Posted on 05/14/2010 4:43:29 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
On the Propositions:
Prop. 13. Seismic Retrofits. YES: Earthquake proofing your house shouldn’t trigger a tax increase until you’re 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. Here’s 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 Arizona’s 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, let’s 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 California’s 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 General’s 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 state’s economy last year, after signing a no-new-taxes pledge. Liars don’t belong in government.
For U.S. Senate, Chuck DeVore: Chuck is a conservative’s conservative who has always stood on principle, even when it has meant standing virtually alone. I’ve never heard him give a speech without thinking “I wish I’d said that.” I rank him up there with Sam Aanestad as one of the finest people I’ve had the opportunity to serve with in the legislature. He would become an instant leader in the United States Senate.
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 isn’t 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.
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.