Please vote for Tom McClintock!

[gunsmith]

NOW LETS RECALL FEINSTEIN!

fine with me!

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

I just heard on the radio that McClintock could have won if conservatives and moderates voted for him, instead of thinking he had no chance and voting for Ahhnold!!! :banghead:

Again, the lack of faith and principle slips us further into the grey hole.

 

[Thumper]

I just heard on the radio that McClintock could have won if conservatives and moderates voted for him, instead of thinking he had no chance and voting for Ahhnold!!!

That's a little hard to swallow, considering the makeup of the California electorate...what was the source?

The highest figure I saw, pre-election, was that McClintock might, in a best case scenario, get 20% of the vote. Turns out he got, what, thirteen percent?

I would have loved to see McClintock win, but reality has to be addressed.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Now we'll see how well Arnie's Star Power plays with the legislature. It was good enough to get him elected (well, the only reason he was) but, will it be good enough to win over that den of thieves?

 

[OF]

I am thankful tonight that it was not closer and that McClintock was not the spoiler, but the potential was there.

Arnold is the spoiler in that election. His self-serving power-grab has spoiled your chance of electing the man you needed to save that state. Fear-mongering kept him out and put Arnold in.

Good luck.

- Gabe

 

[El Rojo]

Fear-mongering kept him out and put Arnold in.

Care to back that up with more evidence other than your own opinion? I don't see how getting 50% of the vote is fear mongering. People still don't get it. It wasn't the hard core conservatives like myself that elected Arnold. It was the moderates in the middle. Why don't people understand that? McClintock is not electable in this liberal state. He is too far right. Sure we can make statements like, "I just heard on the radio that McClintock could have won if conservatives and moderates voted for him." Yeah if conservatives and moderates would have voted for Bustamante he could have won too! I mean come on.

It is so simple yet so hard to comprehend. This state is liberal. In order for any type of "Republican" to win, they have to come to the middle. Being pro-gun, pro-life, and a fiscal conservative that "helps the rich and taxes the poor" is repulsive to the main stream California voter. Everyone needs to understand that. I live here, I work with some of these people, what is common sense to us as far as what works is a completely foreign idea to these people.

Lets be happy we got Schwarzenegger in office. He is the best electable chance we had and this is a victory for the people of California. He isn't Tom McClintock true, but he sure as hell isn't Gray or Cruz and that I am thankful for.

 

[EWTHeckman]

This state is liberal. In order for any type of "Republican" to win, they have to come to the middle. Being pro-gun, pro-life, and a fiscal conservative that "helps the rich and taxes the poor" is repulsive to the main stream California voter.

Ronald Reagan was the most conservative president we've had in decades. If California is so socialist, how did that happen?

My theory is that the majority of voters don't even think about the issues when they go to vote. They either vote the way they (and their family) have always voted, or they vote for the best looking, most popular one.

I wonder what would happen if we changed the election process to require witness protection type campaigning. No candidate can appear on television as they are. They must be in shadow, blurred or a mask, and their voice must be altered. When out meeting the public, they must put a bag over their head like the Unknown Comic, or some other type of generic mask. Maybe even no names, just positions and voting records. Get rid of distractions and focus on what really matters in an election: politics and policies.

Would Abraham Lincoln have been elected today? Not a chance!

 

[Destructo6]

Ronald Reagan was the most conservative president we've had in decades. If California is so socialist, how did that happen?

That was also 30+ years ago. Things have changed.

The left dismissed Reagan as a Hollywood actor with a good voice and an empty head. Reagan was more than that, Cannon argues. He was an autodidact and gifted storyteller. As an actor, Reagan was competent, but as a politician he stood out so remarkably that he "seemed a president-in-waiting almost as soon as he began campaigning."

Reagan was a politician of ideas. His lodestone was the fundamentally anti-government idea that people ought to be lightly taxed and regulated, and mainly left alone. Cannon is not much interested in that idea but enormously interested in the man who held it.

"Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power"

Reagan was untrained to be governor and began not knowing what he was doing. He was a loner and never did learn how to hobnob with legislators. But he was a quick study. He read several newspapers a day but demanded that bureaucratic reports be boiled down to mini-memos. He made decisions without agonizing over them and did not look back.

by Lou Cannon
PublicAffairs, $30

 

[EWTHeckman]

California has been known as "the land of nuts and flakes" for a very, very long time. I sincerely doubt that it has made that much of a shift in only 30 years.