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...

[counterpunch]

The poll doesn't break down the various positions that are covered by "available, stricter limits", so there is no way for either of us to divine the percentages of exactly what the respondents meant. You know this already, and that's why you are hiding behind the unknowable.

I will put up my theory that the internal positions run the gamut of various nuances, from the very conservative "only in the case of incest, rape, and medical emergency" all the way up to "during the first 2 trimesters", and perhaps even "all except for partial birth abortion" against your truely wishful thinking that all respondents meant "only in the case of incest, rape, and medical emergency" any day.

Even most elected Republicans only attack partial birth and perhaps late-term abortion. That is pretty good proof right there that this is the main issue in the minds of Republicans.Most Republicans are not evangelicals who believe life begins at conception. That is a very small percentage of the public, and the GOP is one of only two major national parties, and will reflect popular opinion.

I've presented my case - complete with facts, figures, and common sense - and you have presented your case to the contrary. I have provided irrefutable evidence that Republicans are indeed split on the issue of abortion. I have shown that this is not a settled issue in the GOP, and the party is not monolithic in its thinking.
You, on the other hand, want to haggle over a mere 10%.

This is for others to decide now.

[NittanyLion]

The poll doesn't break down the various positions that are covered by "available, stricter limits", so there is no way for either of us to divine the percentages of exactly what the respondents meant.

That didn't stop you up to this point. Are you now telling me you were *gasp* spinning the numbers without any factual basis? I'm shocked! LOL.

Even most elected Republicans only attack partial birth and perhaps late-term abortion. That is pretty good proof right there that this is the main issue in the minds of Republicans. Most Republicans are not evangelicals who believe life begins at conception. That is a very small percentage of the public, and the GOP is one of only two major national parties, and will reflect popular opinion.

You go from that statement, replete with qualifiers, to saying:

I have provided irrefutable evidence that Republicans are indeed split on the issue of abortion.

You're one of a kind, counterpunch. ROFL!

[counterpunch]

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.

First of all, Arnold has not only restricted the growth of government, but indeed cut it back.

As far as Arnold's social libertarian positions, yes I agree with them. I don't think government should be anywhere it doesn't need to be. Let society sort out its social issues, that's why they're social issues to begin with. I'm not a big fan of allowing a small segment of society impose their views on everyone else. Regardless of what those views may be. I have a lot of personally held beliefs that I would never try to force on others. That is authoritarianism, and it has no place among a free people in a pluralistic society.

Regarding the bond, I am a realist and a pragmatist first. We had a serious problem that had to be rectified. It is unfortunate that after years of big government Democrat control that it had to come to that. The work that Governor Schwarzenegger is doing is helping to bring California into economic recovery. This is supply-side principles at work. Grow the economy, and this bond measure will be easier for California to swallow. The other alternative was to allow further decline until California was in such a hole that it could never grow its way back to prosperity.

One of the reasons I opposed McClintock is that this is what he wanted to do. He wanted to "punish" Californians for being bad liberals. Let the state go insolvent and sink into oblivion - that'll teach 'em.

[counterpunch]

Once again, your best argument is one of petty semantics.

I think it is quite logical to deduce that "available, stricter limits" is just as divided as the two extremes are. You, however, are living in la-la land if you believe everyone who gave this answer meant only giving exceptions for rape and incest.

If your point of view was nearly as popular as you would like me and others to believe, then there would be little need or urgency behind your own social crusade.

[NittanyLion]

I think it is quite logical to deduce that "available, stricter limits" is just as divided as the two extremes are. You, however, are living in la-la land if you believe everyone who gave this answer meant only giving exceptions for rape and incest.

I freely admit I don't know what it means - hence the reason I asked six times for a definition. You're the only interpreting the poll to suit your views. I already stated it isn't worth its own bandwidth until we find out what "stricter limits" are.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but you'll need to do better than that.

[counterpunch]

You're the only interpreting the poll to suit your views.

No, I am interpriting the poll using standard statistical diffusion and interpolation.
You are trying to interprit it as monolithic, which is statistically improbable to the point of exclusion.

[NittanyLion]

No, I am interpriting the poll using standard statistical diffusion and interpolation.

In short, to suit your view.

You are trying to interprit it as monolithic, which is statistically improbable to the point of exclusion.

Once again, I'm not interpreting it at all - I'm discarding it until you can show me a definition.

You can't possibly be this retarded, can you?

[counterpunch]

In short, to suit your view.

No, its called the law of averages.
Perhaps you've heard of it?
You should have, being so average yourself.

You can't possibly be this retarded, can you?

I must be, I'm here arguing with your dumb ass, aren't I?

Anyways, it takes one to know one, so nyay nyay nyay.

[counterpunch]

Here's still more proof that the GOP party platform does not include pro-life issues.

GOP Agenda - official GOP website

Nowhere in the GOP agenda is abortion or pro-life issues even mentioned.
The reason: because the GOP as a party does not have a definitive position. They know it is too divisive an issue, and the GOP is looking for a big tent.

Now if you want to talk about abortion as a conservative issue, that's one thing. But talking about it as a GOP issue - such as Schwarzenegger or Giuliani's place at the GOP convention - then that is something completely different.

This is something you are just going to have to get used to. The Republican party is leaving you behind on issues like this, and it will only continue. You can't call pro-choice Republicans "RINOs", because as the tent gets bigger, they will quickly become the clear party majority. This is a simple matter of fact. It's something I've been trying to drive home, like it or not. You can't stop it, but you have your choices. You can either continue to support Republicans because of the over-riding common goals we all share, or you can leave the party or refuse to vote, ensuring Democrat control and a leftist, liberal agenda in every area of American policy.

I'm saying this because it will happen, and you will be confronted by it sooner or later. Abortion is going to remain legal, like it or not. The more important question now is: are you going to surrender free-market capitalism, US soverignity, and American hegemony to the world government socialists as well, just to spite the party?

[Reagan Man]

>>>Nowhere in the GOP agenda is abortion or pro-life issues even mentioned.

I see your still confused. Open your eyes you Libertarian heathen. Look under the Party Platform:Renewing Family and Community

The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide —shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion....

From the essay, "Abortion and The Conscience of a Nation", by President Ronald Reagan 1983

"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

[Reagan Man]

Oh yeah, btw.....

Words like abortion, prolife, right to life, are well known "terms" among the educated in American society. "You based your remarks on ignorance. Period. Face it, you got schooled."

[NittanyLion]

Just finished watching the Open. Reagan Man, thanks for correcting the misinformation counterpunch was attempting to pass off as fact.

counterpunch: sheesh man, at least post something believable if you're going to try to lie your way out of an argument.

[counterpunch]

All pro-life references have been stripped from GOP.com, and I'm sure RNC.org is next.

President Bush isn't even out there pushing this agenda, stopping far short of proposing any constitutional amendment for the unborn. And with Schwarzenegger and Giuliani as the new party stars, it's no wonder the GOP is walking away quickly from a strong pro-life stance.

As far as your comment "you Libertarian heathen", well that just makes you an ass. A big part of my "libertarian" philosophy is respecting the opinions of others and the contribution they make to the culmination of society and the free marketplace of ideas. I see your philosophy doesn't include that same respect, only myopic self-righteous narcissism.

You lash out at me and people like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani because you know that I'm right, and you fear the new brand of Republicanism that is coming just over the horizon, where authoritarianism and simple-minded Buchananite bigots like yourself are sharply out of favor.

I assume you consider yourself a Christian, but you are not. I sincerely hope that you do not do damage to the image of Christians, Republicans, or Ronald Reagan - whose name you dishonor by unjustly claiming as your own.

[Reagan Man]

>>>All pro-life references have been stripped from GOP.com, and I'm sure RNC.org is next.

What are you talking about? Nothing has been stripped from the Republican Party Platform. All pro-life references still exist on the dual website of RNC.org & GOP.com. Where do you think my posts came from, stupid?

You're angry because you made a major screw up and can't admit you were wrong. Instead of acting like an adult and apologizing, you act like a spoiled brat and lash out with more of your juvenile outbursts. But that wasn't enough for you. Then you decided to attack my religious and spiritual beliefs. You're not only a religious bigot, your a con-artist, a liar and a phony.

The Republican Party is America's pro-life political party and George W.Bush is a pro-life President. Both the GOP and the President support pro-life issues and through their efforts, advance the right to life for all unborn children. The President spoke to the pro-life event, March for Life, back in January. Just like he does every year. Bush also spoke earlier this year on the National Sanctity of Human Life Day. And I guarantee, the President will mentioned his support for pro-life issues in his acceptance speech this September in NYCity.

Schwarzenegger and Giuliani are pro-choice, liberal Republicans and do not represent the conservative mainstream base of the GOP. They're in the minority.

JimRob's back from Texas and here was a thread he posted today. 2004 Republican Party of Texas Platform -Pro-Life, Pro-God, Pro-Family Pro-America, Pro-Freedom.

[NittanyLion]

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

BTW, I consider myself to have a libertarian streak. Yet for the life of me I cannot understand how a libertarian could be pro-choice. It's obvious that a fetus carries the same individual rights as any other human, and therefore it's government's responsibility to extend protection to the fetus as it would any other life.

[Reagan Man]

Don't know if you've seen this fox Dynamic Poll. Check it out.

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 21-22, 2004. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
						.
"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"
						.
		Pro-choice	Pro-life	Both/Mix (vol.)	Not Sure
		%	%	%	%
	4/04	44	47	6	3
	7/03	44	44	6	6
	4/03	49	41	5	5
	1/02	47	41	5	7
	1/01	47	42	7	4
	7/00	54	38	5	3
	1/00	43	44	8	5
	6/99	42	44	9	5

 

[NittanyLion]

I don't think there's any question that the country's turning pro-life. Time is on our side; I'm a "Gen-Xer" and the overwhelming majority of my generation seems to be pro-life.

[counterpunch]

Show me the link at www.GOP.com that addresses pro-life issues. I couldn't find one. If it's there, then there is no active link from the homepage, the agenda page, or the nagivation bar.
Your link was for rnc.org

Of course this is all besides the point. The only relevent issue of this thread is that attack on Schwarzenegger and other pro-life Republicans by a few fringe single-issue abortion voters. There is a whole lot more to the GOP than any one issue. And when you attack one Republican, you harm them all.

Now tell me what President Bush has done for the unborn?
Paid some lipservice to the unborn?
Restricted federal funding of stem cell research to existing lines?
Barred clinics in Africa that perform abortions from receiving foreign aid?
Signing a partial birth abortion ban into law?
That's not exactly a forward leaning pro-life crusade there.

He hasn't called for a Constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. He hasn't done anything to roll back wholesale abortion in the US. He's never even suggested it as policy, and he's not going to.
He'll do exactly what most Republicans want, and that is to nibble away at the edges, put some stricter limitations and limit government funding of abortion. He'll never attack the legality of abortion itself.

The reason is for exactly what I said, as demonstrated in the polls I posted. There is no strong movement within the Republican party to outlaw abortion completely. There is only a small fringe with that as their prime agenda.

Here in California, full abortion rights are favored by some 71% of the population, including a majority of Republicans. Only a mere 22% of the population even wants stricter limitations. That's not even talking about outlawing it. California will not elect a strict pro-life governor like Tom McClintock. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the most conservative California will go, and I think it is a really good sign that he won by such a large percentage and maintains an even higher approval rating than that. The highest approval rating of any governor in all of California's history.

Despite what you say about him, it is a major step forward for California, and for Republicans in this state. It shows that Republicans can get elected here after all, but just not the religious crusaders.

The divisivness that people like you bring to the party in your constant attacks on Schwarzenegger do not help the party one bit.

As far as JimRob's thread, yes, I saw it. But that is the Texas GOP platform. Texas is not California, nor is it the national party. That just wouldn't fly in California. And you know, in the south, even the Democrats are religiously pious. That doesn't change the fact that their national platform is completely secular, perhaps even anti-religious.

Now of course I was using hyperbole when I said that the national Republican party has forsaken pro-life issues, but it was to make a point, and it's a point I'm sure you are well aware of. You've probably made it yourself. The GOP is moving away from issues like this, de-emphasising them, striving for a more mainstream appeal under a big tent theory.

The GOP welcomes Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudi Giuliani, and they will welcome them with raucous enthusiasm at the convention this fall.

[calcowgirl]

All pro-life references have been stripped from GOP.com, and I'm sure RNC.org is next.

You have a talent for selective reading. Perhaps you shouldn't read only the "agenda" page at GOP.com but should venture over to the "Platform" pages.

Once again, as already posted by ReaganMan:

"The Supreme Court’s recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

From GOP.com: Party Platform - Renewing Family and Community

[Reagan Man]

Another interesting Fox Dynamic Poll Result, from 2003

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. July 15-16, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
						.
“Do you believe that human life begins at conception, or once the baby may be able to survive outside the mother's womb with medical assistance, or when the baby is actually born?”
			%			.
	At conception		55
	Survive outside womb		23
	At birth		13
	Not sure		9