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?
All the proof you need PKM is the attempted theft of the last election by the Goreites and lefties.
But if that's not enough think 9/11.
You've got a point there.
Can you not read? Did I say Oklahoma where I live! Of course there can win here in Oklahoma but I have news for you -- except maybe for Istook, they don't consider themselves members of the religious right and I am not even sure about him. They are conservative and religious but members of the religious right they are not. J.C., Keating, Nickles have had some things to say about the likes of Robertson and Falwell for a long time!
If you think members of the religious right are going to win states like Maine or the rest of New England except maybe NH, think again! Not going to happen!
There is a big difference between being conservative and religious and being members of the religious right demanding that every politician live up to what they want or they won't vote! I have met some of those types. BTW, I am Baptist if you are wondering so don't get the impression I am some Liberal.
Arnold could very easily change party affiliation once he is in. He would have to make absolutely no fundamental changes in policies or views--unless it is to become a bit more conservative so as not to offend moderate Democrats.
OK, try this vision PKM.
LA riots. Korean shopkeepers defending their property against overwhelming odds with AR-15's and AK's.
You don't even understand the establishment clause.
Easy. Governor Ahhhhhhnold will hop in a Harrier jumpjet, fly to LA, and shoot the guns, sticks, and rocks out of the rioters' hands with his .50 cal gatling gun.
I could not agree more with that statement. The rest of this, though well written and thought out, I am not yet sure. I don't think the Clinton impeachment statements are necessarily true, though I agree that it was wrong to make it all about Monica, I am not sure that was all Starr's fault. The media did a lot of that to help Clinton. The most important thing to me is that Davis is gone, and that Cruz does not take his place. I will vote accordingly, because NO ONE is more dangerous than those two.
Certainly you did. Concurrent with the drafting and ratification of the COnstitution several of the states did indeed have state religions. The states wanted protection from a national religion, a la King George and his merry men, and thus the establishment clause.
That's a fact Doc. Deal with it.
It is the religious right that misrepresents it, acting as though the flagrant use of "God" is within Constitutionality because it doesn't endorse "a" religion, since as they say "God" is represented in several religions.
Religious right, left or atheist, the voluntary use of the word God is a self evident right I would think. What philosophy is it that you adhere to than bans free speech in the public square?
What they manage to obscure though, of course, is that "God" is exclusively the deity of what can only be described as the greater Abrahamic religion.
So what?
Not unbelievable, actually, it seems typical for both left and right extreme ideologues. It happens often over at DU when certain Democrats don't agree with the Greenies that Bush planned 9/11 on purpose... and they use the same poisonous insults and pious pedestals as our far-right Freepers use on anyone not agreeing with them here.
It's distressing to see such awful similarities between far-lefties and far-righters... anyone who holds a different view than they do is lower than dirt and a traitor to some ideal that exists only in their own minds :-(
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.