Posted on 06/18/2004 3:59:50 PM PDT by 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, 2004With 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
When you said:
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
Can't keep your "philosophy" straight? I'm not surprised, as jumbled and confused as it is.
Given the confluence of events, anyone who opposed Davis would have won. The people wanted him out, period.
Completely false assertion.
Yes, the CA GOP. He's too liberal to represent the GOP at a national level, though. He doesn't represent mainstream GOP thinking.
Look at Mayor Rudy. Arnold is to the Right of Rudy.
Conjecture. The CA GOP is not representative of the national GOP. His brand of social liberalism is likely to alienate as many current GOP members as it draws in.
No, your assertions are conjecture.
Arnold attracts folks to GOP.
Sounds like we simply have different values. I value protecting the long-term philosophy of the party and realize that great ideas will ultimately attract the most voters. (Remember Reagan? What made him great was that he communicated great ideas, and that attracted support.) You're looking for a shirt-term infusion of moderates who may or may not actually support conservative values.
The proper question is: How do RINOs like Sphincter, Collins, Snowe, Chaffe, DeWhine, Voinovich and the host of RINOs use the Republican Party?
As a respectable place to hang hat and coat while they get down to their real roles in congress: to aid and abet the DemocRATs every chance they get!
Exactly right.
ONLY GOP Arnold could have won.
Without Arnold, we'd still have
a democrat in governorship, be he
Gray or Cruz.
That ain't saying much. And I'm not even sure that's true. I don't have enough info to make a sound judgment either way.
No, your assertions are conjecture. Arnold attracts folks to GOP.
Much as you'd like to believe that, it's not a fact no matter how many times you say it. Arnold's thinking is out of the GOP mainstream at a national level. He's simply too liberal. Bill Owens would make an outstanding speaker, and it'd be a nice setup for 2008. Owens is mainstream GOP.
Exactly. Because, as I stated before, "The people wanted him out, period."
Calm down - you're irrational.
We're in agreement. But the choice isn't between Arnold and an absolute; there are a number of other outstanding choices to be made. How about Bill Owens? Good, strong conservative who's likely to make a run in 2008. He can use the exposure.
I'm enjoying watching you debate yourself. Your posts are a steady stream of contradictions - why should I jump in now?
LOL.
Why? Owens can articulate conservatism in an attractive way. Arnold's social liberalism is not the image mainstream GOP members wish to project.
Yet again you make my point. The people wanted him out, period. Independent of choosing a replacement, Davis was voted out. At that point it was just a matter of choosing a replacement; if it wasn't Arnold it would've been someone else.
Thanks for supporting my arguments, I really do appreciate your help.
You take a dim view of the electorate. Ideas still hold power, as Ronald Reagan proved time and again. It isn't all about "shiny lures" - it's about a solid, hopeful vision of the future.
The idea behind the convention speakers in prime time
are to ATTRACT voters for the purpose of reelecting GWB.
You refuse to see Arnold's drawing power.
As for Arnold's politics being out of sync
with GOP nationally...
If you mean the GOP platform, yes he is, on abortion;
but the whole idea is to have a huge GOP tent.
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.