Why I Am Now Behind Arnold

me

[kkindt]

Right minded conservatives once were called Puritans of which I am one. I do not think your weekend would be ruined if you put your organ in the place for which it was designed instead of places where you could ruin another's body or your own.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

Right minded conservatives once were called Puritans of which I am one. I do not think your weekend would be ruined if you put your organ in the place for which it was designed instead of places where you could ruin another's body or your own.

I agree. That would make for a splendid weekend as well. ;-)

However, I am not married...
As a Puritan, are you still OK with that?

[Maelstrom]

No, I'm not saying moderate *voters* stabbed conservatives in the back...I'm saying that RINO interference at the highest levels of the GOP leadership stabbed conservatives in the back. Had they acted appropriately, Simon would today be your CA governor.

I cannot forgive them for this...nor can I forget that when it came time for them to scratch OUR back, they stabbed it instead.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

No, I'm not saying moderate *voters* stabbed conservatives in the back...I'm saying that RINO interference at the highest levels of the GOP leadership stabbed conservatives in the back. Had they acted appropriately, Simon would today be your CA governor. I cannot forgive them for this...nor can I forget that when it came time for them to scratch OUR back, they stabbed it instead.

I can appreciate what you are saying. I don't know much at all about the internal inter-personal politics within the party heirarchy, but I do understand a lot of things go on behind the scenes to make things happen. I personally think that the GOP should be actively supporting which ever candidates are chosen in the primary. When it comes time for the rank and file to go to the polls, though, it is a different story.

You cannot argue the fact that ultimately electing someone comes down to voter turnout. Simon wasn't helped by the fact that he just didn't have enough money to mount an effective campaign, but it still came down to people like me not going out to vote for him.

As the public face of the Republican party within the state, Simon was a very bad choice for Governor. He stumbled and flip-flopped, and came across stiff, spineless and just plain doofy.
That is why he ultimately lost.

I am very concerned about the united front against Schwarzenegger that is starting to solidify from the conservative base.
Let's get this straight - it can only have two possible effects: either none at all, or it can ensure a Democrat victory.

If Cruz "Mexifornia" Bustamante capitalizes on this split, then we are all in REAL trouble. Not the sort of abstract trouble that conservatives are concerned with from Arnold.

If this conservative opposition stays a mere annoyance but doesn't affect Arnold's victory, then conservatives may find they have created a wedge between themselves and the new Governor. They are far less likely to get what they want from him when he wins if they keep it up!

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Democrats won't even need to spend much money campaigning against Arnold since the conservatives are aligned with Arianna Huffington in doing it for them. We don't want to give the Democrats any more resources in this election. It is far better to make them expend their energy and money attacking Arnold instead of promoting Davis and Bustamante.

[GatekeeperBookman]

The remarkable portrait on your home page makes it hard to take you seriously. But I say almost no one here is really who they pretend to be.

[GatekeeperBookman]

I am very concerned about the united front against Schwarzenegger that is starting to solidify from the conservative base.
Let's get this straight - it can only have two possible effects: either none at all, or it can ensure a Democrat victory.

The mass hysteria may sour when he must answer questions. Kinda like when Perot did the dance-folks just ran away.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

The mass hysteria may sour when he must answer questions. Kinda like when Perot did the dance-folks just ran away.

And yet Californians have elected Gray Davis twice.
So I can't imagine that you could possibly mean he may come across as too liberal.

So perhaps you mean he might just come across unprepared or fumbling?
I very much doubt that possibility, since he is being groomed by a team of very politically savvy people, and he himself is a man of solid convictions. All he really needs to do to win is say *something* and be confident when he does.

[Maelstrom]

You cannot argue the fact that ultimately electing someone comes down to voter turnout. Simon wasn't helped by the fact that he just didn't have enough money to mount an effective campaign, but it still came down to people like me not going out to vote for him.

That does make you, specifically, part of the problem: Unwilling to support conservatives after they've supported RINOs for so very long. However the money issue falls right back on the RINOs within the party.

Simon ultimately lost because he was back-stabbed upstairs. That you did it downstairs doesn't help your case at all. Obviously, you are more of a danger to the Republican Party than Bustamonte...because he...after all...isn't a Republican.

As I said before, y'all deserve all the fruits of your Liberal labors. You sure as hell aren't willing to try for a conservative and will betray one within your party who makes it against your wishes...so why the hell should conservatives do ANYTHING For you guys?

You had your chance and blew it. Now you have a second chance...and you're blowing it as well.

You're overly concerned with the letter after a guy's name. Let me tell you...Stalin is no less a tyrant for having (D) or (R) after his name. So enjoy your Bustamonte...or Swartzenegger...if you can tell the difference when he's in office. Don't pretend to try to be a conservative or even try to persuade a conservative to "compromise".

You aren't a conservative...or you would have voted for Simon. You aren't interested in "compromise" since you aren't willing to bend yourself when you ask others bend for you. Conservatives have been screwed over enough by RINO's upstairs and downstairs...now...they'll vote with their feet.

Don't worry, they'll be back when The Big One hits, and return the remnants of California into a great state once again.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

And what makes you think that if people run away they will run to one of the conservatives?

I think his coalition of support would shatter evenly across the field, and Simon and McClintock will keep each other from surpassing Cruz "Mexifornia" Bustamante.

[Maelstrom]

I think people who would vote for McClintock would stay home if he weren't in the race.

[GatekeeperBookman]

Solid convictions? Really! About homosexuals, about gun control, about the welfare state? I'm really open to possibilities, but his quotable moments have the appearance of concrete shoes in a swim meet. married to a Kennedy for god's sake! Someone said he is more of a Demoncat than Jow lieberman & Joe is more of a Repub than Ahnold. He sounds like a political dolt. Folks who run for high office normally have taken some care not to go around sounding so stupid-but then like you said, they elected the fool in California & then there are the 42% who blessed us with Klintoon.

As I said earlier, on other threads, I fear he will self-destruct or, if elected he will destroy Califonia-whats left from Gray-out. Whomever is elected, it will be with a minority of the voters ( likely ) & that person will be smeared by the final collapse.

[GatekeeperBookman]

I do not think any who find him an idiot on the campaign will run to anyone. They may disperse back to the woods, from whence many nuts emerge. He attracks unlikely voters-like Peerow did. The whole thing is goofy. Some of the other candidates look sane-but this is the land of fruit & nuts.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

When I said "people like me" I mean average Californians in general. You may have noted the extremely low voter turnout last election.

I didn't vote at all in the last election. There were no Senate seats up, and Simon wasn't inspiring. And obviously enough, I wasn't about to vote for Davis. It seems the majority of Californians felt the same as I did, hence the low voter turnout.

I'm not going to cast a vote for someone whom I would be too embarassed to even admit to in mixed company. Most people are like that, as once again, I point to the low voter turnout.

It wasn't just low, it was dismally low.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

Yes, solid convictions.
As in: he takes a position and he stands by it.

He doesn't flip-flop and backpeddle like Simon did.
People respect that.

Lets say you are correct about the voters just disappearing back into the woods.
That is a very good possibility, and if that happens, then Bustamante will surely win, since Simon and McClintock would need to combine their votes to win.

Like I've said before, I would consider supporting McClintock again if Simon dropped out.

But if McClintock drops out, I will not support a two-time loser like Simon.

I am even LESS inclined to support Simon this time around, because I just don't need the grief of "yet another election overturned by the Republicans" that the Democrats will make as their mantra to oppose Bush in 2004.

[Maelstrom]

There you go...
...YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Why do you want conservatives to be any different than yourself?

They'll stay home, and you'll get Bustamante, or a man with an (R) behind his name that *might* be marginally different.

How again can you consider yourself a conservative?

It's odd really...if I may draw an analogy to mathematics with negative numbers on the Liberal end and positive numbers on the Conservative end. RINOs...like yourself...want to subtract from a very large negative number, proclaiming that eventually you'll get a positive number because your numbers might not be as negative as those from the Democrats.

Conservatives want numbers to be added to shift that number to the other side of "0".

[GatekeeperBookman]

"Yes, solid convictions.
As in: he takes a position and he stands by it." Ahnold is a political genius. a leader amoung men. A fine example for our children:

Folks, you gotta read it to believe it. Enjoy,
ON THE ISSUES: Views of actor-candidate not easy to put in usual categories
Robert Salladay, Chronicle Political Writer
Friday, August 8, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/08/MN175872.DTL


Arnold Schwarzenegger, the actor known for his monosyllabic catch phrases in the "Terminator" movies, recently mused in the Financial Times of London: "I am more comfortable with an Adam Smith philosophy than with Keynesian theory."

As Schwarzenegger dives into California politics, comments like this may help voters who are wondering just exactly what the Austrian-born actor and bodybuilder believes. Political observers are rushing to figure him out, as Democrats question his ability to grasp complicated subjects like the state budget.

Schwarzenegger, who keeps a bust of Ronald Reagan in his office, has been described as a "compassionate libertarian," a Republican moderate outside the usual mold of GOP candidates in California. Although never elected to public office, Schwarzenegger has amassed a large body of speeches and interviews that support this perception.

But there are gaps in the record. He is widely viewed as supporting abortion rights, for example, but there are no public comments from Schwarzenegger detailing his position on parental consent, late-term procedures or the public financing of abortion. It's difficult to find a single quote from him even saying he's pro-choice.

For voters seeking to understand how Schwarzenegger would govern California,

political analysts say the best example may be former Gov. Pete Wilson, who is supporting the actor, and even Gov. Gray Davis during his first term, when he tried to skip across the political spectrum and angered many liberal Democrats.

"It's like going through a buffet line where you find all sorts of things, on the left and the right, that you can chose from," said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, who advised Schwarzenegger in 2001 and analyzed his public positions.

"Reporters are going to try very hard to put him in a box, but I don't think there is a box that would fit Arnold," said Whalen. "He said something very interesting to me once: 'You have to understand I am internally conflicted. I have an Austrian upbringing, but an adult life in California.' "

Schwarzenegger offers an array of seeming contradictions on policy issues that could confuse Republican voters, particularly conservatives, who are considered the most enthusiastic recall voters.

Schwarzenegger says he believes in less government spending, and yet he was author of a successful 2002 ballot measure that mandates $400 million in taxpayer spending on after-school programs. He is a follower of free- enterprise economist Milton Friedman, even taping an introduction to Friedman's 10-part TV series, "Free to Choose."

On the environment, Schwarzenegger already is getting criticized for driving enormous gas-guzzling SUVs such as the Hummer. He believes in "reasonable" environmental regulations, according to some records, but he declined to answer a question Thursday about his environmental positions, waving it off with: "I will fight for the environment. Nothing to worry about."

On gay rights, Schwarzenegger supposedly is supportive of adoptions by same- sex couples, another issue conservatives may find distasteful. He's been particularly outspoken about homosexuality, telling Cosmopolitan magazine: "I have no sexual standards in my head that say this is good or this is bad. 'Homosexual' -- that only means to me that he enjoys sex with a man and I enjoy sex with a woman. It's all legitimate to me."

"If you go back and watch 'Pumping Iron,' this is not a member of the religious right," said Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy, who has written about the actor for the National Review. "He's never preached on those issues. He's a businessman. He preaches the gospel of self-fulfillment, working hard, pumping iron, looking good."


MOVIE VIOLENCE
Polls show most Californians believe in strong gun-control laws, but Schwarzenegger is known mainly for his violent movies, which have included nearly 300 killings. In the past decade, as he began considering a career in politics, he said, he tried scaling back violent themes -- including forcing the removal of weapons from dolls promoting the movie "Last Action Hero."

Even though his newest movie, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines," is just as violent as his 1980s action flicks, he is considered supportive of assault weapons laws. Schwarzenegger says he believes voters should be able to separate the two.

"I don't run around every day with a gun in my hand," he told Berkeley- based Youth Radio last year. "So I want kids to understand the difference; one is make-believe like we do in the movies. But in reality I'm for gun control. I'm a peace-loving guy."

Democrats now are questioning whether Schwarzenegger has the ability to dig deeper than cliches on important policy issues, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein characterized it Thursday. If elected governor, Schwarzenegger would have to consider about 3,000 bills a year on a range of issues, from workers' compensation to mental health to public contracts.

After announcing his candidacy, he mentioned a few government spending programs but didn't offer a payment method amid a state budget deficit expected to be at least $10 billion next year. The actor said he wanted more books in schools and "affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people."

Although he promised later to offer a detailed budget plan, Schwarzenegger said the state needs leadership more than anything else. He ridiculed Davis' 1998 campaign claim that he was the best-trained governor in California history, saying that experience ruined the state.

But policy details can matter. In his first public comments as a candidate Wednesday night, Schwarzenegger said "the junk bond ratings that we're getting,

it is disastrous." In fact, although California's bond ratings have been downgraded by Wall Street, the state's credit rating is not at junk-bond status.


AUSTRIAN 'FARM BOY'
It's clear Schwarzenegger is a careful student of politics in general, infusing his speeches and interviews with stories about his Austrian upbringing and the transformation he made from a "farm boy" from Thal, Austria,

to an American success.

In a speech last year, Schwarzenegger said his first exposure to politics was the U.S. presidential campaign in 1968, the year he arrived in America. He had a friend translate the speeches of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey and Republican Richard Nixon.

Humphrey talked about protectionism and more government planning, the actor said, which "sounded a lot like socialism in Austria." Nixon talked about "less government, lower taxes, the free market, international trade and a strong military."

"After the translator finished, I realized: Yes! I am a Republican," Schwarzenegger said. "I pretty much thought it was as simple as the movies: The Republicans were the good guys, and the Democrats were the bad guys."

Schwarzenegger said he later starting touring the county for the Special Olympics and "learned how America really worked. And what I realized was this: both parties had good ideas. So it's dead wrong to see things only as us versus them."

He rattled off some general policy positions, including lower taxes and less government spending. Government should provide a "fair start and fair competition. It shouldn't rig outcomes," which could be interpreted as support for limited affirmative action programs or opposition to it.

Not surprisingly, Schwarzenegger's views on gay rights and his appearance in violent movies have angered conservatives in California. The recall election is allowing the actor to completely bypass the traditional party apparatus of nominating candidates and go directly to the voter.

Some conservatives lashed out quickly Thursday. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said the actor "would be a darker villain than any he has faced in his movies. . . . It's hard to imagine a worse governor than Gray Davis, but Mr. Schwarzenegger would be it."

[GatekeeperBookman]

Folks who run for high office normally have taken some care not to go around sounding so stupid.

[GatekeeperBookman]

A solid conviction-"'Homosexual' -- that only means to me that he enjoys sex with a man and I enjoy sex with a woman. It's all legitimate to me."

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

There you go...
...YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Why do you want conservatives to be any different than yourself?

If you were at all intellectually honest, you would at the very least admit that both sides are the problem. United we stand, divided we fall. You can't only blame one side for it.

But typically I don't fit into that catagory. It takes a special kind of bufoonery to turn me off. I just found a particular revulsion to Simon's personality, not his politics.

But it goes far beyond *me*. This was a decision I made, or really, a non-decision, based on the man himself. This happened all over the state on both sides. Democrats were equally turned off by Davis. The low election turnout was a PHENOMENON.

I see that quite different from the conservative single-issue voters who seemingly CONSPIRE as a group against any Republican who doesn't fit all of their criteria.

They'll stay home, and you'll get Bustamante, or a man with an (R) behind his name that *might* be marginally different.

I don't think conservative turnout one way or the other will impact the final outcome in this particular election.

How again can you consider yourself a conservative?

Because of my economic and foreign policy/national defense positions. And I am conservative enough to be pro-Israel but not so conservative as to be anti-Israel, if you know what I mean...

It's odd really...if I may draw an analogy to mathematics with negative numbers on the Liberal end and positive numbers on the Conservative end. RINOs...like yourself...want to subtract from a very large negative number, proclaiming that eventually you'll get a positive number because your numbers might not be as negative as those from the Democrats.

Conservatives want numbers to be added to shift that number to the other side of "0".

That is an interesting analogy, but not an applicable one.
I see it as the intolerant views, religious sectarianism, and stiff demeanor of the "social conservatives" as a negative in the Republican column, and I want to nullify it.

[GatekeeperBookman]

"It takes a special kind of bufoonery to turn me off. "

An insight. Like the portrait of an idiot on your home page.