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?

[Howlin]

My, my....aren't WE full of ourselves.

[sinkspur]

Sorry for my gross insensitivity to the homo-lo...er...people on this board that actually HAVE gays in their families or KNOW gays in their real lives.

You're now making a fool of yourself, something that is not foreign in your make-up, apparently.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

Keyes completely lost his credibility around here when, in August of 2001, he basically called Bush a "murderer" for his stem cell decision. Even some of the true believers were appalled.

I really didn't pay that much attention to the primaries. I didn't even own a TV at the time. I just remember seeing Bush, McCain, and Keyes, and singing "one of these kids is doing his own thing.."

What was Bush's stem cell decision?
I know he has been coming out against stem cell research, upsetting Nancy Reagan and myself. Do you mean to say he's flip-flopped on the issue?

[EternalVigilance]

Whatever. I'm just sick of being nice to a bunch of liberals.

[onyx]

Way back in this thread I asked you to provide a link or proof of any verifable kind, to your odious claim that Arnold is pro-gay marriage!

I am still waiting!

[PhiKapMom]

Probably should have phrased it differently. I am not blaming the religious right -- I am from the right and religious but this group on here and elsewhere that wants 100% their way or they are not voting really bug me! Not to mention being called a RINO does not sit well or President Bush being called a RINO. That defies belief.

I am a lifelong Republican, supported Barry Goldwater as a teenage bell ringer, all the way to President Bush. When it comes to voting, I vote for the (R) behind the name, and in the primaries I vote for who I think is closest to my ideas but can also win. I don't always pick the right candidate in the primary but I try to pick the one who I think can win and then I support the Republican candidate in the general. I didn't like Bob Dole but I sure supported him.

Let me give you an example. Here in the OK 4th to replace J.C. we had two longtime Republicans running, both conservative; however, one was Pat Robertson's campaign manager in 1988 against President Bush and the other supported both President Bush's. It didn't take me long to go to volunteer day after day for Tom Cole who supported the Bush's. The other candidate used Lynn Nofsinger as a supporter on his campaign ad and totally ignored either Pres Bush.

Fast forward to the general election, the Pat Robertson Republican refused to be part of the campaign because he lost the primary, was rude, his people for the most part did not work to elect a Republican to replace J.C. -- a lot of them stayed home and didn't vote.

Yet both candidates were conservative but guess Tom wasn't conservative enough for the "purist" as they called themselves because they stayed home and almost cost us the election. Heard more than one that Tom wasn't a "pure" conservative. What does that have to do with being Republican? Since when did the "pure" conservatives start running the Republican Party. I never heard that term until the 2002 election and then it has turned up again on here!

Now you know where I am coming from when I hear "I am not voting because Republicans are just like DemocRATs" or whatever the mantra is today.

[Maelstrom]

Impeachment is not "punishment for crimes". It is removal from office. High crimes and misdemeanors can lead to impeachment, but we all know there have been far worse crimes committed by Presidents than the particular one Clinton was impeached for.

This tells me that you do not understand the fundamental principles of conservatism. No other president was impeached for lying under oath...because no other president was found doing so.

Why is lying under oath to the judiciary so important?
Because it is a catch-all that inoculates the President from any and all crimes he may commit.

"Genocide of millions? I didn't do it."
...and when found to be a lie...gets away with it.

There was far more damage done to the US government by failing to remove him than by impeaching him.

The "bar" wasn't lowered by insisting that the President obey one of the Fundamental Principles necessary for the Rule of Law to survive. If anything, the standards for Presidents was dramatically lowered because the man guilty of the crime walked, and was the single highest level executive in the US.

Here's a shocker for you... ...Agreeing with Rush Limbaugh does not make you a conservative. There are underlying principles that create the obverse situation...one in which Rush Limbaugh agrees with *you*. The man's said as much, but so few people listen.

Offering Arnold as a candidate isn't conservative, doesn't advance conservatism, and fails the test of pragmatism as a result.

Here's another shocker...saying the word "God" are part of a Pledge of Allegiance, or putting it on a public building dosn't establish any religion.

So yes...if you agree with the 9th Circuit court, you're simply wrong.

[Lazamataz]

Curiously, Sabertooth saw fit to question your admittance date, and really didn't bother addressing what seemed like a pretty good essay.

I especially liked the part about Ken Starr and his failings in the impeachment of Clinton.

[sinkspur]

Quite frankly, a whole lot of us are "insulted" that Hollywood poseurs of principle and conservatism AND their respective rabid supporters demand that we ALL fall in line for the sake of that one itty-bitty sacred initial -- (R).

No one's demanding that you do anything, including shed that haughty arrogance that you seem to carry around from thread to thread.

[EternalVigilance]

RINOs have as much blood on their hands for the slaughter of innocent babies in the womb as the biggest socialist RAT in the land.

They are every bit as much responsible for the loss of our Bill of Rights as Teddy Kennedy or Tom Harkin or Tom Daschle.

When the homosexuals have destroyed the institution of marriage, and screwed a whole generation of young people up in the head, mark it up to their accounts.

I'm leaving. Good night.

[Maelstrom]

Well hurray for the Republican party.

I find there are a great many things in politics that are far more important and have a much greater impact on the lives of citizens than the letter in parenthesis after an elected official's name.

[Lazamataz]

I wasn't around these parts during the 2000 primaries. You mean to say there was actually a big Alan Keyes contingent here?? And they were taken serious??? NO ONE supported Keyes. Wow. I didn't realize just how serious "death-before-electibility" really is.

Easy does it, Sparky. You're bending too far the other way. Keyes was an exceptional and erudite man, and his inclusion in the debates raised the caliber thereof.

[sinkspur]

I know he has been coming out against stem cell research, upsetting Nancy Reagan and myself. Do you mean to say he's flip-flopped on the issue?

No. Bush forbade any additional harvesting of cells from new lines, but allowed the existing lines to continue to be used in research.

Keyes thought that was abominable, and called Bush a "murderer" not three miles from where I sit, at the DFW Hyatt at some conservative function.

Many in attendance were appalled at Keyes bombast, and he hasn't been invited to speak at a GOP or conservative event since.

[F16Fighter]

"I have pointed out a whole range of issues that Schwarzenegger holds that are, or should be, anathema to Republicans--not just the fact that he is pro-death."

And Ahh-nold's pro-liberal positions regarding pro-liberal issues which are rightly pointed out are all apparently white-washed and superceded all that really matters: The Big (R).

And I used to wonder about the massive psychotic hypnoses of Democrats...

[Maelstrom]

That's the best defense of Arnold I've seen yet.

However, I think he *will* be blamed for anything and everything up to and including a nameless, drunken, homeless person's staggering trip over the curb and onto the road.

It's California.

[F16Fighter]

"No one's demanding that you do anything, including shed that haughty arrogance that you seem to carry around from thread to thread."

You're right -- I ought to take a cue from your demeanor and polish up on my humility.

[F16Fighter]

"Why don't you knock off that 'homo-loving' crap; there are people on this board that actually HAVE gays in their families or KNOW gays in their real lives."

Shall it please Her Highness to have some of us re-"programed" via mandatory FR 'Sensitivity Training' course before our next log on??

[kidd]

To vote for "Arnold" is to vote for a name.

And nothing but a name.

He has an (R) after his name.
He was the big name in several big name movies.

But he is still just another big name actor with an opinion.

"Arnold" has no leadership experience. Any comparison to Reagan ends with the experience qualification; Reagan was at least elected to the head of the Screen Actors Guild. Arnold has no leadership experience.

Arnold claims to be a fiscal conservative. I have not seen or heard him demonstrate this. Yes he is very good with his own money - big deal - so is Ted Turner. Arnold has not demonstrated or even stated how he is a fiscal conservative with other people's money. He does, however, want to sink more money into schools and create more government programs.

Suppose Steven Speilberg held a news conference that he was running for governor as a fiscal conservative and has decided to become a Republican.

Of course, Speilberg would just be another candidate that is a big name.

After claiming this, there would essentially be no difference between Speilberg and Arnold. Both are social liberals and would be fiscal conservatives. Both thought that the Clinton impeachment was wrong. Both support abortion and gun control. And while both have earned their own success, neither one has demonstrated fiscal conservatism with other people's money - they would just claim it. And since Speilberg is more successful than Arnold - and has some leadership experience - Speilberg would be the better candidate, right?

Vote for Speilberg? No way. Vote for Arnold? Why is that any different?

[PhiKapMom]

Little Politics 101 is in order.

You become a candidate to WIN! You support candidates who WIN! A little history lesson as well -- we used to be the Party of the Rockefeller Republicans -- remember those people. The northern Republicans used to vote with the Southern DemocRATs to stop bills from the liberal DemocRATs.

It isn't the new GOP, the Republican Party has been home for years to conservatives and moderates. Very few liberals. It is the far right conservatives who are out of step with the rest of us Republicans who have been lifelong Republicans and want our Party to grow! You know the Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's who drive people away instead of into the Republican Party.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

The people you talk about not coming out to support the primary winner because he isn't their pick or he's not "pure" enough are a perfect example of what a REAL RINO is.

They are only Republicans when it's their people that are getting the party support. The whole reason there are political parties in the first place are for the strenght in coalition. It's all about "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine".

That is neccessary if you want to ever advance your agenda. If you support other Republicans on their people and their issues, they in turn will support you on yours.

Not supporting your party will lead to total system breakdown and political dominance by your opponents. In the end we wind up being better off with a European-style multi-party system and fragile coalition governments.