Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tom McClintock = Ronald Reagan of 1966
Comte d'Maistre

Posted on 08/25/2003 4:27:28 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre

Okay, Tom McClintock may not have the good looks and charisma of the Gipper. Ronnie was 55 when he ran for governor of California in 1966, and Tom McClintock is 47. But McClintock has an impressive 20 years of experience in elective office.

I am old enough to remember certain things. When Reagan ran for governor in 1966, he was considered too extreme to be elected governor of California, and the state Republican party preferred a moderate who was "electable". Reagan was not only considered "too right-wing" for California. Reagan was also considered to be tainted. He was seen by the media as tainted because some of his supporters were members of the John Birch Society. He was tainted by close association with the disastrous Goldwater campaign of 1964, which was hysterically denounced by the political establishment of California as too extreme. Considering that the more moderate Richard Nixon (read Bill Simon) had failed to win the Governorship in 1962 (read 2002), nobody gave the Gipper any chance.

When Reagan stepped down from the governorship in the 1970s, he was replaced by the extreme left-wing Jerry Brown, Gray Davis' mentor, who makes Davis seem like a right-winger. California is an unpredictable state. But it can elect a genuine conservative who is willing to offer a real and bold agenda for reform. Even Pete Wilson was only able to win re-election on the back of a conservative issue - prop 187. Are we supposed to believe that the 59 percent of Californians who voted for the measure, are not mainstream?

If you believe that politics is entertainment - an athletic contest between two football teams - then vote for the muscled dude. The athlete with the biggest muscles wins, right?

But if you believe in the issues - the rights of the unborn, the need to lower taxes, the need to reduce government to essential functions, the need to defend the right to own arms, and the defence of traditional marriage and family values, there is only one choice. McClintock.

Ronald Reagan never had an ideological successor in California. Tom McClintock is the ideological son of Ronald Reagan. Of the three major candidates fighting to succeed Davis, two are liberals, Bustamante and the muscled liberal with an "R" after his name. We should allow the two liberals, Cruz and Arnold, to split the liberal vote.

And if all conservatives - Simon supporters, Ueberroth supporters, and the misguided conservatives who are backing Arnold - were all to unite under the one candidate who best reflects their values, Tom McClintock, we could all win one last one for the Gipper on his home Turf.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 1966; conservative; mcclintock; reagan
Win one more for the Gipper on his home court. Vote for the one who shares the Gipper's values. Tom McClintock.
1 posted on 08/25/2003 4:27:29 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Ronald Reagan would never have split the Republican vote, thereby electing a Democrat.

2 posted on 08/25/2003 4:30:01 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Umm... I don't think so. The comparison is shallow. There is no "Ronald Reagan" in this race.
3 posted on 08/25/2003 4:30:11 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
You forgot the >>BARF<< alert in the title.

Tommy needs to be compared to other famous election disrupters such as Perot and Nader.

4 posted on 08/25/2003 4:32:34 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Ronald Reagan would never have split the Republican vote, thereby electing a Democrat.

One more difference between Reagan and Schwarzenegger.

5 posted on 08/25/2003 4:33:06 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Tom has no chance of being elected, so your point is specious.
6 posted on 08/25/2003 4:33:38 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Let me state at the outset - I love Tom Mcclintock and there is no one I would rather see as Governor of California, nor do I believe that there is anyone who could do as good a job as Tom.

Having said that, I don't think he can win this election. I think Schwartzenegger will pull more votes that McClintock in the polls right up to the election. We can't afford to split the Republican vote or we are going to get Bustamante as Governor.

I think, based on the money that Schwartzenegger is prepared to put into this race, and the name recognition and publicity, Tom ought to drop out, and let all Republicans support Arnold. Tom should run for Senator and defeat Barbara Boxer in 2004.

7 posted on 08/25/2003 4:33:58 PM PDT by Tom Jefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Ronald Reagan would never have split the Republican vote, thereby electing a Democrat.

Bullnuts.

8 posted on 08/25/2003 4:34:23 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (EEE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Wait till the next poll has Arnold hanging in the low 20s, yet again. Then just keep an open mind and consider backing a winner who actually agrees with you on something.
9 posted on 08/25/2003 4:35:32 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Ronald Reagan was the guy who, after losing the presidential nomination in 1968 and in 1976, made the motions at the conventions to make the nominees' vote unanimous. What Tom McClintock is threatening to do to California shows no such class.
10 posted on 08/25/2003 4:36:49 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
I'd like to see McClintock adopt Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
11 posted on 08/25/2003 4:37:08 PM PDT by My2Cents ("I'm the party pooper..." -- Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom Jefferson
Excellent points,I feel the same way exactly.

A.S. can win and he will owe conservatives for his victory.

McClintock cannot win.

12 posted on 08/25/2003 4:37:50 PM PDT by Rome2000 (McClintock is a megalomaniac with delusions of Ralph Naderism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
McClintock's adult working career is limited to government. No private enterprise.

McClintock lacks money, he lacks name identification and he lacks personality.

And I will suggest that the state may be less likely to elect Republicans of ANY stripe these days.

Given those reasons, I believe there is a higher probability of winning with Arnold, than of winning with McClintock.

And winning is phase #1 of politics -- campaigning, financing the campaign, persuading voters to your positions, making them like you as a person, etc.

If, and ony if you're successful at pahse #1 do you advance to phase #2 The holding of office, wielding of power.
13 posted on 08/25/2003 4:38:28 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Arnold-"I have to agree with my detractors, I do not have the experience, the experience to run the State into a swamp, like the ones who are running it now"


14 posted on 08/25/2003 4:40:31 PM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs (A McClintock supporter would rather keep Davis than elect Arnold just so they can say I told you so')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
That is how they're trying to set the spin up now. So when Tom rakes off a nice percentage and they all have to either continue saying "Governor Davis" or wind up saying "Governor Bustamonte", they'll pretend it wasn't their fault, and will blame Schwarzenegger for not getting out of the race and negotiating over all those crossover votes that only he can pull.
15 posted on 08/25/2003 4:44:11 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (This is the fault of outsourcing, offshoring, immigration and PC. We're all doomed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
One sizeable difference between the two men is one that McClintock cannot help: Reagan's easy charm, his ability to get people to like him. McClintock is aces on the issues, but what I'm describing largely is a quality that's innate, not "practiced" or developed.
16 posted on 08/25/2003 4:50:24 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
I think McClintock partly
(1) just isn't as innately charismatic as Reagan (or Schwarzenegger), but also
(2) is so very, very principled -- so confident that his views are correct (and they are), so unconcerned of whether others might incorrectly disagree with him -- that it actually works against his ability to pal around with undecided voters, liberals, etc., making him seem aloof, even though he isn't.
17 posted on 08/25/2003 4:53:51 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tom Jefferson
We can't afford to split the Republican vote or we are going to get Bustamante as Governor

What I think you meant to say is that we can't afford to split the conservative vote.

I'll give Arnie one point. Although there is little real difference between Bustamante and Schwartzenegger, at least Arnie doesn't want to make California a part of northern Autria.

18 posted on 08/25/2003 4:56:14 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tom Jefferson
I think, based on the money that Schwartzenegger is prepared to put into this race, and the name recognition and publicity, Tom ought to drop out, and let all Republicans support Arnold. Tom should run for Senator and defeat Barbara Boxer in 2004.

McClintock and Schwarzenegger appeal to different voters, so it's better if both stay in the campaign. McClintock brings to the polls the conservatives, who otherwise might stay home. Schwarzenegger keeps the liberals and democrats away from Bustamante, and Arnold keeps voter interest (or media coverage) high. Both he and Tom help the "yes" vote and prevent Davis from using his proven slime-the-opponent campaign strategy.

The effect of either Tom or Arnold dropping out would be to help Davis/Bustamante.

19 posted on 08/25/2003 5:03:50 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
Ronald Reagan had charisma and he was never arrogant. That kind of puts him in a different league from Mr. McClintock from what I've seen of him.
20 posted on 08/25/2003 5:18:20 PM PDT by BonnieJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
"2) is so very, very principled -- so confident that his views are correct (and they are), so unconcerned of whether others might incorrectly disagree with him -- that it actually works against his ability to pal around with undecided voters, liberals, etc., making him seem aloof, even though he isn't."

You may be right, and if so, he's in entirely the wrong profession. Maybe he should be an auditor.

The art of politics involves persuading people. In the case of California these days, it means a Republican MUST MUST MUST persuade some independents and democrats to vote for him.

Back to the auditor thing. I worked in corporate financial management. We always had some brilliant accountants and analysts that we could NOT take to speak with senior management.

Although these individuals were highly competent, they came up short on seeing "big pictures" and integrating their contribution, to the larger tasks of the organization.

I'm not saying McClintock is that dry and single-mended. I will say that his doggedness in having all the right policies (which I grant he may have) has perhaps been developed at the expense of having a pragmatic political scenario, for getting those ideas accross to voters, and enacted in legislature.

Similarly, he has come up short of money. Bad planning by him.
21 posted on 08/25/2003 5:22:59 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ
Ronald Reagan had charisma and he was never arrogant. That kind of puts him in a different league from Mr. McClintock from what I've seen of him.

Isn't that the truth! Very well stated! IMHO McClintock is NO Ronald Reagan!

Getting really sick and tired of everyone being talked about as the next Ronald Reagan -- there was one Ronald Reagan and I doubt if I see another one like him -- he was one of a kind and this Country was fortunate that he became President when he did to turn the Country around!

22 posted on 08/25/2003 5:50:00 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Alpha Omnicon Pi Mom too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: heleny
Hate to say this but you are voting on the successor to Davis when the recall goes through so how splitting the Republican vote is a good thing is beyond my comprehension.

Republicans need united when they go to the polls to oust Davis and pick a successor. Simon was a man of character when he realized that he couldn't win and didn't want to split the vote.
23 posted on 08/25/2003 5:52:52 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Alpha Omnicon Pi Mom too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
"Ronald Reagan would never have split the Republican vote, thereby electing a Democrat."


Of course, Reagan was man enough to run in the Republican primaries. It's easy to claim to be a Republican like Arnold does and yet run only when he doesn't have to face the Republican electorate. Why didn't Arnold run for governor or some other office in 2002? Or why doesn't he run for the Senate in 2004? Could it be that Arnold knows that he's a pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, anti-gun, pro-big-government LIBERAL and as such he would never beat a true Republican like Tom McClintock in a Republican primary, even in California? Arnold Schwarzenegger is like former Congressman Tom Campbell, who was so socially liberal that he got the state legislature to adopt an all-in primary format, later declared unconstitutional, because he knew it was his only chance to be nominated by the GOP statewide---and then got b1tch-slapped by Diane Feinstein in the general election. Arnold's "Republicanism" is also like John McCain, who only won primaries in states where Democrats and independents could vote for him in the supposedly GOP primaries, but who lost bigtime among registered Republicans---some Republican that is! Arnold wants to keep the Kennedy Dream alive by tricking conservative and moderate Californians into thinking that their vote would be "wasted" on Tom McClintock, the only non-liberal with a chance, and Arnold fight it out with Bustamante over the liberal vote. But if all Californians vote for the person with whom they agree on the most issues, Tom McClintock will win in a walk.
24 posted on 08/25/2003 6:08:30 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
"if all Californians vote for the person..."

Back in realityland. only Arnold or Cruz can win. Choose.
25 posted on 08/25/2003 6:19:40 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
And if all conservatives - Simon supporters, Ueberroth supporters, and the misguided conservatives who are backing Arnold - were all to unite under the one candidate who best reflects their values, Tom McClintock, we could all win one last one for the Gipper on his home Turf.

HELLO! What were you KA conservatives doing the last several elections??!! Were you not united behind one candidate each time and LOST? Face it, you guys don't have enough votes.

26 posted on 08/25/2003 6:25:06 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
McClintock is a career politician who has caught the desease they all seem to get. That's why he won't drop out. It's about TOM, not about the best interests of the party or people.
27 posted on 08/25/2003 6:28:01 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
"Back in realityland. only Arnold or Cruz can win. Choose."


If the California recall election had a run-off between the top two finishers, and Bustamante and Schwarzenegger finished 1-2, then you would be correct, Californians would have to choose between the two liberals (as they had to do in the 2001 LA mayoral election). However, goven the fact that there are more than two candidates in the ballot, you are starting off from a faulty premise. Whoever gets a plurality of votes will win, and if conservatives and moderates vote for Tom McClintock, he will win handily because (i) moderates and conservatives outnumber liberals in California, and (ii) even if liberals outnumbered moderates and conservatives, Bustamante and Arnold will split the liberal vote. Now all we have to do is convince conservatives such as yourself to support McClintock for governor. Let Arnold and Bustamante fight over the transsexual vote; McClintock will do common-sense Californians proud. We need to support the one guy who will stand up for conservative values and who will not raise taxes, whether income, sales, property or estate. Tom McClintock is our only hope.
28 posted on 08/25/2003 6:32:35 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
"Tom McClintock is our only hope."

I'll be sure to post this to you the day after the election.
29 posted on 08/25/2003 6:39:41 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
and the misguided conservatives who are backing Arnold -


At 35% that's the biggest block of Conservatives.... Hmmmmmm..... How you propose to change the misguided's mind?

Heck at 11% of the Conservatives Cruz gets a larger percentage than Arnold does of the Liberals at 8%..... Strange numbers floating around in this election so far....
30 posted on 08/25/2003 6:44:02 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
You are right. There is no Ronald Reagan in this race. Go Arnold Go!
31 posted on 08/25/2003 6:48:02 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (Why is the Left afraid of Arnold?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: heleny
I agree they appeal to different voters.... but your contention doesn't comport with the polling data...


			––––––– Among Likely Voters –––––––
		LV 	DEM 	IND 	REP 	LIB 	MOD 	CON
Bustamante	35 	65 	20 	8 	64 	38 	11
Schwarzenegger	22 	7 	20	39	 8 	19	35
McClintock	12 	4 	10 	21 	 1 	 8	24
 {end snip}

Heck at 11% of the Conservatives Cruz gets a larger percentage than Arnold does of the Liberals at 8%..... Strange numbers floating around in this election so far....

32 posted on 08/25/2003 6:50:28 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Were you not united behind one candidate each time and LOST? Face it, you guys don't have enough votes.

You would be right except Arnold has a chance of picking up a fair percentage of crossover votes. No Republican would crossover for Bustamante and no Democrat will crossover for McClintock. McClintock's disgraceful desire to be governor where he TRULY does not have enough votes only makes him look totally selfish in my mind. McClintock can bring in votes just as Simon did last time ... no crossovers to "pump up" the Republican side!

33 posted on 08/25/2003 6:53:14 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (Why is the Left afraid of Arnold?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
""Tom McClintock is our only hope."

I'll be sure to post this to you the day after the election."


If McClintock wins, then I would have been right all along. And if Bustamante or Arnold win, then it will be more of the same for California, just as if Gray Davis was still Governor, and given that California would still be hopeless, I would be correct as well.

This is an election, not an exercise in vote-counting. The election hasn't occurred yet, so conservatives can still change the destiny of the state. Remember Lawrence of Arabia: "Nothing is written."

Grand Old Partisan, you're a student of our party's history, and you should know better than anyone that there is no way that electing a RINO such as Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California will result in Californians going on to electing real conservatives in the future. Exactly the opposite result is more likely. Before a RINO gets elected governor, real conservatives can win even in liberal states, since voters look at the totality of the candidates' views and may like more of what the conservative has to offer than what the liberal has to offer. For example, a conservative may be able to get votes from many blue-collar workers (who may agree with the conservative on social and foreign-policy issues, although not on economic issues) and also from many pro-choice, anti-gun suburbanites (who may agree with the conservative on economic and foreign-policy issues, although not on social issues). However, when the purportedly conservative party (i.e., the GOP) nominates a social liberal, this is seen as a sign that social conservatives are not "electable," and gives credence to the leftists' canard that conservative Republicans are "extremists" and are somehow comparable to the Taliban. Even worse, if a RINO serves as governor and implements policies that one would normally expect from a Democrat, it results in (i) conservatives becoming disenchanted with the political process, which usually carries over to future elections (the fact that independents and Democrats would vote for the incumbent RINO in his reelection is of no help 4 years later), (ii) the electorate and the media expecting "mainstream" Republicans to be like the RINO they're used to seing, and anyone to the right of him would be labeled an extremist (when a RINO wins, only an even more liberal RINO can succeed him---think Ryan replacing Edgar in IL and Celluci replacing Weld in MA), and, by virtue of (i) and (ii), we see that (iii) it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that only a RINO is "electable" in that state. It takes years to cleanse a state's Republican Party of the stains of a RINO governor, and until it recovers the party is doomed, especially since any attempts to move the party back to its traditional position is pooh-poohed by those who cling to the notion that if we nominate a "more electable" candidate, surely he or she will lead the party to greatness.

Let's look at California before social liberal Pete Wilson was elected Governor. George H.W. Bush carried California in 1988 (the 9th Republican presidential candidate in 10 elections to carry the state, by the way), so California was still willing to elect pro-life Republicans. Why would it be necessary to nominate a RINO like Pete Wilson for governor in 1990? But the GOP did, and Wilson won, and it resulted in (i) Feinstein and Boxer getting elected in 1992, (ii) Clinton carrying California that same year, and (iii) the GOP continuing to lose strength in CA in 1994 even though it was a big year for the party in just about every other state. Wilson's governorship made sure conservatives would have nobody to vote for. And CA isn't the only state where RINO governors have made the state more Democratic---the same thing happened in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey in the 1990s. All four of those states were a lot more Republican when they had Democrat governors than they were after the RINOs got elected (e.g., Bush 41 got 45% in MA, 47.5% in NY, 52% in CT and 56% in NJ in 1988 under Democrat governorships, but Bush 43 got 32.5% in MA, 35% in NY, 38% in CT and 40% in NJ in 2000 under RINO governorships). Now, I'm not saying that residents of these states would be social conservatives if not for the fact that they had RINO governors, but I do believe that the Republican presidential vote dropped by between 12.5% and 16% in these states largely because having RINO governors convinced residents of these states that social conservatives are automatically "extremist" and thus not worthy of their vote.

So, if you want California to go back to having a real Republican Party, you need to support Tom McClintock and not a RINO like Schwarzenegger. That's what history has taught us. If we forget the lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat the same mistakes. Let's not let it happen in California.
34 posted on 08/25/2003 7:00:37 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Would that you spent as much time campaigning against Cruz Bustamante as you do against Arnold Schwarzenegger.
35 posted on 08/25/2003 7:09:04 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
how splitting the Republican vote is a good thing is beyond my comprehension.
Republicans need united when they go to the polls to oust Davis and pick a successor.

I think having both AS and TM as candidates will increase turnout and help shape the campaign/debate/advertisements/news, which benefits us more than the detriment of splitting the vote. Each candidate draws his own supporters to the polls, groups which include people who aren't registered Republicans.

If either AS or TM dropped out, the debates may shift leftward (with less time for GOP platforms) and Davis/Bustamante/unions could slime the GOP frontrunner with Davis' time-tested strategy. Both TM and AS contribute to the right direction of this election, and their candidacies help prevent Republicans from staying home on Oct 7th.

On an unrelated note, I heard on KNX today that private polling by Simon showed
Schwarzenegger 31%
Bustamante 25%
McClintock 17%
Ueberroth 8%

36 posted on 08/25/2003 7:33:00 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Grand Old Partisan, you say that "Ronald Reagan would never have split the Republican vote, thereby electing a Democrat."

So--here's McClintock's choice: he can stay in the race and thereby possibly split the Republican vote -- thus electing a Democrat (Bustamante).

Or he can get out of the race and thereby unite the Republican vote -- thus electing a guy who might as well be a Democrat (Schwarzenegger).

Why are all you "conservatives" so defeatist and so ready to abandon your principles? Rather than worrying about "splitting" your vote, why not unite behind a true conservative--McClintock. Until you people are ready to do that, do not look for conservative principles to ever be put into practice in California (or anywhere else, actually).

I am so darn tired of hearing lines like: "Californians will never elect a real conservative so we must go with the least offensive liberal." Instead of whining about how a conservative can't get elected in the state, get out and work for one this time around, and see what can happen. We came very close to winning last time around, with Bill Simon, an utter doofus of a candidate, who ran a totally lame campaign. We can win with an articulate and smart guy who knows the political territory like McClintock.

I don't know why I'm always hearing that McClintock should be a "good Republican" and not divide the party? That he should be a good little boy and fall in line behind Schwarzenegger? Why does "unity" only go one way? Why doesn't somebody ask Schwarzenegger to prove that he's a good Republican by deferring to McClintock, the one guy with the experience and smarts for the job.

37 posted on 08/25/2003 7:35:01 PM PDT by EdJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: deport
Heck at 11% of the Conservatives Cruz gets a larger percentage than Arnold does of the Liberals at 8%..... Strange numbers floating around in this election so far....

The numbers were from the recently released LAT poll, which I haven't examined closely. Were the "conservatives" self-professed or categorized by their answers to other questions? Among the supplemental Latinos (to total 125 Latinos), there could have been some "conservatives," but that ethnic group disporportionately favored Bustamante. Someone pointed out that Bustamante was introduced in the survey as the only major Democrat in the election, while other candidates (including Schwarzenegger) did not get the benefit of such an endorsement. Also, the margin of error was +/-9%, which is very high.

38 posted on 08/25/2003 7:38:54 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EdJay
'Unity" should go the way of the Republican front-runner, who is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
39 posted on 08/25/2003 7:46:54 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: heleny
Naw margin of error was +-3.... the 9 was on the latino adds..



http://images.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-08/9130937.pdf

The poll questions and answers.......
40 posted on 08/25/2003 7:49:39 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ComtedeMaistre
PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.

41 posted on 08/25/2003 10:30:59 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
I agree with everything you said in #33.
42 posted on 08/26/2003 4:20:54 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Didn't realize until you posted that info to me that he was a career politician without any business experience.

And yet he is the best man for the job? Give me a break -- career politicians are not the best people to be leaders in this Country IMHO. In fact, I have had it with career politicians that have never been in the business world!


43 posted on 08/26/2003 7:30:46 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (Alpha Omnicon Pi Mom too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EdJay; Grand Old Partisan
"I don't know why I'm always hearing that McClintock should be a "good Republican" and not divide the party"


The real issue isn't McClintock, it's Schwarzenegger. If Arnold Scharzenegger was truly a good Republican, he would oppose infanticide, same-sex unions, unconstitutional gun-grabbing and increasing the California government leviathan. But because Schwarzenegger is such a lousy "Republican" (I get sick typing that noble word to describe such an extreme liberal), he has indeed split the Republican Party, with conservatives and moderates that stand true to their principles on one side, and conservatives and moderates who care only about electing someone with an R next to his name on the other. If Arnold Achwarzenegger was pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage, pro-gun and pro-limited government, he would enjoy universal support among California and national Republicans, and Tom McClintock would be the first one out there supporting Arnold's quest for the governorship. It's a shame Arnold had to go out there and split the Republican Party in order to kiss up to his in-laws.
44 posted on 08/26/2003 7:38:03 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson