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?
Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic: The Common Conservative with Tom Adkins 10pm Eastern Guest: Gary DeLand WAIT TILL YOU HEAR HIS STORIES!!!
You want to hear from seomone on the inside? Someone who is actually on the ground in Iraq? THIS IS YOUR CHANCE!
Plus..the *** the FLYING JACKASSES!!! ***
- the CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE
and..."Bitchslap Of The Week"
Is this the moderate view? :-}
I think that goes about it the wrong way.
I should think so. Banning the voluntary recitation of the words "under God" has no place in our Constitutional Republic.
I'm glad to see the case is being kept alive, and with any luck will reach the Supreme Court.
I, on the other hand, put no faith in in the robed oligarchies. None at all. The ongoing culture war spawned by Roe has now been given added impetus with the finding of "transcendent" libeerties in Lawrence. With transcendence, all things are possible.
What I would like to see done is that this is handled correctly and the Supreme Court strikes down the law that Congress passed in the 1950s that first introduced the words "under God" into the Pledge, thus restoring it to the proper Historical Pledge.
Would you also strike chaplains from the armed services, the words "endowed by our creator" in the DOI and the phrase "in the Year of Our Lord" in the Constitution of the United States?
Might want to check those settings then ;-)
Go back through the posts and tally up which side has hurled the most insults and insisted that only "their" view properly represents the Republican Party? Count how many times the term RINO has been used and who has used it. Look at which side insists the Republican Party can carry both camps ...and which side claims Republicans have to vote for only the purist religious or conservative ideology or they are somehow lacking in morals?
I believe that the different elements in the Republican Party SHOULD debate conservative ideals... but the self-righteous attitudes about who is a REAL Republican are useless and destructive.
The only ones who use the term 'reactionary' generally are communists.
Or perhaps you just feel convicted when confronted.
No. It is simply the view of the minority whose personal religious views are not served by the pious use of "God" in the Pledge. It is the view of the very people who understand the destructive effects of exclusion from the social fabric.
Would you also strike chaplains from the armed services, the words "endowed by our creator" in the DOI and the phrase "in the Year of Our Lord" in the Constitution of the United States?
No, no, and no.
Military chaplains provide support and guidance for our troops in the military that is both of a religious and secular nature. I'm not for preventing anyone from expressing their own religion or seeking religious guidance.
I just don't believe the Government should be endorsing a god. The Government is prohibited from endorsing a political candidate. Can't you understand the difference?
The Declaration of Independence actually takes a bit of care to avoid being overtly Christian. It refers to "nature's god" and "their creator" as opposed to "The Creator".
Further more, the Declaration was written before the Constitution established the First Amendment.
And finally, I'm of no mind to go rewriting Historical documents. That is why I think it was reprehensible that the Congress chose to do so in the 1950s. Striking down unconstitutional laws written out of expedience by self-important Congressmen is another story though...
Not at all... the opposite is true. The more vicious the insults are, the more secure I feel in not sharing the ideology behind those accusations. A rational argument supporting a position can make me examine my own view but a poisonous, self-righteous rant just reminds me of the lefties.
Congress passed a LAW that inserted "under God" into the Pledge. That is the very thing I take issue with out of principle.
See, I would prefer just being able to pledge allegiance to my country without having to declare submission to God.
It seems to be quite an injustice that a person should be excluded from something PATRIOTIC just because they are not CHRISTIAN. Especially when the Constitution of the country says that the government can't force a religion on you in the first place.
If those 2 words were taken back out again it would solve the whole divissive issue of to pledge or not to pledge. Then people are free to worship whatever god they choose on their own time and at their own discretion.
Nope, I'm happy to answer that one... calling a fellow Republican a "communist", though, that one falls in my category of offensive.
To answer your question, no it wouldn't be rational to support candidates whos stated views "entirely contradict" the principles of the party we support together. It is only YOUR OPIONION, though, that Arnold's views "entirely contradict" Republican principles. He fails to push the principles that YOU find most important, obviously homosexuality and abortion, but those two positions are not the ONLY ONES on our platform. Other Republicans feel that the position of California Governor doesn't have any power over such legal rulings anyways and Arnold does support many conservative principles that the Governor CAN enforce.
It is a difference of OPINION and STRATEGY, not fake or real Republicans.
I'm sorry, but you are being disingenuous.
Why not coronate yourself 'High Priest of Self-Righteousness'?
And BTW -- Which positions should define "REAL" Republicans in your opinion?
Pro-Choice? Pro-Gay marriage and special rights? Pro-Social programs? Pro-Gun Control?
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.