Why Democrats Fear Arnold

Pittsburgh Tribune Review ^ | 10/13/03 | Ralph Reiland

[chiller]

A Nazi groper, running the fifth-largest economy on the planet? I mean this time you gotta see why the liberals are jumpin' mad! Nixon was one thing, with the hiring of the burglars and all to lift McGovern's secrets, and the bombing of Cambodia on the sly, and goofy, like when he'd shoot his arms straight up in the air like a giant V, I guess for victory (or maybe it was a big human Y, for Yes), but at least Tricky Dicky didn't pronounce it "Collifornia," and he didn't grab up a Kennedy woman for his own. No, this time it's worse. I saw the nude Arnold photos on Drudge. Nixon wouldn't even walk along the surf without wearing his suit and tie, and dress shoes.

[chiller]

Where to begin? Dems don't like Arnold, NOT because he may be a Nazi groper (they'd approve of that). They don't like Arnold because THEY LOST some of their power. I hope he's right about less mud-slinging in the next election, but everything points to more. It's happening as we speak.

[sarasota]

That's right. The tide has turned.

[Support Free Republic]

Got a minute?

I'd really like you to rub my ears,
or help out FR.

[InterceptPoint]

What won is a policy mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, a position that's consistent, i.e., consistently libertarian, in that it seeks to put a lid both on how much the government can grab out of our wallets and on the regulations and laws that mandate how we live.

I think there is some truth here although it may be a bitter pill for many Freepers.

[chiller]

Nor am I buying the formula for success is fiscal conservatism mixed with social liberalism.(ie. abortion) Social liberalism works in California and a few other places, but social libertarianism could help the cause, imho.

[jocon307]

"I hope he's right about less mud-slinging in the next election, but everything points to more."

Yes, and that's because the dems got nothing else. They have no plan, no ideas, no nothing. Their entire "vision thing" is GIVE US POWER, and if anyone objects to that they are labeled a racist, a neo-con (code word for Zionist Jew), a nazi, (so, what's a little contradiction when you're name-calling?) a right-wing looney. They can no longer even pretend to have any concept of how to advance the interests of the American people. Even our pre-eminent interest in staying alive. The dem party has sold its soul to Bill Clinton, and a cheaper devil one cannot find. Until they regain their senses, wrest power back from the HillBillies, and start putting the interests of the people they claim to represent over the interests of such entrenched special interests as the neo-Stalinist Teachers' Unions and Gov't workers' Unions their election fortunes will continue to decline.

They still think it's a 50/50 nation, they are utterly blind to the shift that has taken place since 9/11, even though it has been clearly shown in several elections. Their surly, and mentally dense reaction to Schwarzenegger's victory this week (claiming it bodes ill for the Republicans because it represents generalized anger at incumbents) shows this. The only group of incumbents who should be worried are those in the California Legislature, and they should be in full panic mode.

I only hope I live to see the ultimate destruction of the dem party by the Clintons. It really couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. And let's hope they take the main-stream media down with them, and they seem to be doing a decent job of that without hardly trying.

[byu-fan]

but Arnold isn't looking to take government out of the social aspects of our lives - he wants programs programs programs that he thinks will make our lives better. Big government isn't consistently libertarian.

[nmh]

Didn't bother to read it. If Demoncrats fear Arnold at all it is because Arnold is REALLY a Demoncrat with a Republican label. If Demoncratic voters back RHINOS then more Demoncrats may deflect and take other Reublicans seriously. The broad brushed slime campaign typically used by the Demoncrats against Republicans (RHINO's included) may not work anymore.

[LS]

The Dems hate both Arnold and Bush for the same reason, as you say, because both, in different ways, threaten their power base badly---Bush through fundraising, rebuilding the "Reagan" coalition, and expanding the party to include Hispanics and blacks, Arnold by bringing to the party the "legitimacy" (to them, not me) of the Hollywood right, a celebrity status it hasn't had, and the Reaganesque ability to go over the heads of the left.

But they are quite different: the Dems' hatred of Bush REALLY boils over on his FAITH and his Christianity. By reminding them there is evil in the world, Bush has the effect of calling them evil (which most of them are) and they hate that. Arnold has the opposite effect, the "reverse-Clinton," which is that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." They hate having their own lack of morality exposed, and yet be unable to exploit Arnold's past.

[InterceptPoint]

Arnold isn't looking to take government out of the social aspects of our lives

True enough.

OTOH, if you don't raise taxes and yoy stay within the budget in California there will be nothing left to expand these social experiments. This will be the real test for Arnie. We elected him to solve the financial problems and make the business environment and therefore the job growth environment better in California. If he starts feeding us with a bunch of new programs "for the children" his support will drop like a rock.

[ex-Texan]

*BUMP*!

[Defiant]

I think there is some truth here although it may be a bitter pill for many Freepers.

It's true, but only in California, New York, Massachusetts and other liberal bastions where a fiscal conservative with liberal social positions can win. Nationally, the GOP still needs to stick with its base, which is conservative socially and fiscally, and be merely tolerant of its more liberal wing in those liberal states.

[sheik yerbouty]

The Demonrats are whining girly men.

[DoctorZIn]

This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[William Tell]

From the article: "What won is a policy mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, a position that's consistent, i.e., consistently libertarian, in that it seeks to put a lid both on how much the government can grab out of our wallets and on the regulations and laws that mandate how we live. "

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "consistently libertarian" is.

I see no signs that there will be a "lid" on "regulations and laws that mandate how we live". Perhaps the author sees a penumbra in the Constitution assuring people of their right to be free from fear of gun-owners.

By treating businesses as if they are not owned by people, government is taking away the right of people to conduct their businesses as they see fit. I would be curious to hear of any company which has made plans to move to or expand in Kalifornia.