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?

[nickcarraway]

Please, put yourselves in our shoes. We have a recall election that a lot of diehard Republicans worked veyr hard to get. Now Schwarzenegger, who is really a politcal unknown to us, throws his hat into the ring, and immediately out-of-staters tell us we have to support him, or else we are ``bad Republicans.'' How sould feel if out-of-staters came into Oklahoma and attacked you, with your long history of Republican support, if you did not immediately support a certain candidate? I think a lot of people are actually doing Schwarzenegger a diservice because they are alienating California Republicans towards him by their brutal attacks and condescending behavior. I don't think a Republican in California who isn't sold on Schwarzenegger or any other candidate for that matter, should be attacked as a ``bad Republican,'' or a ``disloyal Republican.'' Do you think they should?

And please try to understand that there are reasons why California Republicans are cautious when it come to Schwarzenegger. We've lived here so we know what's been going on here. Right now he hasn't given us a lot of information about his positions, but what we do know indicates his positions aren't much different then Davis. The thing that really concerns us is his ties to Richard Riordan. Riordan has demonstrated over the years he has no loyalty to Republicans, so it makes us nervous. Riordan is a Republican who usually endorses Democrats. He even endorsed Maxine Waters and Dianne Feinstein. And he was one of the top donors to Gray Davis himslef. Riordan lost the primary last year because he openly insulted Republican voters. Can you understand it makes us nervous when Schwarzenegger makes him the head of his issue panel? We've been burned before and we don't want to be again. Does that really make us bad Republicans and justify all these attacks?

[Carry_Okie]

I am very disappointed by what I am seeing from some of you.

Why, because we don't buy your ineffective and unsupported arguments?

The Republican party is the party of Ronald Reagan, not the party of Pat Robertson!

You will recall that Reagan ran against Nixon and enjoyed blanket support from the Christian right. We heard all the same arguments from your ilk back then.

This is NOT what it means to be "conservative". It is what it means to be "right-wing fundamentalist". So if you want to preach, go right ahead, but don't do it under the guise of conservativism or the banner of mainstream Rupublicans!

Please cite a political position that I have taken on any issue that alienates swing voters. No one has been talking about morality here in a manner which is not supported by the vast majority of California voters. In fact, Ahnold's support of "gay rights" directly denotes that the process of pro-glbt sexual indoctrination of children against the wishes of their parents in public schools will continue. How would you call that libertarian?

No, conservative principles, including those advocated by the Christian right, are the best way to produce a productive and profitable society at the lowest possible civic cost, simply because moral people don't need much from government. Thus, if a candidate panders to the moral issues of the left, the long term prognosis for California's economy is to face massive structural costs. Such is Ahnold and that's why your call for long term thinking is so laughable.

It's no accident that the political backstabbing exhibited by Rove/Parsky/Schwartznegger et al. is exactly of such a capricious vein. There's no way they would EVER willingly let a conservative govern in this state.

[nickcarraway]

Since you are a loyal Republican back to the Goldwater days, I want to ask you about something else that might make you mad. People are going onto the Tom McClintock threads and just making brutal attacks. Under the keywords they are typing juvenile things like: 4ANDFALLING; CROSSEDEYES; MCCLINTON; MCLOSER; MCMARGINALIZED; MISTERFOURPERCENT; NOUPPERLIP; TOMMCCLINTOCK; TOMWHO. Can you believe that? As a loyal Republican, doesn't that make you mad? Especially on Free Republic? McClintock has been a loyal Republican all his life, and has represented Californians in different positions since he was 26 years old. He is not a millionaire, because he's been in the legislature since then as a Republican who susbsists on that salary. Shouldn't all Freepers and Republicans be irate about this behavior?

[nyconse]

OK-I'm convinced Arnold has ESP. He knew long ago Davis would be recalled and remaining in the GOP would give him an edge-come on.

[nyconse]

How many supreme court judges will Bush pick if he is re-elected in 2004. Lifetime appointments now that's longterm! If having Arnold as governor can help deliver the state to Bush (no Dem will that's for sure), then he needs to win.

[Maelstrom]

The series of comments listed are patently "Progressive" ideas.

It is easly demonstrated that the "progressive" movement is drawn straight from a Communist agenda from it's inception to today.

There are several other problems with your comments insofar as they ignore history. Your path has been travelled before, we know where it leads. I'd rather California fell into the ocean than drag the rest of America down to that KNOWN Abyss.

Please, please, do not now adopt the ideas Communists implemented toward the goal of destroying the United States from within.

You aren't viable. You're a holdover from the failed policies of LBJ...a newborn hippie who doesn't realize that his ideas are not only a couple of generations old, but proven to have failed.

That's right...Proven.

[Maelstrom]

I'd like to see the news anchors put garbage cans over their heads again.

This election can do it.

[Sir Gawain]

Interesting that a thread as lame as this got moved to the Backroom. Someone was getting embarrassed...

[Maelstrom]

Oh, you're so close to thinking about it.

Just a little bit farther and you'll realize we know a LOT about Arnold's political views and the likely policies that grow from those views.

I'll give you a push in the right direction: Arnold doesn't have ESP.

[Maelstrom]

And if Arnold doesn't help, but harms?

It's been pointed out before, governorship isn't correlated with the direction the state goes.

The ability to articulate political principles might make a difference. What principles have been advocated by Arnold in the past? (hint: Precious view conservative principles.)

[Carry_Okie]

SB 490 by Senator Dede Alpert (D-San Diego) establishes a uniform statewide protocol approved by the Medical Board of California and the Board of Pharmacy for emergency contraception.

That's so big an "if" as to be pointless. Ahnold in the California governor's chair means no more to Bush than Pataki did in New York.

[Maelstrom]

Here...let's try this again.

I find it difficult to believe that you fell off the turnip truck 2 days ago.

"Or maybe it has nothing to do with politics at all. Ever consider that? "

Yes, and discarded it because of knowledge.

"Perhaps it is just the basic progression of society. California has always been on the cutting edge of American cultural change."

One could only hold this belief if one accepts that the next stage of American cultural change is that of a Third World Nation banana republic. Now, I'll grant you this might be true. Conservatives aren't lapping dogs to roll over on command, so get ready for a fight.

"Liberalisation is part of the natural cycle of civilizations. That is a historical fact, proven without fail. "

BINGO! Admin moderators are we through yet?
First: This isn't a part of the cycle of civilizations.
Second: This isn't "liberalization", it's authoritarian socialism.
Third: This isn't natural. It's imposed by authoritarian organizations subverting nations from within. WITNESS: Russia, China, Korea, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia...and it was interrupted in El Salvador by R. Reagan.

"Some of us recognize this and understand what it takes to at the very least remain viable in an ever-changing society."

You aren't part of society. Very much like the communists who spawned your broken logic, you're attempting to lead people into a direction we're quite unwilling to go. We know where this road leads.

I had a conversation with a fellow like yourself in the halls of a University. I questioned him about his economic and social values and then I scoffed: "What makes you think, once you've succeeded that you'll be in charge. Someone like me is more likely to be in charge because I know how this system works. I've proven you don't."

[Carry_Okie]

Thanks for telling me.

I'll let them rant.

[Maelstrom]

Some simply think they can pass themselves off as the real thing when they are exactly the opposite of what they've proclaimed themselves to be.

Trace this guy's path...he went from opposing Simon to supporting Swartzenegger, to proclaiming that the US is now a "progressive" society.

Now...if you will remember, please, the former USSR was a "progressive" society under Lenin...and thus Stalin came to power. Also, please, we have irrefutable proof that the "Progressive" Movement within the US was spawned by the same forces that gave us Lenin and Stalin.

Or...

Just accept it, the US is bound to become just like Mexico...under this "progressive" idea.

[nyconse]

Come on-there is no need to insult people who disagree with you. I am a conservative Republican. I vote Republican always. That being said, I see no evidence that California will support a conservative like Simon (he did lose) or McClintock. If Arnold wasn't in the race Busmante would likely win IMHO. Arnold isn't causing McClintock to lose-the guy would likely lose anyway. We have to accept the fact that given California's demographics, a conservative can not win at this time. Electing a Republican is important-it could rejuvenate the California GOP and help Bush get re-elected . The Dems try and get their people elected by dividing the Repubs-don't allow them to succeed. We are all Republicans, and we all have certain beliefs which we are entitled too. If we didn't have Rino's in the Senate Daschle would be majority leader; think about that for a minute. You may not like the Doctor's pragmatic approach, but I think he is right. There is no victory in losing elections. Supporting candidates who can not win is futile: a waste of time and money. It makes you feel good...only until the Democrat is sworn in and begins to push his leftist agenda.....

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Truth hurts. The Arnold groupies need to grow a thicker skin if they are going to stick their heads in the sand.

Pathetic.

Even Bush is starting to see the light.

[nyconse]

Any politician-including McClintock could hurt....how do I know what will happen? The whole recall is risky- I guess we have to hope for the best...

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Did you whine to mommy and daddy? I'll repost the nice part so it doesn't hurt your feelings.

It is the statement released by a person who investigated criminal wrongdoing and has turned the evidence over to the State and US Attorney's office. He has facts and direct admissions of voter fraud.

All better?

[nyconse]

I don't know what Arnolds political views are, but he can't be worse than Busmante. I'd settle for his support of prop 187 and perhaps a crackdown on illegal immigration that places all Americans (not just those in California) at risk.

[Maelstrom]

They're closer than you expect.

oh and hey...Do you know Warren Buffet's economic political positions?