Free Republic

If only McClintock were governor...

"He's certainly got a better stage presence than that stiff McClintock."

Yeah, so does Bill Clinton. That doesn't change my opinion of him.

"a majority of Democratic voters said they have come to like the man."

Democrats liking a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay, pro-immigration, flip-flopping candidate? Who would have thought?

I hope he gets as little exposure as possible. He is an embarassment to the GOP.

Whatever. I have a life, so this will be my last post on this topic.

“You are flat wrong on what Bush campaigned on in 2000.”

He said he was for a limited government. He increased it at the fastest rate in decades. He said he was against the Campaign Finance Reform Bill – then he signed it. When it comes to spending, he didn’t compromise, he sold out.

“You reiterate that the American people are stupid, and your proof is that you have disagreed with them.”

My proof is that they voted for Clinton two consecutive terms. If that isn’t stupid, I don’t know what is. Do you think that was a smart thing to do? If they acted stupid by voting for Clinton, don’t you think they could act stupid again by voting for Kerry? Yes. That’s all I’m saying.

“In fact, it is a deep impenetrable mystery why you aren't already running the country in his place.”

Okay, now you’re just being stupid. This is a political discussion board. We give opinions about politics. Just because I say that Bush is making a bad move by focusing so much on the War in Iraq doesn’t mean that I think I should be president. Calm down and take a few deep breaths. I’m sure that, in your life, you’ve also made a few political predictions, like, um, maybe saying that Kerry could never win?

“blah, blah, blah”

Oh brother. If anyone here is living in the clouds, it is definitely you! “Oh, don’t worry, the American people are too smart to vote for Kerry – Bush will win. Besides, how could he not win, it’s his job to get votes. I know that the polls might disagree with me sometimes, but that’s okay because, every poll is biased. Only I know what’s going to happen, because only I know that the American people are too smart to vote for Kerry.”

Yeah, right. And I’m the one that’s naïve.

Yes. Sacramento, California.

Jason C,

I apologize for my delayed response – I have been traveling and only have periodic access to the internet.

I hesitate to respond, as I think we’ve moved considerably beyond the topic of this thread. However, your last post was obviously quite thoughtful, so I will respond likewise.

“The requirement that they be consulted and persuaded before an agenda is implimented as policy, isn't stupid either.”

I couldn’t agree more. They were. I remember the debates of 2000. We, the American people, were consulted. Bush told us, “That’s the difference in philosophy between my opponent and me. He trusts government. I trust you.” Yes, we said! We like that idea. You’ve persuaded us. So, we elected him. Then, he gave us a 31.5% increase in non-defense domestic discretionary spending. Then, he decided to give us the largest expansion of an entitlement program since LBJ. He further federalized education. Sure, he trusts us, but the right to keep and bear arms might be too much for us. Oh, and what he said about trusting us with our own money during elections (Campaign Finance Reform), he didn’t really mean that. Oh yeah, and he doesn’t really trust us to talk on the phone, use the internet, or anything else like that without the possibility of government intrusion. The American people just can’t be trusted. After all, one of them might be a terrorist.

What I’m trying to say is that he consulted us and persuaded us about his agenda. But then, he completely changed his agenda. I’m criticizing him for that. That doesn’t make me “monarchial or dictatorial.” The fact that you even suggest such a thing is offensive and entirely out-of-line.

“Our system is set up to require compromise.”

I agree. But there is a difference between compromising and selling out. Bush campaigned on a smaller government. If say, he then kept the government the same size or reduced it only slightly, that would be compromise. But he didn’t, he increased its size in a way not seen for decades. That isn’t compromising, that’s selling out. I have the right to be angry.

“It is OK for you to state the principles you'd like to see enacted. But it is silly and naive of you to think your concern for ideological purity in causes you agree with is the route to political success.”

The LA Times (I know, I know, but just hear me out) poll in 2000 found that Americans prefer “smaller government with few services” to “larger government with many services” by 59 to 26 percent. I want you to find ANY poll that shows that much of a margin of support for Bush’s recent handling of the war on terrorism. Every poll on Iraq has shown that support for Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq is shaky, at best.
\
I know you don’t trust polls. But here is what you are doing: you are telling my that I am “silly and naïve” for arguing that the War in Iraq is not a very strong issue and that Bush would be better off if he had some domestic accomplishments to brag of. You say that I have no reason to believe this, yet I provide solid evidence in polls. Your response: forget the polls (they’re biased) my way is better because I said it is and because the American people are smart and wouldn’t vote for Kerry. Seriously, YOU have the nerve to tell me I’m naïve and ideological?

“Practicing pols know how to get votes. It is their job. ”

Wrong! Every ‘practicing pol’ takes an oath before they hold their office. That is, you could say, their job description. I don’t believe any of those oaths say, “I do solemly swear that I will get all the votes I can…” Nope, but it does say something about faithfully executing the office and upholding the constitution. Obviously, they have to get elected first, but their job is to uphold the constitution. I know what you’re trying to say, but I had to correct your error.

“Practicing pols know how to get votes. It is their job. You don't have useful advice to give them on the subject.”

But so many of them fail at getting votes. History tells us that the ones that fail are not the ones that faithfully uphold their promises and stick to their beliefs, but, in fact, it is those that sell out. People elected Bush because of what he said he would do. If he does what he said he would do (which we obviously liked), we will like him, and consequently reelect him. If he doesn’t do what he said he would do, he risks us not liking him. One example that comes to mind would be “read my lips” Bush Sr. If we had been on this board back then, I might have said, “Bush (Sr.) betrayed me by raising taxes. Too bad he sold out. That will hurt him at the ballot box.” And you might have said, “The American people aren’t stupid enough to vote for someone as spineless as Clinton. Bush will win, because he compromised. You’re too ideological. You couldn’t get 5% of the vote. Bush (Sr.) in an experienced politician, etc…”

“The American people aren't stupid. They didn't climb to the top of the world power system, wrecking communism and fascism and authoritarian empires along the way, by being stupid.”

Are you saying that they were smart to vote for Clinton two elections in a row?

Go back to how this started. You said that the American people would never elect Kerry, because ‘the American people know [that he is spineless].’ I’ve always thought that Clinton was spineless. Why didn’t the American people ‘know that’ and vote against him? Were they right to vote for Clinton? Did the fact that they voted for Clinton help us to ‘climb to the top of the world power system’? NO! Voting for Clinton was stupid. Those that voted for Clinton were acting stupidly. Many Americans voted for Clinton. Therefore, simple logic will tell us that many Americans are stupid. Those stupid Americans haven’t gone anywhere, and if (as they did with Clinton), all those stupid people again vote stupidly, Kerry could easily be elected, regardless of his spinelessness. Do I want this to happen? Of course not! I’m just saying that you are being naïve and overly optimistic to say that Kerry could never be elected because the American people ‘aren’t stupid.’

So, I know what you’re going to say. No, I’m not suggesting that we kill all the stupid people or stop them from voting. I’m not “monarchial and dictatorial.” All I’m saying is that the war in Iraq isn’t Bush’s strongest issue. We know that people like the idea of smaller government, because he campaigned on that and won in 2000. All I’m saying is that Bush would be better off at the ballot box if he had some good domestic accomplishments to brag of, but since he decided to sell-out, he will be in a much more difficult position come November, because, yes, there are many Americans stupid enough to vote for Kerry.

“And you've won oh so many more votes that W has, right?”

No, I don’t win votes – I give a vote. The people that give votes can offer much better political advice than those that only try to win votes.

“On the domestic stuff, it was politics. He took away their issues, now they don't have them.”

Bad politics! I hate it when people try to use that as an excuse. You can’t say that it’s okay to destroy this country (immigration, spending…) if it is politically opportune. Limited government is a key aspect of the Republican party and the conservative movement. It is bad for this country (and I dare say bad politics) for Bush to abandon that aspect. If by taking away their issues, you mean that he adopted their positions on these issues, please remember – in doing so, he broke campaign promises and disappointed the many conservatives that expected him to pursue a more limited government.

“There are maybe a quarter of the electorate that are actually pacifist or defeatest, and you can probably win a statewide race in Massachusetts on that platform (probably, not entirely clear even there). But nationally, defeatism and anti-Americanism are big time political losers, no matter how hysterical the media gets.”

Don’t get me wrong. I supported the war in Iraq and adamantly defended it. I believe that the world is better off with Saddam out of power. That being said, I do not believe that this is a strong campaign issue for Bush. I only wish that he could brag of a strong domestic agenda, but he can’t, because he sold out on immigration, healthcare, campaign finance reform, and spending. I once thought gay marriage would be the issue to save him, but it seems that he plans to focus only on taxes and Iraq. Taxes are good, but he fails to recognize that the constituency which feels most strongly about tax cuts is the same group that wants spending cuts. Iraq is a gamble, and as with most gambles, the odds are against him.

“The American people know it. They aren't going to elect him commander in chief, any more than they elected McGovern. All the media hype in the world couldn't elect McGovern and it won't elect his the modern version.”

Your optimism is encouraging, but naïve You forget that “the American people” elected Clinton for two consecutive terms. The American people nearly elected Gore. The American people can be surprisingly idiotic.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, I just can't. He has majorly screwed up on domestic policy. I praise him for the tax cuts, but as I said in the above post, his failure to control spending and government growth is a bigger problem for this country in the long run.

I know that this topic isn't the place for a discussion on immigration. But I will say that I have carefully evaluated his policy, which is why I find it so appalling. I had great expectations for President Bush, but he has been a great dissappointment.

That being said, I would much rather have him in office than Kerry, which is why I strongly urge his campaign to focus on issues other than the war in Iraq.

"... health care and education. He passed major consensus legislation on both."

Thank you so much for reminding me -- I, for a mere second, began to forget that our president pushed for the largest expansion of an entitlement program since LBJ. The medicare bill was when I began to lose trust in President Bush. PLEASE do not even try to make that a great domestic accomplishement.

As for the tax cuts, I couldn't agree with you more. Tax cuts are good. Traditionally, though, one would expect that, in giving more money back to the people, you would also have to take that money away from somewhere, namely, the government. Instead we saw a 31% increase in domestic discretionary spending. I support the tax cuts. But from this conservative's point of view, such an outrageous increase in government spending eliminates all bragging rights that Bush would have had for the tax cuts.

"There will be an Iraqi government that wants us there, in November."

Maybe true. Regardless, Iraq has, for the Bush administration, been one embarassment after another. It is not a strong campaign issue. He has to push something else. But from what I've been seeing, he has been stubbornly insisting on making terrorism his key campaign issue. I admit that I'm not an expert, but from my perspective, this is a bad decision on his part.

Yeah... But if you had any sense you would realize that it is stupid to try and win this election solely on fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq. Regardless of the supposed inaccuracy of the LA Times (which may very well be true), it is obvious that support for the War has been dropping significantly. If the war in Iraq is the only thing Bush focuses on, he will lose. Unfortunately for him, he's already screwed up on domestic policy (immigration, spending, gun control, etc.)

Yeah, McClintock was somewhere around there, which is why it is crucial that Bush not alienate California's fiscal conservatives by over-relying on Schwarzenegger.
I agree - Bush should spend more time here, especially at the military bases. Even if he can't carry the state, it would be beneficial to at least make Kerry waste some of his time and money here.

Mark my words: Bush will lose in California. Keep in mind, even if everyone that voted for Arnold votes for George Bush (very unlikely), Bush will still have less than 50% of California's vote. If I remember correctly, Schwarzenegger only got about 48% of the vote in the recall election (against an enourmously unpopular Gray Davis).

"BERKELEY, Calif."

Enough said.

I can't believe this is serious. Ridiculous.

Truly a great speach. I still haven't found anything that I disagree with Tom on -- he's perfect!

"There are several ways that you can help Kerry win: a) Vote for Kerry, b)Don't vote for Bush, c) Don't vote at all, d) Vote Third Party, d) Try to send Bush a message, e) Try to teach Bush a lesson, f) _______, g) ________................"

Tough choice. If I had to choose one of those, I think I'd probably go with d or e :-)

"It depends on one's mindset, but it would keep the Liberals out of power while we work on the problem."

No, it would just put different liberals into power. When it comes to fiscal policy, Bush is a liberal. Liberal. I know you thought it was simplistic, but I'll say it again -- supporting limited government is a critical part of being a conservative. If you don't support limited government, you aren't conservative. Voting for fiscal liberals just puts fiscal liberals into power -- not conservatives.

"Try not to use the word 'base' for the rest of your life."

Will do.

"Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress....and he still managed to do a lot of damage."

Couldn't agree more. If size of government was all that mattered, than I would prefer Clinton over Bush anyday, but that's not all that matters. However, it is part of what matters. For me to criticize President Bush's fiscal policy is perfectly reasonable.

"The next GOP president may be more or less conservative than Bush."

Unless they devise a winning formula of forgetting about their base and spending big. If the base stands by them throughout all the big spending, it will be determined that the best strategy to win elections is to spend big -- you can't lose any votes, right? So the long term effect will be two socialist parties running against each other every year. When people vote third party, they are making a temporary sacrifice in order to prevent that from happening in the long run.

That being said, I'm not saying that I won't vote for Bush. I honestly haven't decided on that one yet. It doesn't really matter -- Kerry will win in California no matter what I do.

"Will any of that go away if he loses?"

Had a Democratic president proposed any of those things -- space, immigration, medicare, arts -- the Republicans in congress would have blocked it. None of them would have passed.

"Use common sense, instead."

Common sense tells me that if I always vote for a candidate that supports big government, I will always get big government. That's not what I want.