Posted on 08/09/2003 11:48:05 AM PDT by GreatOne
1) I didn't say you were a DemoRat, just that you were acting like one.
2) I presume the moderator removed my parenthetical because he/she deemed it not the right tone for this webiste (you should've seen what was allowed in 1998-1999). Their website, their rules.
3) DemoRats are famous for protecting their own (Clinton, Sharpton, Jackson, et. al). What planet are you living on?4) In 1976, Reagan was the right choice for conservatives, as he was the standard bearer for the cause. More importantly for this thread, Reagan did not just come off losing an election he should have easily won the year before. Further, Ford was not electable himself, which is more to the point for this analogy. Simon had his chance and blew it, big time. With McClintock in the race, what is his purpose, other than for ego? There is zero groundswell for him, and he has done nothing to rehabilitate himself from his disastrous campaign.
5) Regarding voter fraud, Simon should have won handily enough that voter fraud wouldn't have mattered.
6) The state party didn't properly support them because of liberal scumbag Parks, who whinned like a little girl when Riordan lost and did what he could to stop full support for Simon. However, Simon was his own worst enemy, and needed no one else's help in looking bad.
Rush Limbaugh always uses the Alan Cranston story about why Republicans should always support the party candidate (Cranston barely won with conservatives staying home, and he then helped prevent Judge Bork from becoming Justice Bork). I reject that 99% of the time (as you seemingly do) - I never voted for wife-cheating dirtbag former MN Sen. Rod Grams in 1994 or 2000. But in this case, with no primary, with Republicans on the verge of becoming a DemoRat Texas, and with Arnold most likely being able to assist Bush in 2004, I believe that for this election, we need to support Arnold for non-conservative reasons.
Couple problems here. Fong is a staunch moderate, never has been a conservative. But more importantly, Simon NEVER EVER moderated his conservative views. Not once. It never happened.
Well you heard and read wrong. Simon remained a staunch conservative through the entire campaign.
I presume the moderator removed my parenthetical because he/she deemed it not the right tone for this webiste
The moderator removed your comments because they were completely inapprpriate, and immature. (And I visited FR constantly in '98 and '99)
5) Regarding voter fraud, Simon should have won handily enough that voter fraud wouldn't have mattered.
With an attitude like that, Republican will be a permanent minority party. I can't believe you have that little respect for the rule of law.
Further, Ford was not electable himself, which is more to the point for this analogy.
That is blatantly not true. I wouldn't have supported Ford, but her barely lost that election.
I believe that for this election, we need to support Arnold for non-conservative reasons.
What nonconservative reasons? California is in danger alright, but we are in danger of having two Democrat parties. If you knew what was going on in the state party you would cringe.
I don't think so. Interestingly, Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party just earlier tonight claimed that Simon had "flip-flopped" on the abortion and gay rights issues toward the end of that campaign. If Simon didn't officially change his positions, he did everything but.
Billy SimØn = the zerØ candidate !
Reagan ran and failed in 1976, then we all know what he did in 1980.
Now, what am I supposed to learn from that, Golden Gate? ;-)
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.