GOP has star-power dilemma: How will party use Schwarzenegger? [Kerry vs. Arnold?]

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 19, 2004 | Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

[RonDog]

.

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

---

GOP has star-power dilemma
How will party use Schwarzenegger?
- Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004

With less than three months to go before the Republican National Convention in New York City, a prime-time cliffhanger is in the works over whether the Bush camp will use it or lose it -- the megawatt influence and star power of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Among the most sensitive issues is whether Schwarzenegger, a GOP marquee name, will be given a prized prime-time speaking spot at the party's presidential convention August 30-Sept. 2 at Madison Square Garden.

On the pro side: As the party's star actor, Schwarzenegger would get worldwide attention, and -- to the delight of networks -- draw millions of potential viewers to the now scripted-for-television political convention.

On the con side: The White House worries about lavishing too much attention on one Republican elected official who has shown an uncanny ability to upstage the party's star, Bush himself. A prominent role for Schwarzenegger also could anger the Republican right wing, which opposes his social views on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Ken Mehlman, campaign manager for Bush-Cheney '04, in an interview with The Chronicle, made no commitment on the specific role the Bush team expects the California governor to play, saying only that Schwarzenegger "is one of the great leaders of our party.''

Asked about talk that the White House is worried Schwarzenegger might outshine Bush at the convention, Mehlman downplayed the matter, suggesting that Schwarzenegger is one of many stars in the GOP...

[Reagan Man]

>>>The term neoliberalism does not mean a new version of the "liberalism"

I disagree with you on that point. Neo means new or recent. The modern political meaning for liberalism is quite clear. Big taxes, big spending, big government and social liberalism running wild.

The original meaning for classic liberal of the 18th&19th centuries, is pretty much dead in the contemporary world. It is not part of the American lexicon either.

[L.N. Smithee]

Arnold also ordered the gay marriages in San Francisco to be halted

He directed the Attorney General to halt the weddings, but he took almost two weeks to do it.

[Reagan Man]

In JFK's day he was strong on defense and believed in the use of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. But even in the early 1960`s, Democrat's weren't supportive of limited government. I don't know JFK's position on abortion, but knowing his active sex life, I would venture a guess he was involved in some forced abortions on his "girlfriends" through the years. On many social issues, JFK was a died in the wool liberal. He was supportive of FDR's New Deal and Truman's Fair Deal, which included a National Heathcare program for all Americans. Truman was ahead of his time. I'm glad that program was DOA.

Yes, Keynesian economics. "Economic theories of John Maynard Keynes who advocated government monetary and fiscal programs intended to stimulate business activity and increase employment."

Milton Friedman was one of Reagan's many economic advisors. He was a fiscal conservative, but called himself a political libertarian. Reagan supported supply-side economics. Reductions in income tax rates to stimulate earnings, savings, and investment. That would expand economic activity and incraese the total taxable income.

[counterpunch]

I disagree with you on that point.

Geez. You aren't disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the encyclopedia. That was a direct quote.

BTW, I think the encyclopedia out-ranks a dictionary.
Dictionaries give definition to words, they don't give in-depth information on entire topics.
Even after pasting 3 large paragraphs from the encyclopedia right into the thread, it is apparent that you still haven't read it.

Neo means new or recent. The modern political meaning for liberalism is quite clear. Big taxes, big spending, big government and social liberalism running wild.

The irony of neo-liberalism is that it is in fact actually classical liberalism. "Neo" was added as to distinguish it from modern New Deal type liberalism. You are confusing "neo-liberalism" with the over-loaded term "liberal".

[Excerpted from Wikipedia, one more time]
Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the overloaded term "liberal", the term neoclassical philosophy is advocated by some.

The term neoliberalism does not mean a new version of the "liberalism" of the modern period -- that is John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt or the Liberal Party of Great Britain, but of classical "liberalism" as it was understood in the 19th century
[End excerpt]

The original meaning for classic liberal of the 18th&19th centuries, is pretty much dead in the contemporary world. It is not part of the American lexicon either.

Really..?
See above.

It is far from dead. It is now known as "neo-liberalism" and is advocated in the supply-side, free market policies of the right-wing. All of this is in the encyclopedia text I posted already. I don't understand why we have to keep going over this.

[counterpunch]

Kennedy was a Catholic of the 1960s. Not a chance he was anything less than pro-life.

He was supportive of FDR's New Deal and Truman's Fair Deal

So was Ronald Reagan.

Milton Friedman was one of Reagan's many economic advisors. He was a fiscal conservative, but called himself a political libertarian. Reagan supported supply-side economics. Reductions in income tax rates to stimulate earnings, savings, and investment. That would expand economic activity and incraese the total taxable income.

Yes, those were all Friedman's policies. He is considered - and considers himself - a neo-liberal. In fact, he is considered the father of neo-liberal economics in the modern era. that is to say, since it became known as "neo-liberal" as opposed to just "liberal" in the classical 19th century sense.

[RonDog]

And you guys do the whole country proud :-)

Thanks for the kind words. :o)

While I expect that doodlelady's version of IPWGOP's artwork will be the "star" of this FReep, I also still plan to wear my Saddam mask:

...and carry THIS sign:

ONLY
'FOREIGN'
LEADERS
( LIKE SADDAM )
LIKE
JOHN 'FRENCH' KERRY

See also, from:

Kerry criticized for French connection [FReeper quoted]
Boston Globe ^ | 4/12/2004 | By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff
Posted on 04/12/2004 12:51:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson

WASHINGTON -- As the presidential race gets tighter and nastier, the F-word has increasingly crept into attacks against presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry.

It has made its way into comments by the House majority leader, onto Internet blogs, and onto the Republican National Committee's website. It has shown up on sweatshirts and T-shirts, and been thrown around in columns by nationally known conservative writers.

Kerry, his foes complain, might as well be French.

"The French believe John Kerry has `a certain elegance,' " sneers a contributor [aka Prime Choice] to the FreeRepublic.com website, over unflattering pictures of the Massachusetts senator playing ping-pong, catching a football, and throwing a baseball. "Of course, the French also think Jerry Lewis is a comic genius. Think about it," the satirical posting says...

-- snip --

from FReeper Prime Choice
hosted on www.sacredcowburgers.com

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

Thanks for the INSPIRATION, Prime Choice!

Also, I plan to post a NEW "pre-FReep" thread (with all of the "last minute" details) - soon...

[NittanyLion]

That would put "pro-choice" Republicans at 70%, with those who oppose at 28%.

If "stricter limits" refers to "only in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life" that's hardly pro-choice. For the third time, why don't you provide a definition of stricter limits.

Oh, let me guess...you don't know the definition do you?

[NittanyLion]

Once again, provide a definition of stricter limits. Until then you're wasting your time.

[NittanyLion]

Stop trying to morph Reagan into something he's not. Reagan's legacy is that of a traditonal cosnervative and a republican.

Those on this site who try to tear Reagan down to build Bush/Arnold up are every bit as contemptible as those in the media who build Reagan up to tear Bush down.

[spokeshave]

BINGO....ding ding ding...we have a winner.......

"Arnold understands show business and drama. That is why he let people think he wasnt going to run for Governor and then a BIG SURPRISE on Leno. Huge news! Smiles everywhere, and happy ending on election day. Right out of a movie. I bet he will stay quiet for a long while and let all the same type of negative buzz go on, He will let people think one thing and then....Surprise again! Big time dramatic endorsement for Bush. It will add more punch and drama to it all. Smiles everywhere, and happy ending on election day. At least for Republicans! "

strategery + schadenfreude = stratenschadenfreudery

[counterpunch]

I already provided a link directly to the CBS poll, which provides the information about the poll, as well as a link to another article proving that the pro-life agenda is not shared by the majority of the GOP. Go and read those.

[NittanyLion]

I read the link. It, like you, does not provide a definition. Therefore it, like you, is absolutely unable to advance any type of persuasive case.

[Reagan Man]

After you lost the original argument, trying to spin Reagan into Schwarzenegger and Schwarzenegger into Reagan, you obfuscated the debate by offering up a little used term called neoliberalism. I then based some of my remarks on a dictionary definition and not a full encyclopedic explanation. The information contained in the Wikipedia link calls neoliberalism a modern day version of "classic liberalism" and does make a connection with Reagan and Thatcher on economic policy aspects. Fine.

If you want to connect the dots of classic liberalism, neoliberalism and what you call "Reaganism", thats your right. I don't buy into that correlation. It tends to confuse the debate in relation to Reagan's overall political message. It's fair to say, Reagan advanced a conservative economic policy agenda. I like that statement just fine. If you find the use of the term neoliberalism helpful, use it to your hearts content.

One more thing. This neoliberlism sounds a lot like libertarianism. Frankly, you sound like a libertarian. Maybe you're a member of the RLC? While many libertarians support fiscal responsibility and limited govt, other libertarians would like little or no govt at all. The overall thrust of the libertarian agenda is viewed by traditional conservatives like myself, as lacking a moral compass. Libertarianism also opposes the social and cultural conservatism preached by Ronald Reagan.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Kennedy was a Catholic of the 1960s. Not a chance he was anything less than pro-life.

You know that for a fact? I don't buy it. JFK was a womanizer of the first order. He screwed his way through life. He was a bad Catholic. Conventional wisdom says, he probably knocked up several of his girlfriends and the only way to get rid of the evidence was to have the problem aborted. The entire Kennedy clan has a poor record on moral issues and their personal behavior stinks. The Kennedy's are no role model for Americans.

"[Kennedy] was supportive of FDR's New Deal and Truman's Fair Deal"
>>>So was Ronald Reagan.

There was a big difference between Reagan and Kennedy. JFK not only supported New Deal and Fair Deal policies, as POTUS he promoted those policies to a far greater degree then Reagan ever did. Reagan understood it was smart politics to save Social Security and advance the EITC. But Reagan never supported the govt taking control of the field of healthcare providers and creating a national healthcare system under the feds. And like all the Kennedy's over the last 40 years, JFK was a social liberal. Reagan was a social conservative.

[Reagan Man]

Ditto what you said.

[counterpunch]

My "case" is the fact that Republicans are not monolithic in its abortion stance, just as Democrats aren't either.

That is well demonstrated.
Clearly the poll indicates that on the extreme positions - that being available cart blanche and never available not permitted at all - Republicans are evenly divided, with a slight bias for cart blanche availability, 29% to 28%.

If you use these figures as the logical standard for determining how the "available, stricter limits" group may break down, then it becomes clear that at least half of those people have restricting partial birth abortion primarily in mind. (This poll was taken before Congress passed the partial birth abortion ban).

Even if half of the respondents somehow thought "available, stricter limits" means "only in extremely rare special instances or immediate medical emergency", then you still come up with a 50/50 split on the issue for all Republicans.

Face it, the pro-life agenda is not a major motivating factor for most Republicans. It is not the cornerstone of the GOP platform. It is only the pet issue of a very limited fringe of the party.

You cannot argue with logic, facts, or semantics here.
The point is, you are trying to claim that Arnold is out of the GOP mainstream when in fact you are the one who is.
It's fine that you are, everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their causes. But it is time you and others stop advancing a false premise that Arnold does not represent the GOP at large, and stop castigating him as a "RINO".

[counterpunch]

After you lost the original argument, trying to spin Reagan into Schwarzenegger and Schwarzenegger into Reagan, you obfuscated the debate by offering up a little used term called neoliberalism. I then based some of my remarks on a dictionary definition and not a full encyclopedic explanation. The information contained in the Wikipedia link calls neoliberalism a modern day version of "classic liberalism" and does make a connection with Reagan and Thatcher on economic policy aspects. Fine.

Neo-liberalism isn't a "little known term" among the educated.
You based your remarks on ignorance. Period. Face it, you got schooled.

Neo-liberalism is primarily an economic school of thought, though it is also the basis of the foreign policy agenda commonly known as "neo-conservativism", and a great deal of modern Libertarianism. These are the philosophies I subscribe to, so when you call me a "liberal", I don't mind, because your are actually correct in the classical sense, despite your best efforts not to be.

[NittanyLion]

If you use these figures as the logical standard for determining how the "available, stricter limits" group may break down, then it becomes clear that at least half of those people have restricting partial birth abortion primarily in mind. (This poll was taken before Congress passed the partial birth abortion ban). Even if half of the respondents somehow thought "available, stricter limits" means "only in extremely rare special instances or immediate medical emergency", then you still come up with a 50/50 split on the issue for all Republicans.

This is the premise upon which the remainder of your argument rests. It's based on nothing more than unsupported assertions and wishful thinking on your part.

You'll have to do better than this if you expect to convince anyone.

For the fifth time, find the definition of "stricter limits" and we can talk. Until you do, this poll is not worth its bandwidth.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Neo-liberalism isn't a "little known term" among the educated.
You based your remarks on ignorance. Period. Face it, you got schooled.

Neoliberalism is not a commonly term used in American politics today. If you think by using it, that makes you an intellectual elitist, your deadwrong. It does make you an elitist snob.

>>>Neo-liberalism is primarily an economic school of thought, though it is also the basis of the foreign policy agenda commonly known as "neo-conservativism", and a great deal of modern Libertarianism. These are the philosophies I subscribe to, so when you call me a "liberal", I don't mind, because your are actually correct in the classical sense, despite your best efforts not to be.

So you subscribe to neoliberalism, neoconservatism and Libertarianism of the party ideology. You don't know what the hell you are. You're trying to cover all the bases, so as not to leave anything out.

In almost five years on FR, you're the most illogical, unprincipled and confused FReeper I've ever come across.

[NittanyLion]

and a great deal of modern Libertarianism.

Then I can understand you siding with Arnold on his social liberal stances, but I'm having a tough time figuring out why you'd agree with his bond issue and inability to restrain growth of government.