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?
Christians and conservatives do not use personal attacks when talking to each other. I have no interest in discussing anything with a person who cannot live by the rules of this forum.
Complain to the Administrator who removed your nasty remarks.
"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. "
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
So, let me get this correct. You've posted dozens of times now on this thread....Hammering home your "perceptions" real and perceived..of where Arnold stands. And you've basically blamed the demise of the "R" party in Calif. on the "conservatives" that won't lay down their "standards" and vote for the RINOS.....BUT...YOU DIDN'T VOTE, in the last election?!?!?! Because you..might have to admit to voting for a "conservative" that doesn't MOVE you?!?!?!?!?!
You are an articulate guy...and have argued well on this thread at times. But this post "peeled the onion" for me. If the Pubbies continue to morph into pseudoquasiwhatever's...like Arnold & yourself. Then I think the "end" is nearer than many may think.
Fwiw-
No, I would imagine that Ahhnold has a few skeletons in his closet that he doesn't want subjected to similar scrutiny should he get elected. I doubt he gives a rat's backside about all the other stuff that was covered up by Starr.
Yep. It would be hard for the GOP to stand against such issues if they were favored by a GOP governor - just as Bush's spendthrift ways with tax dollars has undermined long-held positions by the GOP House.
We usually don't see such mendacity in adjoining sentences - usually weasels like yourself put a paragraph or two between such a blatant contradiction. If the government is empowered to determine the legitimacy of a right, then it really isn't a right any more, as it has just become subjective.
"First of all, I am still in the politically detached low-voter turnout age group, so go easy on me here..."
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
You don't come across as "politically detached"....I'm not certain of your "right" to fume and sputter over Davis..when you didn't even bother to vote. IMO, much of your argument came across as empty..after my reading that revelation.
-------------------------------------------------
I understand that from a sterilized viewpoint it looks like I did my small part to disservice Republicans, but I don't see it like that at all.
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Hardly "sterilized"..., I wouldn't use that terminology..."clean" would be more like it. LOL!! But...your not voting...makes your argument against Republicans not wanting to vote for Arnold..somewhat toothless.
-------------------------------------------
I'm glad for the recall and a 2nd shot with some inspiring candidates. I'm glad it worked out this way.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
I most certainly understand and can appreciate that.
-------------------------------------------------
It's not just that Simon didn't "move" me, he EMBARASSED me. Him as Governor would have made me feel ashamed to be a Republican. I seriously don't know how the Democrats can look in the mirror themselves after voting in Davis. I didn't want to be in their position.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Okay..so Simon didn't "move" you..& he embarassed you also. How did he embarass you? And how would he of "shamed" you?
fwiw-
Which is why we need to elect constitutional conservatives who will appoint constitutionalist judges who will interpret the Constitution as it is written, not how they would like it to be written. Electing Arnold would be a step away from that goal.
And secondly, narrow interpritations of the Constitution work in favor of conservatives on some issues. Just as courts have been able to say that the Constitutional right to bear arms is not a blanket right for any individual to bears any type of arms he chooses
The 1st Amendment allows just about any kind of speech, except for that which causes direct harm, such as yelling "fire" in a movie theater. But when it comes to the 2nd A, folks such as you would ban ownership of certain guns, not the abuse of weapons. That is incrementalism against a right - namely that preconditions can be set, not back-end prohibitions against abuse.
so is the Constitutional protection of abortion not a blanket right for anyone to have an abortion at any time, such as during the 3rd trimester.
Isn't that special - the courts create a right to kill fetuses from thin air, but then allow that right to kill fetuses to be restricted.
Picking and choosing the powers of judicial review based on your own personal feelings on the issue is what liberals do, not conservatives.
I make one choice - namely that the Constitution should be interpreted as written, not as wished. It's absolutely astounding that you would try to equate Constitutional literalism with liberals, as the two concepts are diameterically opposed. But, then again, you are bitching about the last election when you didn't even vote, so I don't expect you to grasp your own contradictions.
I recognize that there are some things that stand as law that I may not agree with in my own personal life and practices.
So vote for the guy who will do nothing to change that?
I recognize that my own beliefs do not change the legal realities on the matter. I also recognize that should I act in a way that I personally believe the law SHOULD be, rather than in the way that the law is actually interprited as, then I would risk going to jail.
Unjust laws are often best challenged by standing up to them.
People need to learn to seperate their own personal feelings and tastes from their political and policy positions.
That, quite frankly, is the most asinine thing I've seen in a long, long, LONG time. So if I'm a devout Christian (which I am not), I should vote for someone antithical to my views? That's rich.
For example, you not have to be a homosexual to believe that sodomy should not be criminal, nor should you have to be an atheist to recognize that the Government has no place endorsing religion.
However, if homosexual sodomy has been shown to be a serious health problem (which it is), then does the government have some kind of compelling interest in limiting or criminalizing such? After all, drunk drivers usually make it home without harming anyone - but in the minority of times that they cause an accident, the damage is serious enough to criminalize all acts of drunken driving.
And, above and beyond that, under the 10th Amendment, does the federal government have the power to overrule the State of Texas when homosexuality is not an enumerated Constitutional right? In earlier times, the feds had no such powers, but they've usurped them because no one stands up to them and voters are more interested in electing a name than in electing principles. As you are.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Arnold Schwarzenegger agreeing with the established interpritations of the Constitution.
He has every right to do such. And I have every right to say he's full of crap and should not be deserving of the vote of conservatives. That is what political debate is about. And your views are little more than jello.
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.