She didn't outright say that she wants to deport every illegal alien in her first 100 days of office, so that means she supports total amnesty and open borders! What a RINO! Why she didn't even spit on John McCain right in the middle of a campaign speech when the topic of immigration was mentioned, so how could she be a REAL Conservative?”
“I was thrilled when John McCain picked her as his running mate, but now she's tarnished goods. That's just a fact.”
“I was open to supporting her, but this (insert latest bullcrap spin on latest bullcrap accusation of the day against Palin) is a deal-breaker for me!”
“Jim Demint for President in 2012! I don't care if he's completely ruled it out!”
I care about the USA, and Palin is now the enemy.stephenjohnbanker
“She IS a quitter. She IS a political lightening rod. She is damaged goods”-—PSYCHO-FREEP
“Whats the difference between John McCain and Sarah Palin? Lipstick”-—UCFRoadWarrior
“Palin IS all for Amnesty”-—PSYCHO-FREEP
“Palin is rapidly proving her incompetence as a Conservative. She is also a terrible speaker”-—PSYCHO-FREEP
“Now, I'm thinking she's not worth backing herself”-—A2J
“I think Palin’s fifteen minutes are up.”-—Uriel-2012
“Sounds like as airhead”-—indylindy
“Bye bye Sarah”-—unkus
“Palin is not the real problem around here. Her supporters on FR are. They are no different than the O admin”-—indylindy
“rabid Palin worshippers”-—indylindy
“Sarah, YOU stick around and listen. Maybe YOUll learn something.”-—DManA
“shes just another wannabe”-—dps.inspect
“i have very serious doubts about Palin”-—wyowolf
“I got off the Palin bus five or six stops back.”—noumenon
“I refuse to vote for her. Is she stupid, blackmailed, or bribed”-—little jeremiah
“Her quitting the Alaskan governourship under pressure shows that she doesnt have what it takes”-— Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
“A trained monkey could have had a more coherent answer”-—pissant
“She is nothing more than a double talking politician and because of it she will never be our nominee”-—tatown
“As near as I can tell she has a popularity addiction it seems and is NOT good POTUS material”-—cva66snipe
“She is no better than Myth Romney”-—Frantzie
“I will NOT support her for any elective office.”-—Mariner
“Palins toast now”-—pissant
“Ive lost my respect for Sara Palin”-—concernedforusa
“Her list of poor judgements (being generous) keeps growing.”-—School of Rational Thought
“Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism? Why oh why doesnt she get some decent help with writing and with speeches??”-—molybdenum
“Yes, she is not the conservative her supporters claim she is”-—UCFRoadWarrior
“(On Palin) the friend of my enemy is also my enemy.”-—stockpirate
“she isnt up to the Presidency.”-—MEGoody
Palin haters aren't offering “criticism,” they are trying to detroy her, on a personal level if needed. Do I need to bring-in some of the comments about her family and “what a bad mother she is?”
And calling Sarah a RINO is an out and out LIE.
If this is the road FR wants to go down- where every conservative who endorses a RINO gets kicked to the curb- there will be no more conservatives left.
1) Of the 6 partisans who filed for Lt. Governor, only Aanestad, Maldonado and Girard even bothered to provide Candidate statements.
2) The majority of his recommendation for Lt. Governor, ie. the last two lines; the thoughts that authors wants to linger in your memory, is against a candidate. Not for a candidate.
6 for Lt. Governor but 2 would-be democrats for governor? Why not just run all out instead of playing understudy?
This is the road that FR must go down. If we become partisan, we fail.
Because FR is ideological, it has succeeded beyond the founder's greatest expectations.
Tom’s no RINO. He knows Poizner and his record. He also knows of Whitman and her policies. Tom’s simply picking someone the Republicans can swing to there side on critical choices. Poizner is not the best choice for CA gov, but Whitman is worse.
‘Palin haters aren’t offering criticism,’
The term ‘Palin haters’ is itself a personal judgment you’re leveling at those at FR critical of SP. Now it could be that some on your list have gone too far, or are twisting words for a quick chuckle. But to suggest that people that are critical of our leaders, any of our leaders, are ‘haters’ is just not necessary imho.
How can you equate criticism and opinion (e.g. ‘she’s done’) with hatred?
I like Palin, I will support her if she’s our nominee for POTUS 2012. But is this hatred: ‘she isnt up to the Presidency.-MEGoody’
Come on! ;)
From the perspective of the CAGOP hierarchy. they are.
Until and unless the Democrat lite concept is abandon by the California party, the party remains doomed to insignificance, scurring around in the shadow, avoiding the light.
I have been, and always will be, speaking of those who are haters; and yes, there are plenty.
Amerigomag: “Because FR is ideological, it has succeeded beyond the founder's greatest expectations.”
No politician, no leader, no person is above commentary on this board. In the end, we shouldn't expect our leadership to emerge unscathed here, of all places. They should view this board as a refining fire, a place to understand true conservative political philosophy - as Amerigomag suggests - ideology.
If our candidates cannot stand the test of this board, how will the stand the tests of reality, the RATs, the terrorists, the socialist lapdog press and all that awaits them? We can help sharpen their resolve, their arguments, their rhetoric, their strategies.
I'm not worried that Sarah Palin, for one, is criticized here. I'd be worried if she weren't. If people are worried that certain people on FR are tearing down Sarah (and some might be), then argue for her, speak out for her and make her case, force the hand of her critics with excellent argumentation. That is what the public square is all about.
For anyone that criticizes and writes off Sarah Palin, I, and if I were you, would ask a simple question - how do you expect to win back the WH in 2012 - be specific. Don't ya know, we have a LONG way to go before then...way too long with the commie-kid in chief installed in the WH currently.
“Palin haters aren’t offering criticism, they are trying to detroy her, on a personal level if needed.”
“You are pushing the misnomer that I have called everyone who criticizes Palin a hater, which I have not done...Nobody is saying any such thing...”
Thanks for clarifying, however you made the ‘Palin haters’ comment at the end of a long list of quoted FReepers. Perhaps you needed to clarify who/what it applied to, don’t you think? Now we’re just left to pick and choose which of those comments and people you think is hateful?
Do you have a recommendation for Lt. Governor?
There won't be any left to support. And there certainly won't be any left to run against liberals.
And I challenge FR being a success because its ideological. If that were true, there's isn't a single freeper who would have voted for McCain in 2008. There's no way GWB would have ever won re-election in 2004.
So before you go down that road of declaring what FR is, make darn sure you go back and look at history first.
Thank you for the post.
Bookmarking for myself.
People who call her an “Enemy of the USA,” “Whore,” “Stupid,” “Less coherent than a monkey,” “Airhead,” “Failed mother,” etc. are likely candidates to be classified as “haters.”
It's really not that difficult to decipher. “Not feeling Sarah's up to the job” is a criticism worthy of debate; “Sarah Palin is an enemy of the USA” is not criticism, it is hatred.
That applies to any good Conservative. If someone were to try and post that Jim DeMint was an “enemy of the USA” for endorsing Mitt Romney and co-chairing Lindsey Graham's Senate campaign, I would also call them a DeMint “Hater.”
No one is saying Sarah or anyone else can’t be criticized. Its the absolutely absurd ‘if you endorse a RINO, you are a RINO’ crap that is absolutely insane. As I said before, anyone thinking/expecting there will be THE perfect conservative candidate is not living in reality. Personally, I find it disturbing when people agree 100% with a politician.
At this point, I’d probably vote for either Ken Miller or Larry Naritelli for Governor. If you’re going to say “neither has a snowball’s chance in hell, you’d be wasting your vote”, that’s a valid point, but neither Poisoner or Witless are acceptable. I’m willing to hold my nose for a right-of-center “moderate” over a liberal Democrat. But Poisoner and Witless are both left-of-center Ahnuld clones, IMO. Either one winning the primary would result in California continue to slide downward and a socialist tax-and-spend welfare state.
Arnold clones? DIABLOs.
Palin endorsed RINO mccain even though there is a solid conservative choice in JD.
Who's the solid conservative in the California governor's race?
Funny, I've looked at all your recent posts and you seem to take ALL Sarah Palin criticism as 'hatred'. I agree there's a handful of insane Sarah Palin hating loons on FR, the funny thing I've been on the same endorsement threads as you and I've seen about 10X as many "I'm disappointed with Sarah's endorsement and don't know if she's presidential material" posts compared to "Sarah Palin is RINO scum and must be defeated at all costs" posts.
Are we viewing the same threads? Because while you cite a dozen or so fantantical Palin haters, I can probably cite hundreds of rational "I disagree with Sarah's endorsement" posts, such as my own response to Palin's Fiorina endorsement.
A few loudmouth nuts on FR does not mean the ENTIRE forum is overrun with "haters" and "purists" who call everyone on the planet a "RINO" Indeed, almost all the people I've meet who truly despise Sarah are Ron Paulites (and they're hated her since the day she arrived on the national scene)
There are plenty of people with a mostly conservative record who have been subject to as much or even more hostility as Sarah Palin on this forum. You should have seen the threads about "socialist" Mike Huckabee back in 2008. (Funny they didn't think he was a "socialist" four years earlier when he headlined the FR inaugural ball). Chris Christie is now the darling of FR, but just a few months ago was subject to far more "he's RINO scum" attacks than Palin ever was during his gubernatoral campaign, and 90% of it was entirely baseless if you went by "past record". Are you just waking up to the fact there are some "anyone who fails to agree with me 100% of the time deserves to be shot" posters on this forum?
The purist nuts are an annoyance on this forum, but IMO they're outnumbered the other extreme, the "anyone with an R next to their name deserves our support, even if they're more liberal than many Democrats" mindset. I'm surprised this mindset continues to permeate so many FR threads even after JimRob purged the Rudy Giuliani cheerleaders two years ago. Here in Illinois, we have a "Republican" nominee to the left of Hillary on abortion and to the left of Obama on the enviroment, and yet we're still outnumbered by the "you HAVE to vote for Kirk because Mark Kirk is with us when it counts and the best we can get in a blue state" cheerleaders on Mark Kirk threads.
Titan, you really need to grow a thicker skin if you've been on FR this whole time and never noticed there's a "people who agree with me 95% of the time should be lynched" mindset with some posters. Palin is hardly the first conservative to be subject to that abuse, and she certainly hasn't gotten the worst of it.
“Here’s a hint:
People who call her an Enemy of the USA, Whore, Stupid, Less coherent than a monkey, Airhead, Failed mother, etc. are likely candidates to be classified as haters.
It’s really not that difficult to decipher.”
Really? It took you another post to clarify what you meant. If you want to make it easier for us to decipher what you mean, perhaps you shouldn’t make broad sweeping generalizations about Palin haters at the end of a list that includes *many* comments that could never even approach such.
You sound like a moronic liberal when you call pople who disagree with you “haters”. In fact I ‘m really starting to think you’re a liberal troll just out to divide conservatives.
Can't we get through one damn thread without Sarah's name coming up? The only way Sarah relates to this at all is that she endorsed Fiorina and Tom McClintock doesn't. There, that's it.
S.O.S. -- guilty -- Sick of Sarah!
I find it rather disquieting — although darkly humorous, considering the state our nation and the world is in at this latter day — that some Conservatives find great sport in crucifying their fellows because they don’t agree with them on every single issue — or endorsement.
Obviously Sarah is a RINO, she endorsed John McCain AND Carly Fiorina! FOR SHAME! Well, no, I didn’t like either of those endorsements either, But does that somehow make her “the enemy?” Does that mean she’s “not a true Conservative?” Give me a break!
In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law a tax reform act that was supposed to further simplify the income tax brackets, increase “user fees” for Federal services and parks, consolidate and lower most peoples taxes and INCREASE corporate income taxes. This plan also multiplied the “Earned Income Tax Credit,” This policy change alone raised the lowest wages that could be taxed at the time from $5720 to $29750, and by the late 1990’s the EITC alone was credited with lifting 4.3 million Americans a year out of poverty. Al Hunt, Liberal columnist for the Wall Street Journal called this “the most important anti-poverty measure enacted over the past decade,” at the time.
The fact is, the EITC now makes it possible for nearly half of the people in our country NOT to pay taxes — and many get money they DID NOT PAY and DO NOT EARN “credited” back to them! As to the “corporate taxes” that were raised, I remember my Dad telling me at the time — Reagan must be losing his mind. First, never make a deal with the Democrats (who promised to cut the budget to get the deal — they lied of course); Second, corporations DON’T pay taxes, consumers pay taxes. The customers pay in raised prices, or the employees pay in lay-offs and pink slips...and thus came the 1991-1992 recession, helped along by G.H.W. Bush’s inane tax increase — again, by trusting the SAME Democrats Reagan had trusted.
Throwinto that mix that Reagan extended AMNESTY to over 2 million illegals around the same time WITH PROMISES from the Democrat Congress that they would stop the flow — yet ANOTHER promise they never kept — and one MIGHT think Ronaldus Magnus himself was not a Conservative. That he could not be trusted. That he was not to be believed. That he was a plant....
Please. So, we see Sarah Palin is HUMAN. She makes decisions we DON’T agree with sometimes. Okay. I get it. That doesn’t mean she’s NOT Conservative. She’s just HUMAN. Imperfect. I trust her — though I am glad she has 2-3 years to make a few mistakes BEFORE she has to decide if the Presidency is where God wants her to be. And if that’s what SHE thinks, I’ll be willing to prayerfully CONSIDER her — frankly, to me, she still has an inside track.
Although Chris Christie is looking better and better... And if Jim DeMint could be talked into running....
Redundant, since Arnold himself is clearly a DIABLO at this point and even his formerly staunchest defenders in the GOP won't dare defend him.
“Its the absolutely absurd if you endorse a RINO, you are a RINO crap that is absolutely insane.”
I agree. I will still support Sarah Palin, if she really starts busting out in the 2012 scene. I personally support Jim DeMint or Paul Ryan, but am not opposed to Palin either. Like many conservatives, I didn’t like Palin’s Fiorina endorsement at a critical time, but it may not matter, leading me to think that she could have easily stayed out of that one.
“First, never make a deal with the Democrats”
It’s taken us about 50 years to learn this one vital lesson. We may be finally there. And we desperately need to be there, as the RATS are close to detroying our once great nation.