The use of the word “ideologue” is getting pretty loose these days. Quinn calls McClintock an “ideologue”, which in modern parlance means “someone who actually has political beliefs and a political agenda, as opposed to someone who wants to get elected out of pure personal ambition.” Russell Kirk dissected the word “ideology” pretty well in “The Politics of Prudence” and explained why conservatism is not an ideology.

That said, Quinn’s piece is based on the assumption that Arnold will get a clue if given some more time. Arnold is quite clearly roped into the establishment mainstream of “The Stupid Party”, above whose doors there hangs the sign: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

Quinn makes some of the same points David Horowitz did a while back. It would avtually be better for conservatives if California were allowed to crash with the Democrats who created the mess left holding the bag. Getting rid of Davis and electing Schwatzenegger would only delay the inevitable. Until enough people in California realize that it is the liberals they elected to the leglislature who put the disasterous policies in place, nothing much can be done to turn things around. If Davis’ drivers license scam for illegals goes unchallenged (as is largely the case), it may be too late to do anything but sit and watch the Titanic go down. Thanks to the motor voter bill, which Bill Clinton was able to sign thanks to Republican help, there will be nothing to effectively prevent large numbers of illegals for voting in California.

Large numbers of illegals already do vote in California (and many other states). Ask Bob Dornan how he lost his Orange County Congressional seat to Loretta Sanchez.

California exemplifies the misguided fecklessness of the Republican Party, and why conservatives should abandon it. Instead of supporting McClintock, who seems to be an honorable politician who actually has conservative positions on issues that matter in California, the Republican establishment was bedazzled by the star power of the libertine Schwarzenegger, whose views on many of those issues are unconservative at best. What real alternative to Davis is he, assuming the recall eventually proceeds?

Sadly, the national Republican Party, exemplified by the president, is really no better. HRS

Where does McClintock stand on immigration?

I would caution against the idea of letting California collapse under liberal rule. First, few would concede that liberal policies HAD led to the crash; that is, ideologues (real ones in the Kirk sense) have an almost invincible capacity to assimilate catastrophes wrought by their own ideas.

Secondly, California is too huge and important to abandon. And the idea of abandoning so beautiful a land to ruin is an act of despair.

From what I’ve heard, McClintock is a standard conservative, concerned about the economy and size of government, but pro-immigration or silent on the subject.

That’s been my impression too. An interesting question: if Arnold were serious about controlling immigration, but basically liberal everywhere else, and McClintock were reliable conservative, but fanciful on immigration, who would properly claim the conservative vote?

Mr. Cella’s hypothetical Arnold resembles the Pete Wilson of 1994—a social liberal who took an extraordinarily tough stand against illegal immigration.

Mr. Auster, here is a link to an article by Patrick Mallon: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/15/33825.shtml

McClintock has pledged to resubmit prop. 187 and to fight for it. On the other hand, his web page does not include “immigration” among the dozen “issues” which he discusses.

http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/issues.asp

…And so I see no reason at all to agree with the Patrick Mallon column just posted, which claims that McClintock will base his campaign on the cost of illegal immigration. He hasn’t yet. When is he planning on starting?

Patrick Mallon’s article claims that McClintock, assuming he confronts the illegal immigration issue, is a nightmare for Republicans and a godsend for the Democrats. I can see that he is a nightmare for the Arnold wing of the GOP in that case, but how would he be a godsend for the Democrats? That is not explained, and it is far from obvious to me.

When someone breaks the taboo against talking about immigration, it will be a nightmare for the political left.