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?
Typing 'Arnold' is a lot faster=)
I've read that stated here, but thus far, no link, no proof! Perhaps you'll provide said link?
Well, just hear me out. The reason I say that is because he made Richard Riordan the head of his issues teams. Riordan never met a Republican he liked. I can't find evidence he's endorsed any Republican before Schwarzenegger. But it's a matter of public record he's endorsed lots of Democrats. he was one of the major campaign donors to Gray Davis. He endorsed Maxine Waters. He endorsed spendocrat State Senator John Burton. He endorsed former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, just to name a few lefties he supports.
Just to let you know, it's not that unusual thing here. The two most prominent elected Republicans in my areas turned down all requests to endorse fellow Republicans (bother liberal and conservative Republicans).
You think you are the only ones who can lay claim to the imprimatur of 'Bush Republicans'? How arrogant.
I endorsed him publicly months ago, and have worked every day on his behalf.
Ya, I know McClintock is a longshot right now. So what?
Where did you get that idea? From what I see, the liberal Republicans will never support a concervative Republican candidate, but conservative Republicans always have to come through for the liberal candidates. Look what happened in NJ in 2001. After Schundler won, the state GOP took their ball and went home. Even though he was a three time winner in an overwhelmingly Democrat city, they would rather have a Democrat. Same thing happened in California. They actually had a group called ``Republicans for Davis.''
Fwiw-
Laura's Weekly E-Blast
http://www.LauraIngraham.com
WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO?
After faking everyone out, including me, with his decision to run for the governorship of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger now needs to get down to business. Box-office flops may be embarrassing, but a political flop after such a build-up as he has engineered would be much worse. There’s no after-life in DVD rentals for failed candidates.
Navigating the Malibu-Brentwood-Bel Air social circuit is a snap. Holding forth on a press junket to promote the latest film is a no-brainer — although those questions from “Access Hollywood” can be real mindbenders, I’m sure. But navigating the sprawling, vexing labyrinth known as California politics is another matter altogether.
Even in California, man cannot get elected on celebrity alone. Mr. Schwarzenegger needs some basic guidelines to follow to avoid having his current sizzle turn into an election-day fizzle. So here’s my memo to Mr. Schwarzenegger:
One: Think Reagan.
Be upbeat, sunny, and positive. Yes, the deficit is astronomical and hard choices are necessary, but you will get it done. Period. Gray “Skies” Davis will do what he always does in campaigns — he’ll avoid taking personal responsibility and go negative. Let him. Flick him off like a piece of lint.
Californians need hope and optimism. Give it to them. Whenever you’re in doubt, ask yourself, “What would Reagan do?” “How would the Gipper respond?”
Two: Tout your American success story.
You are an immigrant who worked hard, played by the rules, and achieved the American dream. Tell your story — again and again. You are an entrepreneur and a risktaker who could never have found such success in any other country in the world. You now want to give something back by dedicating yourself as aggressively to leading California as you have to playing leading roles. When the Davis team tries to portray you as a hard-bodied know-nothing, respond by saying that the voters of California are tired of soft-bodied know-it-alls.
Three: Avoid the tug-of-war between GOP moderates and conservatives.
This will be tough but it’s important. The state’s ongoing feud between the Republican right and middle-of-the-roaders is fierce. Gray “Skies” exploited this rift when he attacked moderate Dick Riordan in the 2002 GOP primary.
The key here is to convince both camps that given all the political and economic carnage across the state, you’re the only one who can bring both sides together. Give a “united we win, divided we fall” speech.
As for the explosive issues — such as abortion, gun control, and immigration — that fuel this raging intraparty struggle, you should not run away from them. State your beliefs but always first acknowledge that reasonable people disagree about these complicated matters. Remember, your strategy should be never vilify, always inspire.
Four: Don’t be afraid to be politically incorrect.
Ignore the consultants and handlers who urge you to steer clear of the hot-button issues about which you feel strongly.The public will want to hear from you on illegal immigrants, affirmative action, and bilingual education. Offend no one and you motivate no one. Your answers to these questions should come from your gut, not from a focus group. Again, treat the opposition with respect, but tell the people what you believe and why. And if your language is sometimes not artful, don’t worry. President Bush has managed just fine, and still can’t pronounce “nuclear.”
Five: Dedicate this recall election to the people.
The campaign to recall Mr. Davis has been a grass-roots effort from Day 1. Back in February the political elites scoffed at the notion that some fledgling movement could ever disrupt Mr. Davis’s hold on power. As usual, they were wrong and totally underestimated the people’s fury and frustration at a political leader who had abused their trust. On the “Tonight Show,” you seemed to have this point down pat when you said “The people are working hard. The people are paying the taxes, the people are raising the families, but the politicians are not doing their job. The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.” The people, not the politicians, are what make California great; and the people deserve better.
Even if Mr. Schwarzenegger follows this five-point plan, he could still tank at the political box office. The political unknowns that lurk behind every corner could terminate even the Terminator. But I’m betting on him because, unlike Mr. Davis, he doesn’t need the political power. He already is powerful. Now he wants to do some good.
Mr. Schwarzenegger surprised the critics in Hollywood when he parlayed Mr. Olympia into Mr. Box Office. And this week he surprised many of us when he decided to try to parlay Mr. Box Office into Mr. Governor.The next one to be surprised may be Mr. Davis.
DrMvN: ...maybe we should make it law!
------------------------------------------------------------
The sad part is if we strictly interpreted the constitution and the government did not engage in areas not authorized we wouldn't have most of our modern troubles. They say people will gladly exchange liberty for the right to tell others how to live. I tend to believe that.
BTW, I thought your column about Arnold was well thought out and written. He may not live up to my libertarian standards but if I lived in California I'd give him a shot - he certainly can't make things worse than they are and he might just be able to reform the place.
The idea that folks will then vote to recall whomever is elected in this recall, is ludicrous. They will recoil from that. Mullhollands' threat to do so is just jive, from a man who makes jiving a full time occupation, but I wish he would carry out his threat if a Pubbie is elected. It will backfire big time.
In summary, the idea that electing McClintock would be bad for California and/or the GOP is simply one of the more wrong headed ideas I have read around this place, and I have read some doozies in my time.
By the way, I am not a right wing nutter. I am a RINO (per the currency of this place), and a Neocon, and proud of the latter.
Cheers.
2.How come in your post, you go to great lengths to avoid mention of Tom McClintock? Very suspicous. And McClintock is not a social conservative, he is a fiscal conservative and a social Libertarian.
1. Yes, I am aware Arnold has a last name. I have been watching movies for a long time now. I have referenced him as "Schwarzenegger" as well. Read the "article" that I wrote which this whole discussion is related to. You will see him referred to by last name several places there. But I can only speculate why you are putting forth such a trivial question. Do you really think that I maybe I've only heard of the man just now and didn't catch his last name? Or are you trying to insinuate something else which I couldn't even possibly guess?
2. Once again, read the article. I refer to McClintock quite a bit there. I made a point to refer to Simon in my later posts about the negative fallout of electing someone besides Arnold because Simon is the most demonstratable example. The retribution against Republicans wouldn't be quite as bad or quite as far-reaching if McClintock wins, but he still wouldn't be accredited a mandate to any degree. And he would still be automatically recalled. The Democrats have more or less publicly threatened recalling any Republican who wins. And you know with a million more hardcore Democrats than Republicans in California, they will certainly have the numbers and the anger to do it. The regular folk in the state would not put up with them trying to do it to Arnold Schwarzenegger though. He is one of California's favorite citizens.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."-- John Adams
Never vote for a leftist, Liberal. You will get what you voted for.
By the way, I think Bush will win in California- if he has a solid lead across the country. Californians often vote for the winner. In the last election, the blown Flordia call cost Bush a chance at California. But if Bush is clearly going to win the election, I think he will take California.
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.