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

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

[Miss Marple]

I did not ignore you. I simply didn't see your ping. Do you realize that when I am gone for 10 hours and come home to do work, I have PAGES of pings?

I am sorry I missed your ping, but I will not allow you to call me rude. And I have yet to see an apology from you for your over-the-top behavior.

Arnold is the governor. He is not going to be president. I hope he gets to speak at the convention, because he will draw the fence-sitters onto our side. I am glad for all votes, since we have a close election coming up. And I am not going to get into a divisive argument about the merits of Schwartzenegger's governorship. Californians can speak up on that, since I live in Indiana.

And YOU DON"T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA EITHER.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Do you realize that when I am gone for 10 hours and come home to do work, I have PAGES of pings?

You're very popular. In the future, I wile send you a FReepmail instead. How's that?

>>>And I have yet to see an apology from you for your over-the-top behavior.

I just got done telling you, I was sorry for my over the top rhetoric. Where I come from, that's an apology.

>>... since I live in Indiana.
And YOU DON"T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA EITHER.

Immaterial! This is America and in America I have freedom of speech. Besides, a lot of what happens in California effects the entire nation. Frankly, I don't want a repeat of what occured in the late 1970`s and early 1980`s, when too many Californians were "Californicating Colorado".

[Miss Marple]

Send me Freepmails in the future, please. Apology accepted.

And as long as Arnold isn't affecting the national ticket or platform, I really don't see the problem.

But then, I am a pragmatist with conservative beliefs, rather than a conservative above all else. That's who I am, and I don't pretend to be anything different.

I do think you will find that continued attacks on Arnold, when he is doing a pretty good job, are going to annoy more people than convince them, but that is my personal perspective.

[counterpunch]

If you don't want any trouble from me, keep your left of center politics, values and beliefs out of my face.

Left of center??
When did I ever advocate socialism??
I am about as right-wing free trade capitalist as you can get. Once again, your loose grasp on language and political terminology is showing.

How about you keep your politically tone-deaf Buchananite paleo-con Arnold-bashing out of my face, instead?

[Reagan Man]

Arnold's politics maybe more in line with Californian's, but nationally, he's way out of the GOP mainstream. That's probably why he appeals to your practical politics. He definitely doesn't appeal to my principled-pragmatic conservatism. You and I approach politics from two different angles. But we both hold conservtive beliefs and are loyal Republicans. Not to sound repeatative... Arnold calls himself a "social liberal" and a "fiscal cosnervative". I don't support social liberals, but if Arnold can turn around California and get it running smooth --- income tax cuts, spending reductions, balanced budget --- I'll be the first one to give him credit. I know my opposition to Arnold annoys some folks. But there are a lot of FReepers who support my efforts to properly define Arnold for what he is. A liberal Republican, aka.rino.. I don't do it to piss anyone off. I'm just an old school conservative/GOP activist, outspoken patriot and a political junkie.

[Reagan Man]

>>>How about you keep your... out of my face, instead?

Not on your life, mister libertarian, aka. social liberal/neoliberal know-nothing. LOL

[counterpunch]

>>>How about you keep your... out of my face, instead?

You left out "politically tone-deaf Buchananite paleo-con Arnold-bashing"
Are you afraid of the truth?

Not on your life, mister libertarian, aka. social liberal/neoliberal know-nothing. LOL

"Social liberal" and "neo-liberal are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. LOL

No matter how much I school you, you still haven't learned a damn thing. I guess we're back to square one. Look who's still the know-nothing.

[counterpunch]

But we both hold conservtive beliefs and are loyal Republicans.

You are NOT a "loyal Republican". If you were, then you would have refrained from your attacks on Schwarzenegger once he became the Republican governor of California. You still continue to break the 11th Commandment.

[Reagan Man]

>>>You left out "politically tone-deaf Buchananite paleo-con Arnold-bashing"
Are you afraid of the truth?

Not at all. Truth is I'm no paleo-con and I don't support Buchanan. I support GWBush and Dick Cheney. And I support Colorado conservatives Gov Bill Owens, Sen Wayne Allard and Cong Joel Hefley. I also support conservative candidates for the US Senate from Colorado, Pete Coors or Bob Scaffer. Other then that, you're right. I criticize your idol, GovRino for good reason. I won't post all the reasons again. You know what they are. Basically, Arnold is a liberal Republican, AKA.RINO

School this mister libertarian. As long as you support Arnold, you condemn the unwanted unborn children to the abomination of abortion on demand. As long as you support Arnold, you piss on the 2nd amendment of the Constitution and condone the assault weapons ban. As long as you support Arnold, you condone social liberalism. And as long as you support Arnold, you jeapordize the future of California's fiscal and economic well being.

You call yourself, a neoliberal, neoconservative and Libertarian. Most right of center folks call that, a dazed and confused ideology. I call it that and much more. Unprincipled, irrational and illogical. IOW, down right stupid.

[Reagan Man]

You've got some serious memory problems. I explained all about the history of the 11th amendment to you. How it wasn't a Reagan creation and how it never, ever applied to liberals, Democrats and the new political animal called, a RINO. Your personal political beliefs are based on ignorance and arrogance, and the fact that you never pay attention to anything. You think you know it all. But you don't know nothing.

[counterpunch]

I also support conservative candidates for the US Senate from Colorado, Pete Coors or Bob Scaffer.

Pete Coors is a bootlegger and a booze peddler. Only a RINO could support such a morally bankrupt man. As we speak, I am working on an anti-Pete Coors campaign to launch during the general election. I mean, I'm not saying I'm supporting the Democrat he'll run against.. I'm just saying I will oppose him. It's not like they're the same thing, right..?

School this mister libertarian. As long as you support Arnold, you condemn the unwanted unborn children to the abomination of abortion on demand.

Wrong. This is a federal issue now. More than that, because of Roe v. Wade, it is a Constitutional issue. States lost all rights to determine abortion policy with the decision of Roe v. Wade, and governors along with them. Arnold has never signed a liberal pro-abortion bill. That was Ronald Reagan you're thinking of.

As long as you support Arnold, you piss on the 2nd amendment of the Constitution and condone the assault weapons ban.

More nonsense. Once again, AWB is federal, not state.
Also keep in mind, California is not Montana, Vermont, or Colorado for that matter. California is primarily urban. Californians overwhelmingly want want assault weapons banned, just as they overwhelmingly want abortion legal. I support Arnold because he could get elected here, and he can govern, and he enacts the will of the people, not a narrow agenda. A stubborn pig-headed idiot like McClintock could never win here, and if he did, the state legislature would hog-tie him. He wouldn't have the ability to govern. Even worse, he'd have no popular support in the state and he'd only do further damage to the image of Republicans hre.

As long as you support Arnold, you condone social liberalism.

With your loose grasp of the english language and political terminology, this kind of empty rhetoric is particularly meaningly.

And as long as you support Arnold, you jeapordize the future of California's fiscal and economic well being.

Well that is just stupid. California's economy has been recovering in leaps and bounds since Arnold took over, thanks to his pro-growth policies. Even reasonable and informed people who disagree with Arnold on social issues credit him for his excellent fiscal policies.

You call yourself, a neoliberal, neoconservative and Libertarian. Most right of center folks call that, a dazed and confused ideology.

What you mean to say is "most authoritarian isolationist Keynesians call that a dazed and confused ideology."
They do. Just as they said the same thing of Ronald Reagan.

[counterpunch]

I explained all about the history of the 11th amendment to you.

Article XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Proposal and Ratification

The eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Third Congress, on the 4th of March 1794; and was declared in a message from the President to Congress, dated the 8th of January, 1798, to have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The dates of ratification were: New York, March 27, 1794; Rhode Island, March 31, 1794; Connecticut, May 8, 1794; New Hampshire, June 16, 1794; Massachusetts, June 26, 1794; Vermont, between October 9, 1794 and November 9, 1794; Virginia, November 18, 1794; Georgia, November 29, 1794; Kentucky, December 7, 1794; Maryland, December 26, 1794; Delaware, January 23, 1795; North Carolina, February 7, 1795.

Ratification was completed on February 7, 1795.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by South Carolina on December 4, 1797. New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not take action on the amendment.

[Reagan Man]

Slander and trashtalk from a juvenile pissant.

>>>California's economy has been recovering in leaps and bounds since Arnold took over, thanks to his pro-growth policies.

California remains in economic meltdown. Things may turn around someday, but for now the Golden State's economy is still in the crapper. Cal has a new budget, $4 billion larger then last years and $15 billion in additonal debt. And there's been a huge increase in state user fees to boot. Should the economy rebound enough and California is back in the black, it will be a great day for liberals throughout the state. At that time, GovRino intends on increasing all funding to the states social welfare programs. Instead of giving California taxpayers a rebate, which Reagan did four times as Governor, Arnold is gonna turn the leftwing state, er... I mean the leftcoast state, into an American version of France. Can you say, Euro-socialism. Pathetic!

[counterpunch]

Slander and trashtalk from a juvenile pissant.

So pointing out how every point you made was false is "slander and trashtalk"?
Did this attack your patriotism, too?
Who are you, John Kerry?

[NittanyLion]

Like the right to vote? The right to an attorney? They don't even have a Social Security number. As far as the government is concerned, they don't exist.

A libertarian relying on governmental decisions to justify right v. wrong? How entertaining.

Where is this "right to life"? I've seen the Declaration of Independence speaks of "Life, Liberty, and the pusuit of Happiness", but those are not guaranteed rights. If they were, you'd be infringing on mine right now.

Are you suggesting there is no right to life? That we only have a right to live if the government so stipulates? That's preposterous.

Whether one believes the Creator endowed us with unalienable rights or whether one subscribes to Ayn Rand's philosophy, the right to life is clearly present. Only a disingenuous moron and you would suggest it doesn't exist. But I repeat myself.

If a man incarcerated in prison can and does lose his gauranteed rights, perhaps even his right to life, then what about US law makes you believe these rights are some how guaranteed to anyone?

My, but you're a dumb one! Capital punishment is meted out in response to an overt action on the part of the murderer (traitor, etc.). By committing the action and infringing on the rights of another person, the felon has forfeited their own rights.

If you haven't thought these issues through for yourself, you need to do so before coming on an Internet forum and discussing them. These are some of the most elementary principles I can think imagine, and it doesn't speak well of you that you're so clearly unprepared to discuss them.

[NittanyLion]

counterpunch, you make the following comments...

Wrong. This is a federal issue now. More than that, because of Roe v. Wade, it is a Constitutional issue. States lost all rights to determine abortion policy with the decision of Roe v. Wade, and governors along with them. Once again, AWB is federal, not state. Also keep in mind, California is not Montana, Vermont, or Colorado for that matter. California is primarily urban. Californians overwhelmingly want want assault weapons banned, just as they overwhelmingly want abortion legal.

...and you claim you're a libertarian? I've known libertarians, and they sure as heck don't talk like that. Rights either exist or they don't; government cannot remove a legitimate right no matter whether the Supreme Court, President, Congress...whoever...says so.

With regard to the Second Amendment, it either guarantees citizens the right to bear arms or not - but that basic right doesn't change based on the whim of the majority.

Why don't you start your learning process here?

[b9]

Now, let's stop this silliness and let Californians deal with their governor as they see fit.

Wisest words on this whole thread. :-)

[NittanyLion]

Wisest words on this whole thread. :-)

Yet this thread is about Schwarzeneggar appearing at the national party's convention. Surely you think Republicans nationwide should have a voice in that decision, right?

[b9]

This thread is about how the party will use him, not abuse him.

[NittanyLion]

This thread is about how the party will use him, not abuse him.

No, this thread is about whether Schwarzeneggar is qualified to deliver a primetime speech at the convention. In such a role, Arnold would be representing Republicans nationwide as opposed to merely Californians. Therefore, Republicans in any state have a voice in deciding whether his political bent is representative of where we want the party to go.