This Conservative Is Voting For Arnold (Hugh Hewitt Alert!)

Worldnetdaily ^ | 8/13/03 | Hugh Hewitt

[goldstategop]

THE VOICE OF REASON HUGH HEWITT

This Conservative Is Voting For Arnold

Last week Arnold declared his candidacy for governor of California. I was broadcasting at the time, immediately endorsed him, and immediately began to receive a steady flow of mail from Tom McClintock and Bill Simon fans. Tom and Bill are fine guys, and both have been my guests on countless occasions. I endorsed Bill over Dick Riordan last March and stand by that choice. When it comes to elections, I am a single-issue voter: I support the most conservative candidate who has the most realistic chance of winning.

In the Republican California primary of 2002, that was Bill Simon.

In the recall election of 2003, that is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Here is my analysis:

Cruz Bustamante may get 30 percent of the vote – the die-hard, dead-end Democrats and the beneficiaries of the iron triangle of special interests that currently control Sacramento: the unions, tribes, trial lawyers. Even if there was only one "movement" conservative in the race – McClintock or Simon – neither of them could get the 30 percent +1 vote needed to win. Schwarzenegger can. Arguing about what-might-have-been doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Schwarzenegger is best positioned to withstand the "Graystopo," as the slime machine Gray has perfected has come to be called. If Schwarzenegger wasn't in the race, all that withering fire would be turned on McClintock or Simon, and it would tear them apart. Schwarzenegger has the sort of celebrity status that lets him stay above a lot of the low blows. Some, like Democratic operative Bob Mulholland's warning of "real bullets," even backfire on the Democrats. This is a major advantage for Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger does great things for the re-election of George W. Bush by immediately putting California into in '04 when Schwarzenegger is sworn in as governor, and Schwarzenegger helps the likely GOP Senate nominee against Barbara Boxer – the conservative Tony Strickland. So Schwarzenegger is closer to Pataki than Reagan, so what? It is a huge advantage to have an ally in the statehouse. The choice to think about with '04 in mind is not Schwarzenegger vs. McClintock or Simon, it is Schwarzenegger vs. Cruz.

The GOP benefits as a whole. Imagine you are Jim DeMint, likely nominee of the GOP for the open U.S. Senate seat in South Carolina, or Lisa Murkowski, incumbent GOP senator in Alaska. Wouldn't it be great to call the Bush people and ask for and get Schwarzenegger to drop into your state for a little fundraiser at $1,000 a head? This is what Bill Clinton does 24x7x365. Schwarzenegger would be a hyperdraw on the fundraising circuit, a crucial component of politics, exceeded only by the president and the vice president. Three such draws is better than two.

Finally, and really most important, is the state of the state. We are losing jobs and talent at an extraordinary rate. The yawning budget shortfall has been covered over with hot checks, and worker's comp, time-off laws and crazy regs are driving hundreds of thousands toward the Arizona and Nevada border. This state of collapse in the Golden State's economy burdens the national economy as well, thus harming the president's re-election effort. The state needs real help from a real businessman. Take a look at Schwarzenegger's tax returns. Remember, he started with nothing except some natural talent. Sort of like the state right now. He can get the job done.

Time for the purists to check their passion at the door and focus on winning. A governor with whom I agree 75 percent of the time – or even 60 percent of the time – is far, far better than a governor with whom I never agree.

A vote for Tom McClintock, Bill Simon or Peter Ueberroth is a vote for Cruz Bustamante.

It really is that simple.

[goldstategop]

Why am I joining Hugh Hewitt and Ben Shapiro among conservatives in backing Arnold. The answer lies in the final three paragraphs of Hugh's splendid essay:

Time for the purists to check their passion at the door and focus on winning. A governor with whom I agree 75 percent of the time – or even 60 percent of the time – is far, far better than a governor with whom I never agree.

A vote for Tom McClintock, Bill Simon or Peter Ueberroth is a vote for Cruz Bustamante.

It really is that simple.

We don't want to have another Democrat continue the Davis policies that have brought California to the verge of oblivion. Its not so hard to understand. Sometimes even for conservatives, the lesser of two evils better than the one that's letting things go from worse to worse. So really, its OK to vote for Arnold.

[CWOJackson]

The third party types aren't going to like Hugh's take on this...and all elections.

Right on Hugh!

[spokeshave]

Just trying out my new tag line.......enjoy....

[Dr. Eckleburg]

On another thread recently someone said that if California were not included in the national average, the US economy would be up and employment down.

Thus if a Republican is elected, all the more reason for GWB to make sure that California prospers in the next year before the election.

Dems and Republicans alike should be voting for Arnold.

[ambrose]

[CWOJackson]

Cool, you and your little bandwagon pic do get around.

[Diddle E. Squat]

OK, here's a thought that may be heretical, but here goes:

Would Ronald Reagan be socially conservative today? No, I'm not implying that he might be a free-swinging, dopin' uber-libertarian, but in the back of my mind I've always had the impression that Reagan's social conservatism on several issues that would be considered in that realm was more a product/reflection of the times, rather than some deeply-held religiously based belief. At the same time I certainly don't want to smear him by putting words in his mouth or revising history. However did he leave a substantial work of writings on social conservative issues, the way he did regarding his views on limited government and fiscal conservatism? If so, are they indicative of a basis of core convictions, the way his fiscal conservatism was?

Sorry, but I am not so sure that he wouldn't be more of a current President Bush 'quietly live and let live semi-moderate' when it comes to several divisive social conservative issues(though I have no doubt that he would still be more fiscally conservative than Bush.)

And to be clear, I am asking this as a social conservative, but one who is inquisitve for the truth and not blind to potential negative realities. One can question and assess a situation as being negative without condoning, supporting, watering down your postion,or giving in to it.

[ambrose]

The bangwagon keeps growing! I'm expecting Rush to throw in the towel and jump on the bandwagon any day now.

[CWOJackson]

Now that would be news.

[goldstategop]

No one says we should give up our principles or positions. No one is saying let's be liberals. I wouldn't be one no matter what inducement was offered me to change philosophies. No the real question ought to be, how can we best advance our principles or positions in the real world? We sometimes have to take a less than ideal vehicle to realize them.

[CWOJackson]

Arnold single handedly did something none of the other candidates in California could...he got Colby Bryant off the news.

That along should be reason enough to elect him.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I guess I wasn't clear. The point of my post was to ask if Reagan would still be a social conservative today, with the implied thesis that perhaps his social conservatism was more a product of his time than based on core convictions.

That was my point, and what I was asking. Nothing more.

[goldstategop]

Ronald Reagan always had a philosophy. That was clear to both his friends and enemies. The liberals thought he owed his political success and personal popularity to better packaging and a nice smile but the American public thought otherwise. They may not have always agreed with RR but they knew where he stood and respected him for it.

[onyx]

LOL! Kobe, not Colby! His father named him after the Kobe beef! I can tell you're a big basketball fan! ;-)

[CWOJackson]

Darn, pass the cheese!

Yes, I'm not a big basketball fan, and I was getting sick to death of hearing about Kobi. When Arnold announced...blam, Kobi was gone! Go Arnold Go!

[onyx]

My supreme hope is for all of our GOP candidates to debate all they want, but to adhere to RWR's ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT and not trash one another.

[tallhappy]

Yes.

Cruz Must Lose

This means we cannot split the vote.

[onyx]

ROFLOL!

I'm not a basketball fan either, but it's amazing how much trivia I have picked-up from perusing the plethora of Kobe threads!

For instance, did you know Kobe's middle name is "Bean" --- named for his father Joe, who's nickname is jellybean?

[Thorondir]

Hewitt's first paragraphs make good sense, but isn't Arnold pro-abortion? And am I to face the divine Judge in the end and say, "Please pay no attention to those accusatory voices of the aborted children, Jesus--after all, we got our guy with an 'R' after his name into office! Yahoo!"

I don't think I can do things like that. i don't think anyone can get away with it in the end.

If Arnold is not, as reported, pro abortion, then please let me know, and cite some evidence.

[onyx]

I respect your devout position, but the governor of CA does not dictate abortion policy. Not to Californians and certainly not the rest of the country.