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?
Orange County not only has an economy larger than many states, it's recovery in record time about a decade ago substantiates the fact that the area is an economic powerhouse.
Some do and some don't. Just because HCI is successfully shopping statist judges doesn't mean that they are following the Constitution.
Simon came up on Riordan because Gray Davis spent millions in advertising to influence conservatives in the Republican primary.
Hokum. Riordan was toast by the time he got to the convention. You had to be there to see it. It was a rout.
The recall election is not a Republican primary.
Neither is there a need for an absolute majority. Republicans could EASILY have won this with a single candidate. When conservatives pushed through the recall over the objections of the Rove/Parsky/Firestone/Huffington CAGOP hierarchy they highjacked the effort by putting up their rich RINO pretty boy and then tell the people who did the work not to split the vote. Thugs, as usual. Had Republicans pulled together (as they keep telling us we should) Simon would already be governor. It was the CAGOP who threw the election.
That's why there are not Republicans in statewide office right now.
No, it's because Parsky wouldn't cut loose with cash unless Russo forced the Log Cabin letter. It's because Parsky wouldn't spend a nickel on registration or GOTV. It's because Parsky demanded control of Simon's ad campaign or he wouldn't cut loose with the funds Rove put under his control. McClintock would be controller but for Parsky's piquish personal vendetta. You RINOs screwed up the whole election. GOP turnout reflected it. Wanna know why? Read this.
I think you need to poke your head out of the bubble you're living in.
Get your facts straight and stop buying the Party spin. I'm a lot more intimately involved in this stuff than you realize. .
Moreover, the argument has devolved into a simple dicotomy:
Those who wish to do the right thing vs.
Those who wish to "win" at any cost.
Which follows the old dicotomy, respectively:
Conservatives
vs.
Liberals.
You've been exposed Nostrand
Hmmm... I should have realized that humor was wasted on the trogliodyte crowd. I was illustrating through absurdity, by holding up Hillary's ridiculous paranoia as a mirror to the paranoid delusions direct towards myself by some here. I thought it was an example that could be understood and appreciated here - at least by the level-headed members. It also was meant to say "you are the ones who give the rest of us a bad name." I hope and pray that it was not lost on all here.
As for calling me a "liberal", those would normally be fightin' words that I would take serious offense to, but in the relative context of the extreme-element present, it is a label that can only be worn as a badge of honor.
This whole "secularists not wanted" attitude from some is every bit as disgusting as the Democrats' "Catholics not welcome" attitude. I for one don't think religion has any place in politics and in the everyday business of governing the people.
And to even draw a comparison to me and the liberal "win at all costs" philosophy of the liberals should be an insult to every clear-minded person here.
The liberals' "win at all costs" tactics revolve around election tampering, court interventions, bizzare "accidents", threats, and good old-fashioned slander.
If any one is guilty of this sort of thing around here, it is the reactionaries who slander good ELECTABLE candidates like Arnold as "RINOs", and threaten not to vote - not those of us who simply want to vote for a candidate that can actually WIN an election.
Except I would view that counter-productive attitude as "lose at all costs". I'm tired of the religious-right single-issue voters actively sabotaging the party's efforts at mainstream appeal. Clearly, the fundamentalists do not want a Republican majority, because then we would no longer be beholden to them and they would finally become someone else's problem.
I take the registered voters roster over your uncorroborated opinion anytime.
Nevertheless, you illustrate a good point. Some people believe what they want to believe no matter how far from reality their beliefs are.
I'd say its more likely time for you to take a nap.
By the way, who is Bill Simon? The name rings a vague bell. Is he the "Simon" in Simon and Garfunkel?
You're still claiming to be from California? That you understand California politics?
How is it that you don't know who Bill Jones is, and his relevance to to the botched Bush/Rove attempt to annoint Dick Riordan as the GOP's California gubernatorial nominee?
Carry_Okie wrote: Some do and some don't. Just because HCI is successfully shopping statist judges doesn't mean that they are following the Constitution.
That may well be true. I'm not disputing the fact that the judges routinely rule unconstitutionally. But we have to accept that they are ultimately to final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what isn't. Do you see my point now?
DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: The recall election is not a Republican primary.
Carry_Okie wrote: Neither is there a need for an absolute majority. Republicans could EASILY have won this with a single candidate. When conservatives pushed through the recall over the objections of the Rove/Parsky/Firestone/Huffington CAGOP hierarchy they highjacked the effort by putting up their rich RINO pretty boy and then tell the people who did the work not to split the vote. Thugs, as usual. Had Republicans pulled together (as they keep telling us we should) Simon would already be governor. It was the CAGOP who threw the election.
I agree McClintock as a single candidate would indeed win the election with a simple plurality. That's why it's a good thing he's got company from Schwarzenegger. A traditional conservative such as McClintock would be resented by the general population as having been rammed through by the right-wing. It would not play well for the Republicans and would ultimately trigger a backlash that would resonate with average voters.
DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: Simon came up on Riordan because Gray Davis spent millions in advertising to influence conservatives in the Republican primary.
Carry_Okie wrote: Hokum. Riordan was toast by the time he got to the convention. You had to be there to see it. It was a rout.
---------------------------------------------------------
DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: That's why there are not Republicans in statewide office right now.
Carry_Okie wrote: No, it's because Parsky wouldn't cut loose with cash unless Russo forced the Log Cabin letter. It's because Parsky wouldn't spend a nickel on registration or GOTV. It's because Parsky demanded control of Simon's ad campaign or he wouldn't cut loose with the funds Rove put under his control. McClintock would be controller but for Parsky's piquish personal vendetta. You RINOs screwed up the whole election. GOP turnout reflected it. Wanna know why? Read this.
----------------------------------------------------------
DrMartinVonNostrand wrote: I think you need to poke your head out of the bubble you're living in.
Carry_Okie wrote: Get your facts straight and stop buying the Party spin. I'm a lot more intimately involved in this stuff than you realize. .
This all just furthers my point.
You are too much of an insider, too close to the highly-charged factional politics inside the party. This is what leads to your myopic viewpoint that you cannot see beyond.
I, on the otherhand, am much closer to the "don't bother to vote" general public.
If the Republicans want to regain California in the Republican column, then party-insiders are going to have to pay closer attention to the sort of things I'm saying.
Most people will reject both extremes in an election. Whoever they may be. They will look for who is the most in the middle, because most people are non-commital and would rather be seen as a little bit wrong by most people than as extremist in the eyes of half the people.
Our society forgives people for being "a little bit wrong" but judges "extremists" harshly.
Candidates like Bill Simon only turn off the general public. It's all about perception, correct or not.
I'm only trying to serve as a reality check.
How is it that you don't know who Bill Jones is, and his relevance to to the botched Bush/Rove attempt to annoint Dick Riordan as the GOP's California gubernatorial nominee?
You asked "whatever happened to Bill Jones?"
If he's disappeared off the radar enough for you to have to ask, then why do you expect me to know who he is?
Take a random poll in California to see how much name recognition he has.
I have a pretty good grasp on the political atmosphere and perceptions of the general public here. That may just be precisely because I'm not distracted by all the inside baseball.
When you can't win on facts, you try personal attack. OK.
If you don't even know who Bill Jones is, you have no business commenting on any of this.
But we have to accept that they are ultimately to final arbiters of what is "constitutional" and what isn't. Do you see my point now?
Oh, the old Marbury v. Madison canard. There's a reason the DOJ dropped the Emerson case. Let's see if you can figure out what it was.
I agree McClintock as a single candidate would indeed win the election with a simple plurality. That's why it's a good thing he's got company from Schwarzenegger.
That does not follow. Ahnold is splitting the Republican vote.
A traditional conservative such as McClintock would be resented by the general population as having been rammed through by the right-wing. It would not play well for the Republicans and would ultimately trigger a backlash that would resonate with average voters.
That may have been true fifteen years ago, but since the development of mass media among the people it has become no longer true. You still haven't been able to show why we need Ahnold when conservative ballot propositions have been so successful. What you don't understand is that the Internet and the fax machine changed everything. What plays well in the media no longer determines elections. That's why your assertions about Davis' media buys against Riordan don't hold water.
Because up at #556 (as well as throughout this thread), you posted pretensions of knowing what you're talking about in regard to California politics, and the GOP's gubernatorial nomination of 2002...
Simon came up on Riordan because Gray Davis spent millions in advertising to influence conservatives in the Republican primary.The recall election is not a Republican primary.
Moderates cannot survive the primary and conservatives cannot survive the general election.GOP moderates haven't survived at the top of the state ticket in the last four election cycles, either. I'm talking about Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and Presidential candidates. Why do you suppose that is? How does that impact your analysis? Can you name them?
Which faction within the GOP got this recall on the ballot, and which faction misjudged the public mood, and opposed this effort?
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.