Why I Am Now Behind Arnold

me

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

I have slowly come to the conclusion that California needs Arnold. Republicans need Arnold, and above all, California Republicans need Arnold.

I had been leaning towards McClintock, and I must admit, I made that decision before Arnold threw his hat into the ring. I welcomed the move when he did, but I still had reservations. I had gotten pretty excited over McClintock's vision, particularly his desire to void the Davis energy contracts and his general desire to stick it to the Democrats. I was also justifiably concerned at first about Arnold's talk of handing the treasury over to "the children".

But one has to be able to discern politics from policy. Everyone who wants to win elective office has to pay lipservice to "the children". It is the national passtime of politicians. I think when Arnold says "the children should have the first call of state Treasury" it is followed by an unspoken qualifier of "before illegal immigrants, welfare recipients, and special interests." He is simply putting forth his priorities, and they lay in stark contrast to Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante's. He is quite savvy, so he isn't going to come out and say it in those words. He knows highlighting what is his priorities gets much better press than highlighting what isn't. He wants to reassure the soccer moms who have been frightened by Davis' threats of cutting funding to schools that he will be looking elsewhere to cut.

Arnold is very mindful of the hurdles he faces by running as a Republican in such a liberal state, so he will take extra measures to make traditional Democratic voters feel comfortable voting for him. It is what he has to do right now if he wants to win, and it seems to be working brilliantly.

Some conservatives will argue against Schwarzenegger because he opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. But Arnold understood the articles of impeachment that were brought were a pretty weak justification. Right or wrong, they were too easily construed as a right-wing lynching. He recognized it as too divisive and knew it could only further poison the political atmosphere and ultimately damage the Republican party.

Perhaps if Ken Starr had the convictions to pursue the serious matters of Whitewater, Chinagate, Filegate, or the murder of Vincent Foster, then Arnold would have seen it differently, just as the rest of America would have. But clearly Starr had no will to do so. It's hard to understand why, but perhaps he didn't want to expose that level of corruption in the highest office out of the long-term best interest of the American political system. Exposing Clinton's ties to the Dixieland mafia and Red China could have brought the entire government to its knees. It would have been a short-term victory for Republicans, but just as Nixon understood when he covered for Kennedy and Johnson over the Pentagon Papers, the long-term damage to the nation as a whole would have been far too great. Anyways, had Clinton actually been removed from office as a lame duck on those flimsy charges, we would have a President Gore in office right now. Arnold knew, just as everyone else did, that this was not going to happen considering it required a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Surely he understood that impeachment was a lose-lose proposition for Republicans so it was a mistake to go down that road. It was important for him to remain above it all for the sake of his own political future.

Some will argue that what we need right now is someone sort of financial wizard to fix the budget, and Arnold just doesn't qualify. But the truth is we really only need someone who can admit that Gray Davis has made some huge mistakes. Anyone but Gray Davis will do.

I hate to admit it, but the whole budget crisis is being about as overplayed for political reasons as the federal deficit in the '90s was (and is again). When it comes down to brass tacks, I think even the Democrats will bite the bullet and fix it. Yes, I know you're cringing, I am too, but it's the truth. The issue here isn't that the Democrats are incapable or even unwilling to fixing the budget. It's merely about how they want to fix it: the usual liberal approach of skyrocketing taxes. Either way, California isn't going to drop into the ocean or become a third world nation.

As far as Arnold not being a "social conservative", neither am I, and neither is California. A social conservative is not going to win a statewide election here for a long time to come. I fit in more along the lines of a fiscal conservative, just as Arnold is, and a "Constitutional conservative" with libertarian tendencies. Piety is not a prerequisite for my support, and too much of it may even lose it. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs, but I do belive strongly in Jefferson's "wall of seperation between church and state". I also believe in strict interpritation of the First Ammendment, and that freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion. I realize those of you in the religious-right do not agree because this doesn't reinforce your personal religious beliefs, but not everything should be about our own personal whims and narrow agendas. Defending our own freedom as individuals must always be a higher objective. Otherwise it may be you they come for next. The Constitution protects everyone, or it protects no one. I think there are a lot of people on both extremes who forget that sometimes.

Even though some will say for these various reasons that Schwarzenegger is not the ideal conservative candidate, it is important for everyone to be pragmatic and pick their battles wisely. Right now we should be looking at long-term goals. An expedient victory in the recall of a conservative candidate by a 20 percent plurality is going to be counterproductive in the long-term. What are you going to do when Bill Simon is elected and the drive to recall him begins October 8th and qualifies three weeks later?

Electing Arnold, who can come to office with a true mandate and bring California together, will pay off big in the perception wars. Conservatives will never get their agenda anywhere in California as long as it is taboo to even vote for Republicans here. The longer Democrats have a complete lock on the state, the further left we will drift. Even if Arnold can't change the course right away, he can at least slow the momentum.

Personally, my goal is the destruction of the Democratic party and the liberal agenda far more than it is advancing any conservative single-issue. I have far more hate for left-wing Democrats than I have love for right-wing Republicans. I would be happy simply with a return to sanity at this point.

You can't walk a mile until you take the first step. For right now we all need to be concentrating on the jouney one step at a time or we will never reach the final destination. You have to at least open the door, which is now closed and locked here. It seems like a lot of right-wingers around here would rather rant and rave and pound on the door in futility than grab it by the handle.

I think I've finally figured that one out. For the death-before-electibility crowd, it's not about advancing their cause on earth, it's about earning a place in heaven.

As for the rest of us, we have to make a decision: do we want a small victory, or a huge defeat?

[Sabertooth]

Ergo, you are no leader.

Being a Warrior FReeper is not only about talking tough and being idealogical.

As Reagan said, someone who agrees with you 80% is NOT your enemy.

Let's be smart enough to win and hold power.

I'll skip the Warrior Freeper badge and decoder ring, thanks, even if that speaks poorly of my leadership potential.

I quite like Horowitz, and enjoyed Radical Son very much. I just don't always agree with him, and see no reason to run with my head cut off to the nearest celeberity cult bandwagon.

There are close to two months left in this campaign. Relax.

[Sabertooth]

that Freeper loves nothing better than to go on another site and trash all of us.

Evidence, please.

[ninenot]

Well-written, reasonable post. EXCEPT: why do you think that the Media will treat AAAAAhhhhhnold well, if he is elected?

"They won't dare attack him," you say.

Wanna bet?

[BillyBoy]

>> It is the religious right and/or the far right conservatives that come up with the litmus test for Republican candidates -- it is 100% of what they want or they threaten to stay home <<

Yeah, keep drinking the Ahnuld Kool-aid and pretending he agrees with the GOP platform. The truth is, I'll happily vote for any REAL "moderate" Republican (as opposed to the media version of "moderate") who supports the MAJORITY of the Republican Party platform. If disagrees with 49% of it, he's got my vote. I'd take the Pete Wilsons, George Vonovichs, and Jim Edgars of the world over a Democrat. I would have voted for Rick Lazio over Hillary in a heartbeat. You can quote me on that.

On the other hand, I will NOT support a RINO (yes, a real RINO who supports the DEMOCRATS position MORE than "his" own party) Arnuld has yet to come out in favor of ANY conservative position. Not one. If you disagree, perhaps you could name ONE issue were he's on our side (aside from generic garbage like "he wants to bring the buisnesses back"-- last time I checked, every candidate will tell you that)

Arnold on our side 90% of the time? Hardly. Arnold is a pro-abortion, gun-control saluting, gay rights, human cloning, Kyoto treaty, gaia-worshiping, pro-Clinton, pro-Kennedy, big government, tax-and-spend "for the children" liberal. That's not an opinion, those are FACTS from his OWN statements. Deal with it.

[u-89]

I'm the premier PC liberal pro-babykilling, gun banning, boot licking RINO on this board

I'm curious about something, honestly, not trying to start a flame war or anything. Judging by this statement here of yours and by most of your other postings you seem to have a real grudge against traditional conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalist. What principles is it exactly of the Republican party that you do like?

[ninenot]

Yeah--the fabled David Horowitz. The term 'neocon' comes to mind, but that gets flames aplenty. Suffice it to say that H is certainly no conservative.

More: I suspect that the wind will come out of AAAAAhhhhhnold's sails in two weeks, when he is pinned down about policy and principles.

Don't vote too early...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Gotta disagree on that - I've seen him on "that other site", but whenever I've looked, he hasn't been trashing any of us. There are others who do that - but I bear no ill will.

Sabrekitty is a uniter, not a divider (at least as far as his online persona goes), despite the fact that he is much further to the right than I am.

[ninenot]

Finally-if you look hard enough, you will find Aaaahhhhhnold's apparent platform. It's the Social Democrats' platform in Austria.

[nickcarraway]

Imagine just how much money California would save, if it stopped funding Planned Parenthood.

Exactly.

[Sabertooth]

Like I said, I like Horowitz. I spent a lot of time in Berkeley, and much of his autobiography hit home with me. I don't toss the terms "neocon" or "paleocon" around, because I can't keep track of what they mean from one conversation to the next.

I'm just not buying this current argument from Horowitz that anything other than a vote for Arnold is a vote for Armageddon.

[EternalVigilance]

Saber, she's taken this particular fight to heart so much that she has taken to lying about people. I am a recent victim. So you have my sympathies.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

When I started on this board (don't let the "born on" date fool you - I even ratted around here under a forgotten nick for a brief period in '98), I was a pro-life, pro-gun Keyester. Over the years, and after many exchanges with people who I thought were carrying things to radical extremes, I found my inner moderate through learning about human nature.

[Sabertooth]

I appreciate that, thanks for keeping an open mind.

I find every site to be a mixed bag, there are good posters and hacks on all of them. That's just a general observation, not a pointed comment in any direction.

BTW, on thing I can't let you get away with... I think sometimes I'm a divider. I don't always think that's a bad thing. If I'm making a case against some position, you bet I'm gonna try and divide those who hold that position and sway a few of them them to my side.

Regards

[Sabertooth]

I don't know that I'd say that she's lying about, I don't know what she's heard, or how it might have gotten twisted around.

[William Tell]

VOR78 said: "But go ahead and vote for McClintock. When Bustamante is governor and Democrats win the governor's seat for the next 25 years and the state stands NO chance of going Republican in the ensuing presidential elections, at least you'll have your party platform."

My, perhaps simplistic, understanding of Kalifornia's budget situation is that we were spending $60 billion with $60 billion in revenue when the "dot-com" bubble expanded.

On the basis of a $12 billion annual surplus at its peak, Kalifornia expanded its expenditures to the point where it is now about $90 billion and revenues have returned to the pre-bubble level.

Demoncrat policies include forcing businesses to cover expensive "family leave" and other such entitlements such that businesses are leaving the state.

I fail to see how leaving the Demoncrats to solve this problem will allow them to dominate Kalifornia for the next 25 years. They will either have to raise taxes to ruinous levels or eliminate many of their programs. The deadlock in the legislature will not allow the taxes and their constituency will not allow the program cuts.

Within two years, and possibly within two months, cash will run out and Kalifornia will begin trying to pay its bills with vouchers. I thought that I heard that many banks will not accept the vouchers. Also, I thought I heard that only minimum wages can be paid under certain budget circumstances. If teachers claim to be too lowly paid now, they will scream like mashed cats then.

I see only good coming from Demoncrats attempting to explain why there is no money. I don't think that Republicans should have to explain it.

[RS]

"Already, some of his friends have suggested he may switch parties after elected."

Are those the same "close friends" who said he was not running ?
( the Dems believed them before, mabe they will believe them again ...hee hee hee )

[EternalVigilance]

Yes, I'm starting to agree with the FR poster who said that this has become nothing more than a 'mutiny on the Titantic'.

IMO, McClintock is the only substantial candidate with some knowlege of how to actually keep the ship from sinking.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

Alright, I'm I just had to come back to take you apart a bit further.

None of Arnold's friends have suggested that he would switch parties. Tom Arnold, a staunch Democrat, said he thinks Arnold *should* switch parties. That is the closest thing anyone that I know of has said on the matter. And there is no way he will become a Democrat with the sort of attacks he is now facing from them. They do not like people who challenge their power. Arnold is doing that bigtime right now.

I don't think he'll raise taxes. He's smart to not come out and say he won't, though, since sometimes it can't be avoided. He learned that lesson from his friend George H.W. Bush. And if Arnold were to raise taxes, that would not damage the image of entire party, just as George H.W. Bush's tax raising adventure didn't either. No one said "those damn Republicans, always raising taxes!" afterwards.

Now granted, I of course am only jumping to conclusions when I say I don't think Arnold will raise taxes, but still, it is far less a ridiculous conclusion than the one you have made that Arnold would endorse Barbara Boxer!

Arnold has always endorsed Republicans. Even though he has endorsed Riordan in the past, at least there is 2 degrees of seperation there.

The Governor CAN'T end Prop 13. If he could, a Democrat would have a long time ago. Are you actually suggesting that we are safer right now with Gray Davis than we would be with Arnold? Get real!

Arnold isn't going to BAN guns either. There is something about a 2nd Ammendment. Maybe you've heard of it. Now if you're talking about the ASSAULT rifle ban, then your not going to get much traction in a largely urban state. Go hang out with Howard Dean in Vermont if assault rifles are your thing.

And I am in fact in California. San Francisco Bay Area, to be exact.

Now what really pisses me off are these attacks on me personally about being "anti-Constitution".

What you're talking about here is the state Constitution. Your context was very inflamatory and misleading. Not to mention your analysis was dead wrong.

*I* didn't claim the recall was illegitimate. I signed the damn petition. I was actively involved in supporting the effort. What I said was that if Bill Simon won the replacement election, he would be chastised as being an "illegitimate election stealer". The liberals and the media wouldn't shutup about that until every last Republican is shamed into never voting again.

Bill Simon winning would lead to a long period of Republican bashing worse than anything seen to date. He was already an embarassment to begin with the first time around as it was.

Arnold however would not cast such a stygma on Republicans, and would help allieviate much of the one that hangs over them now.

In conclusion, I think you are probably one of those rightwing reactionary types who would be best served by moving to Vermont where the far-right and far-left look identical.

[sinkspur]

Already, some of his friends have suggested he may switch parties after elected.

Why wouldn't he have done that already? Why would he want to run as a Republican in a Democrat state, then switch parties?

It makes no sense. Besides, he can ride above the legislature in the polls, and beat them over the head if they don't go along with what he wants to do on the economy.

He'll be able to go over the heads of the media directly to the people like nobody since Ronald Reagan.

[Howlin]

Already, some of his friends have suggested he may switch parties after elected.

Who?