Yes. It's a mystery.
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?
As I said on this thread yesterday:
Arnold's "base" is hardly reliable. A good percentage is star struck and will be lucky to figure out how to register to vote let alone find their polling place and vote.
That is because I didn't. I have spent a lifetime developing my political and philosophical beliefs. I don't need YOU or this forum to introduce me to these things.
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.
I hate to have to break this to you, but it is third world counties that are governed by religious sectarianism. Just look at the middle east and Central and South America for examples.
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.
You are the one who now seems to want the Authoritarian powers of the Admin moderators to stifle my individual freedom of thought and expression now. Just as you are the one who advocates Authoritaran Government to regulate the free activities and cultural life of the American people. You should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.
I have said NOTHING about socialism. I have only talked about the evolution of American attitudes on culture.
We DO in fact live in one of the most liberal societies in the world. Communism is NOT liberal. It is oppressive. It is the polar opposite of liberal. I think you are confusing the definition of "liberalism" with the quasi-socialist political movement of the left-wing Liberals. There is a world of difference here.
True liberalism, in the definition that I am using is the tendancy of western culture through out the ages to relax its Authoritarian grip of religion and social mores, and continually embrace new freedoms for individuals. This should be patently obvious in the form of the Bill of Rights, property rights, abolition, sufferage, voting rights act, the civil rights movement, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and yes, the progressive acceptance of "alternative lifestyles".
And seeing just how dense you are, I now have to point out that when I use the word "progressive" here and in previous posts, it is in the standard definition of "gradual change in steady incriments over time", not the Progressive movement of 1924.
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.
Oh, now I'm a COMMUNIST too..?
You have really crossed the line on that one you inbred throwback troglodyte scumbag.
I went from being a mere "RINO" to a Marxist now for supporting Republican Gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Pat Buchanan formed his own party because we've been trying to force out the cancer in ours such as you two. I strongly suggest you join him. Now.
Yes. It's a mystery.
Then there's the question of where on god's green earth McClintock is going to get the money to run a lightning campaign in the largestr state in the union. Darrell Isa can't write him a big check, there's a different set of campaign finance laws in effect.
Of course all these problems go away if conservatives hold their cllective nose and vote for Arnold, but your not going to draw very many fence-sitters to your (conservative) cause by ignoring the problems outlined above.
Oh, now I'm a COMMUNIST too..?When you next retread, can you come back as "Ironic Man?"
You have really crossed the line on that one...
I have to agree. Communists. like Castro, are the scum of the earth. Sociopathic people of the lie, that's what they are. I can see why this one touched a nerve with you.
Ot even some other state, in another corner of the country.
But you're absolutely right: "everyone is entitled to his/her opinion."
Isn't that a reference to the TV show Seinfeld?
Didn't Kramer, the incorrigible schemer, once pose as a Dr. Martin Von Nostrand?
Isn't that the episode where he played an imposter, and a quack?
I love that show!
The one and only.
Isn't the sabertooth tiger, now extint, the official fossil of California?
Oops!
The one and only.
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.