Hugh Hewitt Lays Down the Gauntlet to Tombots

Hugh Hewitt's Website ^ | September 12, 2003 | Hugh Hewitt

[FairOpinion]

Hohw do you feel about Dana Rohrbacher?

I just saw Dana on Hannity & Colmes.

He said, that as a conservative he is supporting Arnold, and "principled conservatives" should vote for the one, who is closest to their philosophy and CAN WIN, i.e. Arnold, instead of allowing someone who is totally opposed to everything they stand for, Bustamante, to win.

[CheneyChick]

That reply was for you, too, since it was your post I factually objected to in the first place.

[DiamondDon1]

" Pleas for Mr. McClintock to quit the contest have come from a variety of sources — the White House, working through surrogates in California; leading elected Republicans in the state; and the Schwarzenegger campaign. Mr. McClintock has stood fast.

You're speculating Fair...and even if you're right (just supposing) isn't Tom the kind of guy that would stand up to the legislature and fight for what is right?

I think the fact that he is not easily swayed is a really good thing for California...

DD

[Hildy]

Schwartzenegger will NEVER be a Dem. Never. After years of watching politicians, it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad. Arnold is a good guy. You many not agree with some social issues of his, but he is a good man and a fiscal conservative.

[truthkeeper]

Yes, I heard him too. He's entitled to his opinion as I am entitled to mine. At least he is not obnoxious about it. Not so far, anyway. Hewitt's column went waaaay over the top, IMO. He's been a jerk the last few times I channel-surfed over his show so I won't be making that mistake again.

BTW, I am a Tom supporter but will watch the whole race and make my decision at the end. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work...or did I misunderstand my government and civ classes?

[Amerigomag]

I'd suggest that the Republicans would be better served to wait until the wild card (9th Circuit) is laid down early next week.

Davis is waiting with $15M in his pocket.

The dynamics of the game change appreciably if the election is set back 5 months.

[calcowgirl]

But, but, but .... it just CAN'T show increased support for Tom... it just CAN'T ....Whhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

Another convincing argument to vote for arnie.

[DiamondDon1]

THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE ENEMY!

My thoughts exactly!!! Rather than debate which candidate is best, we have this "Tom can't win" thing going...

Well looking at the facts, and how soft Arnold's "conservative" base is, Tom can win if the people (mainly conservatives) believe...

DD

[truthkeeper]

THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE ENEMY!

I agree, but somebody should tell Hewitt. He just declared war on us.

[liberty or death]

The mean spirited trash that Republicans give eachother is all part of the Democracy Brawl that keeps it honest.
(for the most part).
The Democrats are a great example of a party marching in lock step, with very little dissent allowed, and it has made them thouroughly corrupt.
Take me to the Brawl :>))

[DiamondDon1]

Nice Post!

"Hugh Hewitt, legal counsel to the Building Industry Association Endangered Species Committee" (1991)

"Irvine attorney Hugh Hewitt, who represents many large Southern California land interests" (1992)

"Gov. Wilson appointment of Irvine attorney Hugh Hewitt to the board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (1995)"

...."Hugh Hewitt, an attorney and co-host of "Life and Times" on KCET-TV, was appointed to the board by Gov. Pete Wilson in May 1995, pending Senate confirmation. But the Senate rules committee voted 3-2 Monday not to confirm Hewitt's appointment. "His record is more pro-industry, at the expense of air quality," said Sandy Harrison, press secretary for committee chairman Sen. Bill Lockyer, D-Hayward. Lockyer also felt that Hewitt was not an air-quality specialist, as called for in state law, and that he had potential conflicts of interest because of his many business clients."(1996)

I had no idea, thank you for the insight...

DD

[DiamondDon1]

I sent Hugh a couple of e-mails to get over the bashing Tombots thing...obviously he refused.

In a previous e-mail reply, Hugh has claimed that he just gets mad because we "Tombots" don't get it, and so on...

DD

[calcowgirl]

I forgot to note... All quotes are from the Orange County Register. There were more quotes as he was used as a mouthpiece for the El Toro Airport debacle, etc.

The quotes noted were enough to make me wary, to say the least.

[DiamondDon1]

You may be interested...

[South40]

Thanks Anny.

I can see his logic has escaped the TomBots.

What else is new?

[vbmoneyspender]

I have been shaking my head listening to him the last couple of days. He ain't helping his cause by insulting people who potentially might vote for his guy.

[SteveH]

Then from HH's perspective you would have no qualms signing the resolution I proposed?

I mean, we all need to take individual responsibility for our own actions.

Voting is always an approximation to getting the best leader or the best initiative to win.

Absolute causality is a few steps away from voting responsibility. The Vietnam War may have been right or wrong; but even if I was to believe that it was wrong, should I have withheld my income taxes while the war was in progress, and were any Mai Lais which occurred there partially my fault if I had voted for LBJ? If I voted for Carter, who relaxed government oversight of banks, would that make me responsible for the credit meltdown of the early 1980s and the need for a subsequent government bailout?

This can go on forever. The only way I see that one can avoid madness is to seize the day and vote one's principles as best one can at the moment a decision or commitment is called for.

I don't want to have to vote for an unknown quantity, and be consumed with doubt and secondguessing and regret as to whether I have voted for a "good T-1000" or a "bad T-1000".

My own political litmus test (2A) is already strained past the breaking point with Arnold!. The guy is on record as not trusting me, as far as I am concerned. I need stronger evidence that he deserves my trust in return.

From my perspective there is little incentive to be concerned one way or the other if this all is going to be determined by some kind of pseudo-democratic fiat, and especially before I get a chance to see these two guys square off with each other, or at least before someone does. Arnold! avoiding a debate speaks louder than the professions of a million FR true believers and Dana Rohrbachers vouching for him... on the contrary, the surrogate voices for Arnold! contribute to the unease. Just my thoughts...

[Hoof Hearted]

Wow, McClintock's up to 18%. Now only slightly more than 4 out of 5 voters are against him! Yep, things are really looking up (for Bustamante). If Tom threw his support to Arnold, he could be perceived as a hero to the Republican party at large, and would then have an excellent chance to unseat Barbara Boxer in the 2006 senate race. McClintock would be a great senator and could do more for California in that role than as Governor in a state run totally by Democrats. Arnold has the charisma to rally the people to put pressure on the state legislature better than any other candidate in the Governor's race. I think that if the Republicans lose the election, McClintock will be blamed to the extent that his political career could be over.

[DiamondDon1]

Hello...have not yet had the pleasure...

DUH! Less than 30% of Republicans in Kalifornia support him. If, if, if, if, if elephants could fly...

Do you really think it is rational or prudent to live in a fantasy, make-believe world?

Currently Arnold is taking a huge chunk of the conservative vote, which if people "believe" can go to Tom. If even half of those people (one segment of the population) switch, we are there, we win.

Your point about if, if, if is well taken. But this is the "conservative" candidate McClintock we are talking about and Arnold is not, at least, "socially" conservative...

You see, it pays to believe...

DD

[VOA]

Just a quick explanation of my Ahnold support...
1. I'm an expatriate Okie and after observing how far left the CA guvmint has gone,
my feeling has been that Ahnold would be more likely to help the ship of state
move to the right (and to fiscal sanity) without having a real "mutiny" in Sacramento that
might just make things worse.

2. Like Hewitt, I fully acknowledge McClintock is much more qualified for understanding the
fiscal mechinations of fixing the CA budget...but I've had doubts that Tom could
really climb over Cruz and/or Arnold's vote-levels and win.

3. And like lots of Ahnold supporters, my bottom line has been a "crawl over
broken glass" to avoid hearing the term "Governor Bustamante" on TV for at least 3 years!

But...all this said...if I see Ahnold losing his grip on his base and McClintock
actually attains substantial and verifiable support that would put him in
striking distance of coming out on top...I'd gladly vote for him.

My real hope is that Ahnold, if his base erodes, will have the good graces to
step aside and tell folks to vote for Tom.
That would be the wise thing for Ahnold to do if he ever wants to stay in CA politics.

As I'd say to any CA-voting Freeper:
"ANYONE...AS LONG AS IT'S NOT GOVERNOR BUSTAMANTE OR DAVIS!"