Hugh Hewitt: Dear Tom McClintock supporter ...

WND ^ | Aug. 20, 2003 | Hugh Hewitt

[FairOpinion]

Dear Tom McClintock supporter,

Thank you for listening to my show. I appreciate it. I have built my California success on your support, and whenever I take a call from San Diego or Los Angeles, the Inland Empire or Sacramento, San Francisco or Fresno or anywhere else in the Golden State, I know that if it is a conservative, it will be a passionate but informed conversation.

You may recall I endorsed Tom in the election of 2002 and had him on the program. You may also recall I had Bill Simon on the program many, many times as well, and endorsed him before the primary election in March of 2002. I told you then that I was supporting Bill over Dick Riordan because Bill had a better chance of beating Gray Davis.

I still believe that, and had Dick Riorden gotten into the recall race instead of Arnold, I suspect I would have ended up supporting Bill or Tom for the same reasons I plugged Bill in March of last year: I vote for the most conservative candidate with a reasonable chance of winning.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, I lectured moderate and liberal Republicans and independents in California, and across the country, to put aside differences with candidates they thought too conservative and support the GOP nominees. Sometimes that meant supporting conservatives like Simon, or U.S. Senate candidates like John Thune, Norm Coleman or Jim Talent.

My point always was – and remains – that the Republican Party is the party of national security and national prosperity, and that the Democratic Party has become a captive of narrow and greedy special interests camouflaged behind class-warfare rhetoric.

You can't always get a moderate nominee, I told these centrist voters, but they needed to clearly think through which party was better positioned to govern well – and vote accordingly.

Now, a center-right Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is campaigning for the governorship in California, and many of you have declared for Tom McClintock no matter how unlikely his victory becomes. You already know he cannot win, and his poll numbers and fund-raising receipts show this.

Bill Simon's supporters also know this, but it's the McClintock voters who seem determined to take the house down with them since their man cannot win. My mail is full of angry denunciations of my sell-out status because of my endorsement of Arnold, and comment threads at FreeRepublic.com and elsewhere fairly vibrate with indignant polemics about the RINOs behind Arnold.

Having spent a half-dozen years in the Reagan administration and a dozen years defending conservative positions in the media, I find such charges amusing, not troubling, but the point is not what I think or do, but what you think and do.

You are preparing to try and elect Cruz Bustamante governor of California. You are every bit the supporter of Cruz as is the most loyal union poll worker or plaintiffs' lawyer. If you succeed, the continued collapse of the California economy under the weight of special interests will be your doing as much as it is the work of the Indian Tribes funding Cruz. Why do you think those tribes are said to be funding an independent campaign on Tom's behalf anyway?

Why do you think California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres is out and about talking up Tom as the "real conservative" in the race? The tribes and Art are playing you for suckers. They are stoking your anger at the prospect of a center-right governor as opposed to a movement conservative governor.

The question is: Will you be had? Will the matchstick men of modern politics, the Clinton gang, buy and sell you like penny stocks?

I don't think so. I keep saying that the conservative wing of the GOP in California will figure out that half a loaf is better than a stone, and vote overwhelmingly for Arnold. I also expect that Arnold will surprise you in the coming years, and make you proud of the vote you cast for him.

But I can't be sure. The tribes are going to spend a lot of dough trying to make you angrier with GOP moderates than you are with far-left Democrats. The Field Poll released over the weekend with its cooked date would have us believe that nearly 20 percent of the electorate are falling for the wasted-vote option by declaring for Tom or Bill. I suspect the final number of combined thrown-away GOP votes will be less than 10 percent. That probably won't be enough to give the election to Cruz, but if it is, can I send any one of you my car tax bill?

[FairOpinion]

DO you like Bustamante's policy decision better? He and Davis are the reason we in this mess in the first place.

Even if Arnold, Simon and Ueberoth would withdraw today, the best result for McClintock would be a replay of the November election, i.e. Tom would LOSE to Bustamante, just as Simon lost to Davis.

Arnold in the race is a gift to the Republicans, it gives them a chance to recapture CA's governorship.

[Maccabee-AJB]

<< Arnold or Cruz -- you choose! >>

Since I see virtually no difference in their policy stances, I would choose Cruz over Arnold, as Cruz's liberal policies sinking California enables us to hoist the entire Democrat Party on their own petard in the future, whereas Arnold's liberal policies will give the GOP a black eye.

[jam137]

As I posted in another thread: I have heard McClintock say multiple times that received more votes from Democrats and independents in his 2002 bid for Controller than any other statewide Republican candidate did in that election. He also has said that in 2002 the three most conservative Republicans came closer to winning their statewide elections than the moderate Republicans did. Check out his radio/tv clips to hear this.

[FairOpinion]

Tom LOST in his bid for CA Controller.
Close doesn't count, you either win or you lose.
McClintock LOST.
Simon LOST.
Conservative Republicans have no chance of winning in CA, even against a univesally hated governor, like Davis.

[Torie]

I didn't listen to all of Arnold's statement, but from what I did hear, all he said is there would be no new taxes. Where are the cuts going to be made? Well, my experts tell me nobody knows what is in the budget, and one thing I have learned, is that one cannot make decisions until one has all the facts. One thing I know is that the budget problem was not created in a day or two, and will not be solved in a day or two. So what I will do if elected is to get together a panel of budget experts that will go through it all and make recommendations.

Isn't it splendid? Arnold is suggesting that he doesn't know what is in the budget, and nobody else does, and he can't find out until after he is elected, and then he will have his experts find out.

You know what will happen don't you? His experts after the election will tell him the deficit is 30 billion, and that without law changes he cannot cut more than 8 billion, and even with law changes, absent slashing education (Arnold said no to that), and ending subsidized medical care, only say 18 billion can be cut in the short run, and thus 12 billion in new taxes are needed. And Arnold will say I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, to find that bankruptcy is in this house, and there is no other way out of the box but taxes, and so there will be taxes.

You heard it here first if Arnold is elected. This puppy is going to go down that way with a 99% certainty. Please write it down for future reference. Thank you very much, indeed.

One caveat: Arnold might not get elected refusing to say where he will cut, as opposed to where he won't cut. Life is so unfair! I wanna cry.

[Miss Marple]

How very interesting. You admit you didn't listen to everything he said and yet you are insisting you know exactly what he's going to do.

He talked about getting the Hoover institute to restructure the debt. He spoke about the way Californians are over-taxed. He specifically said that he would not make a "no new tax" plege because there is the rare case of emergencies, like natural disasters and terrorism, that MIGHT require such a measure.

If the budget is as bad as he says it is, then McClintock will not be able to do anything at all, because the legislature will dig their heals in.

I was most impressed with his presentation and the way he answered questions. I am also disappointed in you for making judgements based on your feelings without even listening to the entire thing. Shame on you.

[Maccabee-AJB]

<< Those who call themselves Republicans but would rather a Democrat win are the real RINOs. >>

Only if what matters to you is the political affiliation and not the ideological and policy affiliation.

If it's a choice between, for example, Richard Riordan (R) and Zell Miller (D), only a person who doesn't care about what policies are enacted but rather that their party "wins" would support Riordan over Miller.

Similarly, only a person who cares more about party than what the party is standing for thinks that Schwarzenegger is such a prize over Bustamante.

[truth_seeker]

"Why do you think California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres is out and about talking up Tom as the "real conservative" in the race? The tribes and Art are playing you for suckers. They are stoking your anger at the prospect of a center-right governor as opposed to a movement conservative governor."

In 2002 Davis spent $7 million of his campaign money, to harm Riordan and to get Simon as his opponent. That is how he operates, and it worked.

Now, he will promote Simon and McClintock. It helps the dems to have several, moderately successful Republican candidates.

I'm surprised that the movement conservatives don't get it. Last year they lost a two candidate race. Now they expect to do better, in a five candidate race?

With my double digit IQ, even I can figure this out. Therefore it must be simple. Too simple, I suspect, for a self-destructive ideologue.

[Maccabee-AJB]

<< "If it's a choice between Schwarzenegger and Bustamante, I think we're better off with Bustamante,"

--

Maybe you should start a "Conservatives for Bustamante" movement. At least that would be honest, instead of trying to sabotage Arnold by claiming high principles. >>

I didn't say I was *FOR* Bustamante. I am saying that, if that is the choice (oh, BTW, THAT IS NOT THE CHOICE), then, from a strategic perspective, it's better for the GOP that Bustamante take the governorship than Schwarzenegger.

The choice is between all 100-odd candidates, not between Schwarzenegger and Bustamante. I am *FOR* McClintock. However, if the sad event of McClintock's loss occurs, then I must think strategically.

[Maccabee-AJB]

<< Maccabee-AJB: "Not to mention I'm not sure re-electing George W. "RINO" Bush is such a great idea... "
---
NOW the truth comes out. Many who lobby against Arnold also consider President Bush a RINO and hate him. >>

The truth was never "in".

I ask you: Can you REALLY tell me you think Bush HASN'T violated our civil rights six ways from Sunday with his Homeland Security Dept and his Patriot Act?

Check out my column about Bush, "Particide," at www.palaceofreason.com .

[jam137]

"But the war against waste ultimately transcends partisanship. The Senate district from which I was elected in a landslide in 2000 also voted for Al Gore. I can tell you that the quest to restore sound fiscal management resonates deeply in Democratic constituencies as well." -- Tom McClintock, 2001 Speech

[Maccabee-AJB]

<< They Field methodology is not to identify likely voters, not even to identify registered voters,

---

Are you saying the Field Poll is lying when they state the following results are (among likely voters) >>

Yes, I am saying they are lying. Their methodology does NOT find likely voters. Check out their previous "predictions" and you'll see they're WAY OFF all the time.

[diotima]

Noted Torie.

I have to catch up on what happened during the press conference, I missed it.

I sure hope we get some kind of platform from the AS camp. I don't know how much longer he can run on vague statements before it starts to hurt his campaign.

[AgThorn]

Why do you think California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres is out and about talking up Tom [McClintock] as the "real conservative" in the race? The tribes and Art are playing you for suckers. They are stoking your anger at the prospect of a center-right governor as opposed to a movement conservative governor.

So true ... so true .. .reminds me of all of the solid support that Rush Limbaugh is giving Al Sharpton for the same reasons.

Call me a RINO, and I am a big supporter of McClintock and Simon, but in the interest of saving this state I have to support Arnold so far.

[onedoug]

Uh...you were saying?...

[FairOpinion]

And for those who still can't figure it out, Hugh Hewitt said it in plain English, but some just still don't get it:

===

"Why do you think California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres is out and about talking up Tom as the "real conservative" in the race? The tribes and Art are playing you for suckers. They are stoking your anger at the prospect of a center-right governor as opposed to a movement conservative governor.

The question is: Will you be had? Will the matchstick men of modern politics, the Clinton gang, buy and sell you like penny stocks?

[deport]

A few projections from the Liars.....

Final Pre-Election Estimates of The Field (California) Poll vs. Actual Election Outcomes (1948-2002)
Year	Office	Major Party Candidates		Actual Vote % Dem/Rep/1	Field Poll Final Report % Dem/Rep/2	% Deviation for Winning Candidate	Leading Candidate Wins
		Democrat	Republican
2002	Gov.	Davis	Simon	53-47	55-45	2	Yes
2000	Pres.	Gore	Bush	56-44	53-47	3	Yes
2000	Sen.	Feinstein	Campbell	61-39	62-38	1	Yes
1998	Gov.	Davis	Lungren	60-40	58-42	2	Yes
1998	Sen.	Boxer	Fong	55-45	55-45	0	Yes
1996	Pres.	Clinton	Dole-(Perot)	53-40-(7)	52-40-(8)	1	Yes
1994	Gov.	K. Brown	Wilson	42-58	45-55	3	Yes
1994	Sen.	Feinstein	Huffington	51-49	54-46	3	Yes
1992	Sen.	Feinstein	Seymour	59-41	58-42	1	Yes
1992	Sen.	Boxer	Hershchensohn	53-47	51-49	2	Yes
1992	Pres.	Clinton	Bush-(Perot)	46-33-(21)	46-30-(24)	0	Yes

Now you have a good one, ya hear.

[Wolfstar]

Notice I said "IF Schwarzenegger can't come up with proposals..." Am waiting for Arnold's proposals before making a decision on how to vote. But the bottom line is that I will vote in whatever way seems best for keeping Bustamante out of the governor's office. And yes, in the end, if it means a vote for Arnold, plus a backstop "no" on recall, that's what I'll do.

[FairOpinion]

Looks like you know how to post tables. Could you please post Table 2 on page 3 of the Field poll? That has all the demographical info which clearly shows that a conservative has ZERO chance of winning CA. ( I don't know how to post tables, otherwise I would post it)

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2082.pdf

Thanks.

[FairOpinion]

" But the bottom line is that I will vote in whatever way seems best for keeping Bustamante out of the governor's office. "

===

I agree. It's unfortunate that nobody is educating people about how really dangerous it would be for CA is Bustamante became governor. I read a zillion articles attacking Arnold, and I saw just one by Michelle Malkin talking about
Bustamante's connection to MEChA.

"MEChA's symbol is an eagle clutching a dynamite stick and machete-like weapon in its claws; its motto is " Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing)." The MEChA Constitution calls on members to "promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza (race) with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan." "Aztlan" is the group's term for the vast southwestern U.S. expanse, from parts of Washington and Oregon down to California and Arizona and over to Texas, which MEChA claims to be a mythical homeland and seeks to reconquer for Mexico ( reconquista )."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030820.shtml