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...

[NittanyLion]

In other words, you have been intellectually outpaced every step of the way, and have nowhere left to go.

LOL.

Given your track record, I expect your next post to claim I'm an intellectual master with no equal.

[b9]

it's about a solid, hopeful vision of the future.

Yes it is, for sure.
May the best man shine!

[b9]

it's about a solid, hopeful vision of the future.

Yes it is, for sure.
May the best man shine!

[counterpunch]

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.

You make me laugh. Every election is a matter of "if it wasn't the winner, it would have been someone else".
Show me an election where they decided on no one.

You're really making yourself look like an idiot now.
50% out of 150+ candidates is not an "either or" proposition. That is an overwhelming mandate.

[onyx]

Arnold is a HUGE draw.
Out biggest next to GWB .

[b9]

it's about a solid, hopeful vision of the future.

Yes it is, for sure.
May the best man shine!

[counterpunch]

Given your track record, I expect your next post to claim I'm an intellectual master with no equal.

I would never suggest such a thing.

[b9]

oh, my... sorry about the "repeats!"

[NittanyLion]

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.

No, I simply believe that great ideas will draw far more supporters than weak ones, regardless of the speaker.

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.

The idea of the convention is to advance the party platform and select a candidate. The platform is written as it stands for a reason: mainstream GOP members want it that way. Let's have someone who represents the mainstream speak as opposed to someone who does not.

[NittanyLion]

Given some time you will. You've contradicted virtually every stance you've taken on this thread.

[NittanyLion]

You make me laugh. Every election is a matter of "if it wasn't the winner, it would have been someone else". Show me an election where they decided on no one.

Thanks again for supporting my point. If Arnold was not on the ballot another replacement would've been chosen.

[onyx]

This has become tiresome.
GWB will select the speakers.
Arnold will be one of them.

He is a draw.
He won in CA!
That is miraculous.
You don't get it.
You have no idea about CA politics.
We're fortunate to elect Randy Duke Cunningham,
David Dreir, Dana Rohrbacker, Christopher Cox,
Darrel Isham and Mary Bono.

CA is still stuck with two liberal democrat
female US senators, and, as much as I hate
to say it, it looks like Boxer will win her
third term. Bill Jones is not yet campaigning.

[onyx]

If Arnold was not on the ballot another replacement would've been chosen.

WRONG!

[NittanyLion]

He is a draw. He won in CA! That is miraculous. You don't get it. You have no idea about CA politics. We're fortunate to elect Randy Duke Cunningham, David Dreir, Dana Rohrbacker, Christopher Cox, Darrel Isham and Mary Bono.

This isn't about CA politics - it's about a primetime speaking slot at the national convention. CA electoral dynamics do not apply.

CA is still stuck with two liberal democrat female US senators, and, as much as I hate to say it, it looks like Boxer will win her third term. Bill Jones is not yet campaigning.

Again, we're talking about the national GOP.

Aside from the generality "he's a draw", can you provide a good reason to have Arnold speak at the national convention?

[counterpunch]

Rights don't change based on time or circumstance. Even if governments forbid the exercise of a right, that doesn't mean it isn't a right even so.

That's a completely rhetorical argument.
Lets just put it this way - the "right to life" has been indefinately suspended from excercise by the government.

Your problem is you are mixing up political philosophy, legal reality, and religious ideology into one big mush.

You argue against the legal facts I present with broad political philosophy, then when I meet you on that plane, you argue against me with narrow religious ideology.

Then when all else fails you settle on empty rhetoric and ad hominem attack.

[NittanyLion]

You think the CA electorate would have kept Davis in office if not for Arnold?

[onyx]

YES!
Arnold speaking in prime time will HELP
GWB's reelection. You just refuse to get it.

[NittanyLion]

There are rights, and there are laws. Some laws support rights, other don't. Rights survive law, as their existence is undeniable based on religion, logic, etc.

Don't confuse the two, because they aren't the same thing.

[NittanyLion]

YES! Arnold speaking in prime time will HELP GWB's reelection. You just refuse to get it.

Why will it help?

[votelife]

it will help bc more people will watch Arnold than may even watch Kerry or even Bush speak. And Arnold will speak glowingly of Bush and his leadership. If you doubt this, realize that Arnold wants to be President and he'll want to help Bush as much as possible. Arnold is VERY popular and him selling Bush might reach a lot of middle voters.