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?
That wasn't meant as a personal attack. I was in fact just stating it as I see it.
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 know exactly what that case was. It was the case that established judicial review as it is today which effectively elevated the Court above the other 2 branches of government. And I thought that when the case was dismissed, it was then successfully appealed by the DOJ and Emerson was found guilty in Federal court. What strikes me as the salient issue is that the final ruling was that the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right.
That does not follow. Ahnold is splitting the Republican vote.
But it does follow. Try and follow this: Arnold is splitting the Republican vote, effectively keeping the right-wing from ramming a conservative candidate through who could not otherwise win in a regular general election.
Arnold is saving the Republicans from themselves.
Arnold's widespread support is coming instead from all factions of the political and non-political spectrum. This is what makes him the best choice, because he is the only candidate that the vast majority of Californians will accept as consensus, thus providing him the neccessesary mandate he will need to govern in an otherwise politically divisive special election.
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.
I would like to believe that is true, but I just don't see it reflected yet in the perceptions of average Californians. Perhaps it is because I live in the Bay Area, but the typical response from even the most non-political persons is "*gasp* you're a.. a... r-r-republican...??"
Most people here seem to still buy into The Simpsons-style mass media propaganda that Republicans are heartless, stingy, bible-thumpers who want to destroy the environment.
In the pop-culture perception wars Arnold can take us forward a long, long, way.
I should clarify this, as I rushed it out...
"It was the case that established judicial review as it is today which effectively elevated the Court above the other 2 branches of government"
referred to Marbury v. Madison.
"And I thought that when the case was dismissed, it was then successfully appealed by the DOJ and Emerson was found guilty in Federal court. What strikes me as the salient issue is that the final ruling was that the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right"
referred to the Emerson case.
This is wrong on so many counts that I'm not going to bother with it. In the Emerson case, the Appellate Court (I believe that it was the 5th Circuit) found that the Second Amendment was an individual right. You are mixing up the Emerson case with the recent Ninth Circuit ruling.
Try and follow this: Arnold is splitting the Republican vote, effectively keeping the right-wing from ramming a conservative candidate through who could not otherwise win in a regular general election. Arnold is saving the Republicans from themselves.
Here is another post of yours:
I agree McClintock as a single candidate would indeed win the election with a simple plurality.
How am I supposed to "follow" that? More important, why should I try?
So how is Ahnold saving us from anything? If McClintock would have won by a plurality without him, as you asserted, how is he saving us from anything by splitting the vote?
Best to tell your handlers that you are out of your depth here.
Arnold's widespread support is coming instead from all factions of the political and non-political spectrum.
Each of which has loyalties about an inch deep. They don't show at the polls and they will desert him in a heartbeat if the Slave Party fearmongers are successful (which they usually are with anybody but a saint, which Ahnold isn't).
Most people here seem to still buy into The Simpsons-style mass media propaganda that Republicans are heartless, stingy, bible-thumpers who want to destroy the environment.
Some Republican Bible thumpers are defining the cutting edge of environmental policy, like me.
Bankruptcy is the inability to service one's debts. Bankruptcy law allows persons or businesses to continue functioning financially despite being unable to service their debts.
Bankruptcy law probably does not apply to the State of Kalifornia although the processes that would take place would be surprisingly similar.
Let's imagine for a moment that the tripling of the car tax and the so-called "deficit" bonds are ruled illegal by the courts.
Very soon, the general fund from which the state makes payments will have a balance at or below zero. There may be a short-term credit line available, but soon even that would be exhausted.
At some point, a check drawn on the funds of the State of Kalifornia will be presented by a bank for a transfer payment and there will be no way to make the transfer. At that moment, the bank holding the "paper" will either have to treat the paper as money or it will have to refuse to honor the paper and return it to the depositor.
Imagine that the depositor is a school teacher. The teacher's union would then go to court and ask the court to force the state to cover the payment. The only way for Kalifornia to cover the payment is to increase revenues by a tax increase or to take the money from someone else who holds paper issued by the state.
At this point the teacher's union would be asking the court to either order the state to raise taxes or to decide which of several competing interests shall receive what little money the state has.
Now it gets really interesting...
If the courts refuse to rule, then the state government will get to decide who gets paid and who doesn't and the matter stays in the political arena.
If the courts mandate that taxes be raised, then the courts would be usurping the power of the legislature. I doubt that they would try this.
If the courts try to get into the business of deciding who gets paid and who doesn't, then they are once again usurping the power of the legislature, except in this case they may be able to make judgements regarding whether the payments in question are mandated by the state constitution, allowed by the state constitution, or possibly unconstitutional because the legislature in fact had no power to legislate in some matter.
One interesting area might be the utilities. The court may find that the consitution does not require that utilities be regulated by the state. Payments to the regulatory agencies might be ordered halted in favor of teacher's salaries.
The courts may find that the legislature has no power to subsidize the shrimp industry and payments for shrimp harvesters will stop.
I think that I recently read about a successful challenge to the Coastal Commission. Perhaps the court will rule that the legislature has no power to regulate what landowners may do with their land simply because the land is adjacent to a seacoast.
The courts might decide that the state has no power to maintain a registry of the guns owned by law-abiding citizens. They might order the cessation of payments for such a registry. [ Hey, it's my scenario...]
The courts might just limit themselves to deciding which items are required by the constitution and let everything else be decided by the government. Maybe the teachers will get paid and everybody else will be forced to go to court in order to get paid.
I welcome anyone else's scenarios regarding the coming mismatch between income and expenditures in the state. I would be quite disappointed if Arnold manages to make compromises allowing the continuation of even 75% of the nonsense that goes on in this state. Even if it is "for the children".
This is far from done playing out.
We won't know for sure the impact of the recall until the 2004 election.
If Swarzenegger wins, it will work out well for the Republicans' 2004 chances. If not causing a surge in Republican registrations, it will at the very least mute recall resentment among the general population.
If McClintock wins, it is hard to say what the effect on the general public will be. I know it will energize the liberal base to come out and vote against Republicans in 2004, though I think the general non-partisan voting public will take a "wait and see" attitude giving McClintock a chance to prove himself. This possibility is the hardest to gauge, as it will be a mixed bag.
If Simon wins, the total destruction of the Republican party within California will be completed.
Now obviously enough, only one of these possibilities can ultimately be proven, and there is still the chance that none of them get tested.
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.