Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I Am Now Behind Arnold
me

Posted on 08/12/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by 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?


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 1eternalvignotincali; california; davis; election; governor; guessmyotherid; imatroll; mcclintock; recall; schwarzenegger; schwarzenutter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 761-779 next last
To: Chancellor Palpatine
That's interesting. I never met anyone that traveled from being a Keyes supporter type of person to the direction you describe though I understand what you are saying. I was a conservative myself but became a libertarian to be consistent with my belief in liberty. Certain concerns of social conservatives might be correct morally but have no place in law in a truly free society. I just had an exchange with a fellow who felt anyone who criticizes Bush should be locked away in an internment camp. Then again many liberals I've met feel the same way for their causes. Since we have such diverse and passionate beliefs we can only get along in a limited government context where no one can force the other into their mold. From the right or the left that is tyranny. I'm not a moderate in my personal beliefs I just accept that not everyone shares my world view and understand we all be happier if we didn't seek government to enforce our opinions.

One other thing, how is it you went from being pro-life to being pro-choice? Again I've met people who have gone the other direction but not the one you traveled. I'm not criticizing, just curious.

161 posted on 08/12/2003 2:49:23 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
There's one major problem with Arnold: abortion

I seriously doubt that _any_ avowed "pro-life" candidate can win statewide office in California again, _ever_.

Abortion -- and a "woman's right" to it (so-called) -- is a settled issue there, pro-lifers notwithstanding.

Cheers!
- John

162 posted on 08/12/2003 2:49:45 PM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
With the length of those teeth on your image, you can jump on anyone you wish. My problem with the analysis is that the writer claimed that the Articles of Impeachment for the Felon were weak. Huh? Are perjury, jury tampering and lying to the Grand Jury weak arguments for such an indictment?

As for CA politics, the RATS are bound to nullify the recall by any means possible, including through the machinations of the infamous liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Your take?

163 posted on 08/12/2003 2:49:45 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DrMartinVonNostrand
You wrote:

"So who is really the "true conservative"? The one who makes some advancement, or the one who loses ground?"

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

I probably wouldn't..have much respect for a person who thru away his core beliefs, standards, and values..in order to gain a little ground. I would hope that you wouldn't either.

Fwiw-

164 posted on 08/12/2003 2:50:07 PM PDT by Osage Orange ("Three left turns, make a right................................")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

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

Texas just tried that, and a federal judge said Texas could not!

165 posted on 08/12/2003 2:50:39 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get a dog! He'll change your life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: DrMartinVonNostrand
'Amendment' only has two 'm's, not three.

Even if you don't support it, you should learn to spell it, at a minimum.
166 posted on 08/12/2003 2:53:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"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."

Get your facts right... vouchers are used only if there is not a budget in place - which there is - not a good one, but it's there.
( this happened a few years ago with no major problems )

If the budget were not in place, at some point teachers and a lot of other union workers could only get minimum wage, but the rest of the money is still owed them.

And the teachers always scream like mashed cats ( nice line ! ) that they are getting paid too little - like living under an airport landing path, you just don't hear them anymore.
167 posted on 08/12/2003 2:53:46 PM PDT by RS (nc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The Texas case is far from being over.
168 posted on 08/12/2003 2:53:59 PM PDT by Kuksool (There are no guarantees in the Gray Recall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: DrMartinVonNostrand
Welcome to FreeRepublic!

Calif. cannot go from a Liberal to a Conservative WITHOUT a Liberal Republican (Arnold) as a stepping stone. It's pie in the sky to think otherwise. Arnold will make it "cool" to vote Republican. Some of these people think we have horns because that's what the media has been telling them!

169 posted on 08/12/2003 2:56:56 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; sinkspur; PhiKapMom
Here's the irony: Every time Arnold's opponents label him "INEXPERIENCED" he attracts more support!

Voters are mad, and they're mad at professional politicians!
170 posted on 08/12/2003 2:57:45 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Petty.
171 posted on 08/12/2003 2:58:24 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get a dog! He'll change your life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I just get tired of seeing it.

He did it in his opening rant, and keeps doing it.

It grates on my nerves, sorry.

172 posted on 08/12/2003 3:00:13 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Guyin4Os
Tom McClintock can NOT get elected....not this time.....there needs to be a "steppng stone" ala a liberal republican. don't kill the good to get to the perfect. Arnold will make it easy to vote "R" for the first time.
173 posted on 08/12/2003 3:01:34 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DrMartinVonNostrand
Don't show your anti-Christian bias. The religious right has ENOUGH counter balance, thank you very much. Your argument was good unti you saidthat ....idiocy.
174 posted on 08/12/2003 3:04:01 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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

That may be, but the Captain of California is going to be Arnold. It's written in the stars or something like that. As far as McClintock is concerned, he should offer his expertise to the future Governator of California.
175 posted on 08/12/2003 3:04:20 PM PDT by Registered (77% of the mentally ill live in poverty, that leaves 23% doing quite well!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Every time Arnold's opponents label him "INEXPERIENCED" he attracts more support!

It seems that lack of political experience is a clincher in this election.

I see where Arnold is outpolling Bustamante among Hispanics, and Blacks.

Interesting.

The Democrats (and some Republicans) can only be successful by driving up his negatives.

What negatives? Lack of political experience? Womanizing? His daddy's Nazi affiliation?

I don't see much of this working.

176 posted on 08/12/2003 3:05:25 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get a dog! He'll change your life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: DrMartinVonNostrand
DrMartinVonNostrand said: "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. "

Yeah...I've heard about the Second Amendment. One of the recent things I heard from the Kalifornia Supreme Court is that it does not apply to individuals.

Your comments about "assault weapons" ( You did mean "assault weapons" and not "assault rifles", didn't you?) tells me a lot about why you are able to support Arnold and gun control. You have been convinced that it is a legitimate role of government to decide which arms I may have.

First, it was the federally defined "assault weapons" that I may not own. Then it was the Roberti-Roos "assault weapons" that I may not own. Then it was the SB-23 "assault weapons" that I may not own. Soon it will be the Schwarzenegger "assault weapons" that I may not own.

Please tell me why you think that firearms that are legal to keep and bear in Vermont should be illegal in Kalifornia. Is the Second Amendment really so meaningless to you?

177 posted on 08/12/2003 3:06:04 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: DrMartinVonNostrand
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.

The recall is a legalpart of California government. Why are you concerned that recall is illegitimate, but voter fraud is not. You should be calling Davis an "illegitimate election stealer," not a Republican, because the margin he won by was less thean the number of illegal votes cast. Why doesn't voter fraud concern you?

The same people will call Schwarzenegger an ``illegal lection stealer,'' than would call any other Republican that. Those are the same people who say President Bush is an ``illegal election stealer.'' I don't listen to those people like you do, I believe President Bush is our legitimately elected president, do you?

178 posted on 08/12/2003 3:06:16 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
It grates on my nerves, sorry.

Biting my tongue, EV. Biting my tongue.

179 posted on 08/12/2003 3:06:52 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get a dog! He'll change your life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Dear sinkspur,

"Why would he want to run as a Republican in a Democrat state, then switch parties?"

I can't explain the second part of your question, why he would switch, but the first part is easier. When you live in a state where one party strongly dominates, that's where the overwhelming number of office-seekers go.

It happens here in Maryland. The Dems have controlled the state since about the Flood (you know - Noah?). I know someone from church who was on the local city council for about a dozen years, and he just got elected to the county council. He'll stay there eight years, and maybe, just maybe, Steny Hoyer or Al Wynn will die, and he can take part in the free-for-all on the Dem side to succeed whichever one croaks first. But he'll be running against a whole panoply, on the Dem side, of long-term officeholders at the city, county, and state district level. He'll have to run against the long-time state senator, the long-time state senator's son (who is a judge - who'd a figured??), the former county exec, the current county exec, the current state's atty, the former state senator from my neck of the woods (Congressional districts are quite well gerrymandered in these parts), and another half-dozen local potentates. I call this "wait-in-linism". On the Dem side, folks have to wait in line to get even to Congress. Twenty years, thirty years. Try to buck the system, and the two dozen guys ahead of you in the line will all help stomp you, real good.

But on the Republican side, the way is clear. Anyone can run, basically, who wants it. Anyone who had a bit of a name, a reputation, some name recognition, prior to entering a specific political contest, could have the nomination for the asking.

Arnold saw that in Calif, all the real heavy hitters are in the party of Satan. There are plenty of folks in line in front of Arnold in the party of Satan. He could try to bludgeon his way in, and he might succeed, but only at the cost of angering many erstwhile fellow Dems.

But by running as a Republican, the way is mostly clear. Not only that, but the Republicans, on the losing end of a long, long electoral drought, in California, mostly welcome him! Clear the line! Get rid of McClintock, Simon, Riordan! Make way for the great hope of the party, Arnold!

And that is why a liberal like Arnold runs as a Republican.


sitetest
180 posted on 08/12/2003 3:07:05 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 761-779 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson