GOP has star-power dilemma: How will party use Schwarzenegger? [Kerry vs. Arnold?]

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 19, 2004 | Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

[RonDog]

.

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

---

GOP has star-power dilemma
How will party use Schwarzenegger?
- Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004

With less than three months to go before the Republican National Convention in New York City, a prime-time cliffhanger is in the works over whether the Bush camp will use it or lose it -- the megawatt influence and star power of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Among the most sensitive issues is whether Schwarzenegger, a GOP marquee name, will be given a prized prime-time speaking spot at the party's presidential convention August 30-Sept. 2 at Madison Square Garden.

On the pro side: As the party's star actor, Schwarzenegger would get worldwide attention, and -- to the delight of networks -- draw millions of potential viewers to the now scripted-for-television political convention.

On the con side: The White House worries about lavishing too much attention on one Republican elected official who has shown an uncanny ability to upstage the party's star, Bush himself. A prominent role for Schwarzenegger also could anger the Republican right wing, which opposes his social views on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Ken Mehlman, campaign manager for Bush-Cheney '04, in an interview with The Chronicle, made no commitment on the specific role the Bush team expects the California governor to play, saying only that Schwarzenegger "is one of the great leaders of our party.''

Asked about talk that the White House is worried Schwarzenegger might outshine Bush at the convention, Mehlman downplayed the matter, suggesting that Schwarzenegger is one of many stars in the GOP...

[counterpunch]

Yet for the life of me I cannot understand how a libertarian could be pro-choice.

When did I ever say that I was pro-choice?
I never did, I only advanced the notion that Republicans are not monolithic on the abortion issue.

I don't have a strong opinion on the issue itself either way, aside from believing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Not on any moral grounds - since moral judgements are not within the court's jurisdiction - but rather on the grounds that it is just plain bad law.
I'm a strict constructionist, and I hate to see the Constitution perverted for anyone's personal agenda, and I hate to see judges acting as unelected legislators.

I try to keep my personal views and my political views seperate. I try to keep in mind the role of the courts - to judicate on the merits of the case, as prescribed by written law - rather than to do what liberals do and think the courts are there to force my personal views on society. That is something a lot of so-called conservatives could learn restraint in as well.

So what would I personally do about abortion?
Vote on it. That's what I always say. Let the people decide the legality of abortion. I can live with either decision. It's just not a huge issue on my personal radar.

That is what Arnold would do if he could. That's what I like about him. He says "let the people decide, and I will respect their will." That's what you Arnold-bashers don't seem to grasp about him. He's not a "liberal". He doesn't govern by an agenda - he governs by the will of the people. That's all anyone should ever ask for from a politician.

[Reagan Man]

I supplied you with the link and you say its dead. It's not dead!

I told you GOP.com and RNC.org link to the same website.

What is wrong with you?

You're in such a blind rage and filled with so much anger that you're not paying attention.

Go to the RNC/GOP website. On the left click "Sitemap", then go to "About GOP" and click on "Party Platform". Then onto "Renewing Family and Community". Read down the page about half way, I guess. It's all there in black and white.

Be nice in the future. Don't be so mean spirited.

[counterpunch]

Blind rage..? Are you projecting? Yeah, I saw the link, calcowgirl provided it. The one you had was RNC, not GOP. I'm not going to chase down links all day when you clearly don't bother to look at any of mine. So I concede that it is not completely stripped from the website, but that does not alter the point I was trying to make by it, which you are failing to recognize. It isn't in the President's agenda. I showed you the page on Bush's agenda, and right-to-life issues are not a part of it. He - like most Republicans - is mainly focused on economics, national security, education, and social security.

That is the GOP agenda, not pro-life issues. That is the common ground that we all share, including Arnold. Your pet issue does not rank high on most Republicans' lists. You, like many extreme social conservatives, have a distorted view on the importance of the issue in the GOP platform. Sure, it's real important to you, but most of the rest of us are more concerned with the agenda issues I listed.

When you attack Arnold out of your augmented sense of social justice, and say he's no better than a liberal, you undermine these shared fundamental cornerstones of the GOP agenda which he stands for.

[Reagan Man]

Once again, I went out of my way to supply you with the information you asked me about. Then you have the unmitigated gall to come back with another angry juvenile outburst. There is no hope for you. If you're gonna act like a wildman, you will get no respect. With people like you running around in a fit of rage all the time, no wonder California is so screwed up.

You can act like a child all you want and throw all the temper tandrums you like, but the bottomline is simple. The GOP is the conservative party. The GOP is the pro-life party. And GWBush is the pro-life President.

[counterpunch]

"Angry juvenile outburst"?
"Wildman"??
Where?

Anyways, as far as getting respect, I'm far beyond expecting that from you. You've proven you have no respect for anyone else's opinion that doesn't match your own point for point.

And, no the GOP is not the conservative party. It is just the more conservative of the two mainstream major parties, and the party that mainstream conservatives call home.

Nor is it the it a monolithic pro-life party. The GOP, much like America, is diverse and pluralistic. I know that burns you up, but its true. It's a pretty big tent.

While, yes, GWBush is a pro-life president, he is not quite the social crusader in policy that he is in rhetoric. He's not going to rock the boat too much. He's certainly not the religious warrior the liberal media tries to smear him as.

[RonDog]

See also this NEW thread:

pre-FReep info: Kerry/Streisand fundraiser in L.A. [Disney Concert Hall]
THURSDAY (6/24) 6pm
"OUR GOVERNOR can beat up YOUR CANDIDATE!" - FRN to protest "Stars for Kerry" concert in Los Angeles ^ | June 20, 2004 | RonDog (with inspiration from IPWGOP, doodlelady Prime Choice and others)
Posted on 06/20/2004 5:55:54 PM PDT by RonDog

Please JOIN US...
on THURSDAY (6/24) at 6 p.m.
outside the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles
as we FReep the
John Kerry/Barbra Streisand
$10,000/couple FUNDRAISER!

From Yahoo! MAPS:

Walt Disney Concert Hall
111 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Here is a ROUGH DRAFT of our proposed press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - June 21, 2004

Schwarzenegger Supporters to Confront John Kerry
at Streisand fundraiser (6/24)

Los Angeles -
Members of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Free Republic Network (also known as the "Hollywood Resistance Force") plan to join other local supporters of President George Bush and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on THURSDAY, June 24 at 6 p.m., as they protest Barbra Streisand, Neil Diamond, Billy Crystal and Willie Nelson outside a "ten thousand dollar per couple" fundraiser for John Kerry at the Walt Disney Concert Hall--which was originally scheduled for the week after President Reagan died.

Carrying large signs that say "OUR GOVERNOR can beat up YOUR CANDIDATE!" and "Reagan was The GIPPER, but Kerry is The FLIPPER!" they intend to contrast Kerry's irritating tendency to "flip flop" his positions on important national issues with Schwarzenegger's "tough guy" persona crafted from his roles in action-adventure movies like the "Terminator." "We support President Bush," says L.A. FRN Chapter Vice President Ron Smith. "And, we believe that Governor Schwarzenegger shares President Reagan's gift for energizing Californians with a clear vision that will help President Bush 'terminate' Kerry's political aspirations."

"If America had listened to John Kerry," he continues, "Saddam Hussein would still be in KUWAIT right now, rather than being in CAPTIVITY. Kerry even voted against the FIRST Gulf War." Carrying a sign that says "Only 'FOREIGN' Leaders (like SADDAM) like John Kerry!" and wearing a rubber Saddam mask, Smith adds, "These 'Stars for Kerry' may have MUSICAL talent, but POLITICALLY, they are dangerously naive. Unlike Streisand, Schwarzenegger (like Reagan before him) has had the courage to subject HIS political opinions to vigorous public debate--at the ballot box, not just at the box office." In the words of nationally-syndicated talk radio host Laura Ingraham's recent book, those who support Governor Schwarzenegger and President Bush believe that these misguided "Stars for Kerry" should just "Shut Up, and SING!"

By harnessing the power of the Internet, the Free Republic Forum (FreeRepublic.com) gave birth to a new level of grassroots activism that demonstrates how dedicated citizens can effect change by awakening and mobilizing the vast numbers of Americans who still support the rule of law. The Free Republic Network (FreeRepublic.net) organizes, educates, and supports grassroots activists and connects national organizations with grassroots groups and activists across the country that share their common goals and beliefs.

For more information, please contact Ron Smith at (310) 416-9155 or ronsmith@quixnet.net

Note: The opinions of members of the Free Republic Network do not necessarily represent those of the management or staff of the conservative news forum FreeRepublic.com, the Republican Party, or Bush/Cheney '04 - although, as Rush Limbaugh says, they SHOULD. :o)

-30-

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[NittanyLion]

I can live with either decision. It's just not a huge issue on my personal radar.

Which is akin to saying, "I can live with murder...it's not a huge decision on my personal radar."

You either believe life begins at conception or it doesn't. If you believe the former, it follows that a fetus carries with it every right guaranteed to Americans. Claiming "it isn't a huge issue" is merely ducking the subject.

[NittanyLion]

You, like many extreme social conservatives, have a distorted view on the importance of the issue in the GOP platform.

You certainly are confused. Your own poll, and those posted by Reagan Man on this thread, shows that over half of Republicans are pro-life. Yet you claim the majority position is "extreme"?

How embarrassing for you.

[LongsforReagan]

"For all of you knuckle-dragging paleocons who are unhappy with our party's stars - Bush, Schwarzenegger, and Guiliani - I understand Pat Buchanan is looking for new members for the Reform party."



Perfectly stated. These are the people that will vote Constitution Party this year.

Thanks for nothing!

[Reagan Man]

>>>"For all of you knuckle-dragging paleocons who are unhappy with our party's stars - Bush, Schwarzenegger, and Guiliani - I understand Pat Buchanan is looking for new members for the Reform party."

He was talking to me. Since you agree with him, you're just as stupid. If you long for Reagan's leadership, you have to go no further then GWBush to find a Reaganesque style leader. Reagan was also a social conservative, a pro-lifer, an income tax cutter and a believer in limited govt. Scwarzenegger and Guiliani are social liberals who support abortion on demand. Guiliani straightened out the fiscal mess in NYCity. California is still in economic meltdown. GovRino has a lot to prove. Both men are liberal Republicans.

[Miss Marple]

Here I am. I see that it is ONE poll. Fair enough. I don't remember seeing it when the campaign was on. I was wrong.

Now, let's stop this silliness and let Californians deal with theier governor as they see fit. And I am all for him speaking to the convention...perhaps introducing the President or Vice President. We get more viewers that way. I am into winning this election, not making a statement.

[Reagan Man]

>>>I was wrong.

Thanks for the apology.

>>>... let Californians deal with theier governor as they see fit.

Can't do that. There are people who want Arnold to be POTUS some day. That's ridiculous! He's been Governor roughly eight months and that is no qualifier. Besides, Arnold for POTUS means they'd have to get the Constitution changed. I say, leave the Constitution alone. This isn't a big enough issue to go through a five year process, or longer, just to get some Hollywood star nominated. If that ever happened, conservatives would abandon the GOP in droves and since they make up 60% or more of the GOP base, that would end the party of Lincoln and Reagan for good.

[counterpunch]

Your own poll, and those posted by Reagan Man on this thread, shows that over half of Republicans are pro-life. Yet you claim the majority position is "extreme"?

Good. You have finally acknowledged that Republicans are not monolithic in their position on abortion. We're making progress.

Unfortunately, your reading and comprehension skills still need work.
I never said that being pro-life was an extreme position.
When I talk about extremist social conservatives, I'm talking about the ones who completely lack perspective. The single-issue voters. The ones who cannot see beyond the abortion debate. That is not the majority position. The GOP majority are well rounded, concerned with a plethora of issues - economic growth, social security reform, national security, the war on terrorism.

But to the extremist social conservative, they see only abortion. They declare war on all Republicans who do not share their single-minded pro-life agenda, even though, as you have finally acknowledged, that is nearly half of the party.

I suspect you and Reagan Man fit in this group. Most people here are pro-life, but most of them know there are other issues in politics. I suspect most conservatives know when to make an ally and when to make an enemy. You and Reagan Man completely lack that rational perspective.

[counterpunch]

He was talking to me. Since you agree with him, you're just as stupid.

And you wonder why I'm not civil towards you?

You have a long way to go to learn how to communicate with people who differ with you.

[counterpunch]

You either believe life begins at conception or it doesn't.

I never claimed to believe that.

If you believe the former, it follows that a fetus carries with it every right guaranteed to Americans.

Like the right to vote?
The right to an attorney?
They don't even have a Social Security number. As far as the government is concerned, they don't exist.

Where is this "right to life"?
I've seen the Declaration of Independence speaks of "Life, Liberty, and the pusuit of Happiness", but those are not guaranteed rights. If they were, you'd be infringing on mine right now.

If a man incarcerated in prison can and does lose his gauranteed rights, perhaps even his right to life, then what about US law makes you believe these rights are some how guaranteed to anyone?

Claiming "it isn't a huge issue" is merely ducking the subject.

See, this is just what I'm talking about. You are absolutely obsessed with this single issue. It clouds you judgement on everything else. This is very unhealthy.

[Miss Marple]

The chances of a Constitutional Amendment passing to favor Arnold is slim to none, as the democrats would absolutely block it, knowing it would allow Arnold to run. (Remember, you have to get 2/3 of the Senate to get it passed.) I doubt it would even get to the floor.

I imagine Arnold knows this and is intent on doing a good job as governor, which he appears to be doing.

Now how about apologizing to me for accusing me of ignoring you, being rude, and being "infatuated" with Schwartzenegger? I like the guy as a governor, but you are really a bit rude in your attacks on me. And, by the way, when I didn't reply why didn't you send me a Freepmail? Some of us have to watch 3 grandchildren for four days in a row and keep up our own housework and yard chores. You are not the only person who pings me, either.

[Reagan Man]

>>>You have a long way to go to learn how to communicate with people who differ with you.

The proverbial pot, calling the kettle black. LOL

[counterpunch]

Whatever tone you have taken with me, I have merely mirrored back at you. I figured you'd catch on sooner or later and begin modifying your behavior.

[Reagan Man]

After all, you did ignore me and that is rude. But you've made up for it. I'm sorry for my over the top rhetoic. Let's let by-gones be by-gones and move on. After I say one last thing, for the record.

If you remember, during several posts over the recall campaign, there was a posse mentality by those who supported Arnold for governor. Everytime I pointed out his self proclaimed social liberalism and questionable fiscal conservatism, I was attacked. Logically, my analysis said this behavior was highly emotional in nature and I concluded, since the support wasn't based on the political facts of the issues, it must have been some form of infatuation with Arnold. In that regard, my overall opinion of FR`s Arnoldnauts, hasn't changed much.

[Reagan Man]

You have a short memory. You started the flame war between us.

Right here bozo..... RE:#26

I come on FR to advance the conservative agenda and conservative politics. I come on FR to denounce liberals and liberalism. If you don't want any trouble from me, keep your left of center politics, values and beliefs out of my face.