Calif. Republicans rallying on Schwarzenegger agenda

Reuters ^ | Feb. 12, 2005 | Jenny O'Mara

[FairOpinion]

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Feb 12 (Reuters) - California's Republican loyalists said on Saturday they are ready to rally behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious political agenda that includes ballot measures Democrats vow to defeat.

Republicans meeting at the party's state convention in Sacramento said they will eagerly fight by Schwarzenegger's side if he asks voters to support this year's agenda through ballot measures, a sharp contrast to a September convention when party officials feared key conservative members would not embrace the socially moderate Hollywood icon.

But Schwarzenegger has in recent public appearances rarely missed an opportunity to stress he stands with conservatives on fiscal matters and that he has ruled out tax increases to balance the state's budget. California faces a $9.1 billion shortfall in the next fiscal year starting in July.

"When he first came onto the scene, I was skeptical ... but I think he's proven himself," said R.Q. Williams of Napa County's Republican Central Committee. "He hit the nail on the head, pointing out that what we need to do is rein in spending, not worry about how to figure out taxes and new fees."

At a dinner on Friday night, Schwarzenegger launched into a blistering attack on California's Democrat-led legislature to get rank-and-file Republicans to support potential ballot measures to overhaul the state government.

Democrats, he said, are "spending addicts" who are standing in the way of his agenda, which includes a plan to partially privatize the state's public pension funds. The largest and third-largest U.S. pensions funds are in the state.

PUT IT TO VOTERS

His plan mirrors White House aims for the Social Security system.

Democrats, public employee unions and pension fund officials oppose the plan, which Schwarzenegger says is needed so the state can rid itself of costly financial obligations to the funds. Schwarzenegger has threatened to put the plan to voters if lawmakers do not seriously consider it.

The plan would strike at the heart of one of the state Democratic Party's most significant sources of support.

"The train has left the station and there's three things they can do," Schwarzenegger said. "One is they can join and jump on the train. Number two, they can go and stay behind and just wave and be left behind, or number three, they get in front of the train and you know what happens then."

Republicans gave Schwarzenegger raucous cheers, reflecting a new confidence after years of being shut out in California's political wilderness.

"There's a euphoria that we're relevant again," said U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa. "The Republican party was doing very well in Washington, and was irrelevant in California for a number of years. It was also divided and leaderless. Now they are united with a tremendous leader."

[SierraWasp]

Hey guy, be patient with everybody here... I can't speak for the others but, God isn't finished with me yet and your story of survival is way more than astounding!!! Happy you are doing as well as you are.

One nice thing about an opinion forum like this is that we can't see each other and that makes for clumsy communication, but also works to keep us all on a more equal footing, so to speak. The other unknown is each other's knowledge base and life experience. But we stick our opinions out there in front of everyone, anyway.

It's stimulating, fun, informative and very entertaining... almost adictive!!! This was a good thread, good discussion and your contribution was appreciated by me as I'm sure most of the others. Thanks for hangin tough in there. It was quite useful, I think.

[Carry_Okie]

Those who seek to be at the vanguard of movements and pursue agendas open themselves up to scorn and ridicule whetherit is warranted or not. It goes with the territory as many will become very personally involved and become zealots for 'their' cause.

Tell me about it.

[Carry_Okie]

Thanks for pointing out those stats.

I've been threatening to do it for a long time. Calcowgirl ran the numbers down for me this morning.

They reveal two things. Conservatives are viable in California. The Republican party has abandoned conservatism in the state.

Both correct, as confirmed by Simon's showing despite his ineptitude and despite the most egregious sabotage ever perpetrated upon a Republican candidate by his own Party.

It DOES NOT champion conservative beliefs. It DOES NOT financially support the people it should. If it did, conservatism could take root and thrive.

The farm system has been turned over to advancing Latinos such as Rosario Marin and Abel Maldonado.

This shows, but is seldom addressed in this manor. Instead we hear the old worn out cliche, "Conservatives cannot win in the state."

You know how tired I am of that old canard.

How the hell would we know? When's the last time the party gave one verbal, structural and financial support? Hmmm, strangely about the time when "Conservatives became non-viable statewide."

It was said when Ronald Reagan ran for governor. They trotted it out again for Pete Wilson. It was the latter who ruined the conservative candidate development system.

It's the old chicken and the egg thing, and the state's Republican party made the wrong assessment IMO. I would also wager that's why certain national candidates don't campaign in the state any longer. They've been told by state-level idiots that it's futal.

They want conservatives to support only moderate candidates, give money, do the legwork of grassroots organizing, sit down and shut up. It sucks all right. The only reason conservatives don't win is because moderates won't support conservative nominees; yet when moderates win nomination they expect conservatives to support them. The hypocrisy is apalling.

California's Republican Party leadership is my collective nominee for state political public enemy number one, until this changes. Mass resignations couldn't come soon enough for me. It's time for some new blood, that is firmly rooted in conservatism, and has the energy to spread it from the top to the bottom throughout the state.

We won't succeed without compelling ideas and ways of communicating them. That's my current pursuit. If you want an early draft of a pamphlet, freepmail me an email addy.

[NormsRevenge]

You can not have it both ways, can you?

Why are the Indians not allowed to play both sides of the aisle? and why should those who do take their donations have to be guilty of anything if those donations are legal?

After all, isn't that how the system has always worked?

I think your comments are hypocritical of the reality of the nature of politics, but that doesn't give folks like you a chance to stick a skewer in a Republican any less quickly that a dem, especially if it serves your own little agenda to run down a target

Isn't that a bit unAmerican?

No, I think you have a personal bone to pick with a politician you don't agree with, that clouds your judgment, and here we are.

It's ok for aRnold to receive funds from gaming interests in other states in support of his initiatives and campaigns, but Indian money is verboten. Go figure.

[Carry_Okie]

Poohbah thinks that because Tom considers tribes sovereign nations (which they are by law), that they shouldn't have access to what the Supreme Court considers free speech.

In doing so, he is illegitimately equating sovereign nation, with foriegn nation. They aren't the same and he knows it.

[Poohbah]

Tom McClintock accepted a few crumbs of money to stay in the race--said crumbs coming from those who were backing Bustamante by much larger margins. Can you say "conflict of interest?" McClintock sure as hell can't.

McClintock stated that the Indian tribes were sovereign nations--and then he accepted their money. In short, he did the same thing that Bill Clinton did.

We used to get outraged at foreigners buying influence with campaign donations. But when those foreigners are buying McClintock, it's suddenly acceptable.

[NormsRevenge]

The behavior of GOP "moderates" during the Simon campaign is the principal reason I have so little patience for Arnold supporters when they demand I support him. They put up Riordan, lost, screwed a conservative in Bill Simon, lost, resisted the recall petition drive, lost, and then inserted their "centrist" excuse for a Republican telling us to support him while accusing conservatives of splitting the vote! They were perfectly happy to keep Gray Davis until conservatives succeeded in the petition drive despite them and then get crappy when we don't fall in line behind them.

---

I especially like this piece of your comments in this post.

The behaviour of the CA GOP and their actions leading up to the Recall , in my mind at least, does nothing but reinforce the 'Trojan Horse' play that I believe was prepetrated on a gullible public with 'star' power. The sad thing , it played into environmental and financial interest more so, than it did the best interests of the state's residents.

Now I ask you, What does that say about the moderate movement and what they will stoop to?

[Poohbah]

Poohbah thinks that because Tom considers tribes sovereign nations (which they are by law), that they shouldn't have access to what the Supreme Court considers free speech.

You're either an American or you're not.

In doing so, he is illegitimately equating sovereign nation, with foriegn nation. They aren't the same and he knows it.

They have special privileges by accident of birth. That's about as un-American as it gets. They can either become real Americans, or they can be truthful and declare themselves auslander once and for all.

[NormsRevenge]

They weren't buying McClintock, they were making an investment in their own best interests. and you begrudge them for that. shame.

[Poohbah]

They weren't buying McClintock, they were making an investment in their own best interests.

Yeah, and so were the ChiComs with their donations to Bill Clinton.

and you begrudge them for that. shame.

Yeah, I do. I abhor any special privilege by accident of birth. They're either American citizens, with the rights of American citizens (no more and no less), or they're auslander, and have no business being active in American politics.

[NormsRevenge]

auslander, huh?

Glad you're so concerned about them and their apparent having it both ways.

A certain underling of the Fuehrer, Gegbbels, was concerned about the Indians too and how they had been exploited in their own native land. He used them in is propaganda, in fact, if I recall correctly..

history is a bitch, your guy won, and all ya can shout is unfair unfair.

[NormsRevenge]

Sounds like you have some issues you should pursue with Congress and the Great White Father.

[Carry_Okie]

You're either an American or you're not.

Morally and politically, we agree: the tribes should enjoy no special status and should integrate into the rest of the nation for their own good. Legally, it is a fact that they are sovereign nations, whether you or I like it or not.

Historically, it's a fact that they were conquered and screwed out of their land. It is a fact that the US violated treaties with various tribes upon occasion and with disastrous results. It is a fact that America turned a blind eye to horrible acts of biological warfare against them. When or upon what terms those issues should be settled is by no means clear, and should be handled on a case by case basis.

[DoughtyOne]

There was a time when I thought a forum like this would consolidate (boil) political opinion down to the bare bones of conservatism. In some ways it has. In other ways it hasn't.

It seems that most of us have a fairly common view of what conservatism is. The problem is how best to achieve the most conservative society we can. I can tell you what my views regarding your question are. Others will come along and make valid points that contradict what I have to say. You'll wind up having to sift through the offerings to develop your own unified theory of relativity. And that is as it should be.

One person on this thread came along and posted some September 2003 stats regarding McClintock versus Bustamante. Those stats seemed to indicate that McClintock could have won that match-up. Would those numbers have shifted before election day? I would imagine so. I simply don't know if that would have helped Tom or not. The question is academic at best, because the field expanded. Once the field expanded, the game was over in my opinion. There is a sizable faction of California posters on this forum that is convinced Tom would have won if I and others had been more supportive of him in 2003. I don't think that is true, but it is a view that they hold none the less.

The very moment that Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show, I thought the election was over. I thought that he was the 300 lb gorilla in the room, and that he would suck all the (press) oxygen out of it. I did not see the other two men gaining any traction for that reason. That was my take then. That is my take today. I did not think the Republican party that masterminded Schwarzenegger entering the race was going to be instrumental in helping McClintock in any material way. Without that help, I didn't see him as having a snowball's chance in hell of being viable.

A lot of people don't see it this way, but I tried to stay neutral regarding McClintock as late as possible in the race. I voiced my thoughts on his viability, but I tried not to damn folks for supporting either side until after the absentee ballots started being cast. To varying degrees, I think I did a fairly good job of that. Some won't see it that way, because they were desirous of me throwing my full support behind Tom. Had I thought he was viable, I would have supported him. Some call this expedience. Hey, perhaps they are right. I am comfortable with having voted for Schwarzenegger, because I didn't think Tom had a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, and there wasn't one chance out of 1 gazillion trillion quintillion (if there were such a thing) that I would take a chance on a separatist sympathizer being elected governor.

When Schwarzenegger does things we don't like, there are those who remind others and myself that we should have known what we would get. That's to be expected. They are still frustrated by the outcome of that election and this is their opportunity to neutralize a little of the sting from that defeat. I knew what we were going to get with Schwarzenegger. I suffered no delusions about what his Governorship would produce for the state. There's no convincing them that Bustamante could have possibly been elected, although they are convinced that Tom could have been, and he got roughly one half the votes Cruz did. Some will probably address this issue on this thread. That's life.

We didn't like what Bill Clinton was. He was the consummate production of a new political animal crafted by a political strategy known as "The Third Way". The Third Way was a new connivance that sought to pass off a candidate as something he wasn't, in ways that hadn't been tried as slickly and deviously before. Whether one agrees with this or not, it was an acknowledged tactic, with the obvious results. The media played off Bill Clinton as a brilliant individual with sterling political credentials, and the better men lost. I would argue that to a certain extent the same tactics were used when Bush ran for the Presidency. His compassionate conservatism was a way to reach out to leftists. Once again, others will disagree, but I see both Bill Clinton and George Bush as going against the political grain at certain points in their presidencies.

Bill Clinton, faced with reality, championed welfare reform. (Like he had an option with a Republican Congress) George Bush championed a medicinal enhancement to Medicare. Clinton had the Republican Congress force upon him fiscal responsibility. With Bush, this same Congress opened the purse strings for massive spending, above and beyond the needs of military and security matters. The lines of what is and isn't conservative, have been smeared almost beyond recognition. Some people understand this and draw meaning from it. Others deny it. Those who accept it, have varying opinions about the overall impact of it. These varying takes cause dissension among the ranks. I feel this is incredibly divisive. It splinters the rank and file. The end result is that we bicker within our own ranks. We are weakened by this.

On this very thread, we have people who desire the same things mostly. Rather than focus on that, we focus on our differences. Some can't wait to engage the debate, winning a small skirmish but doing nothing for our overall endgame strategy.

Each of us wants smaller government, lower taxes, restored land rights, the lives of the unborn protected, the sovereignty of our borders respected. the laws of our nation adhered to. With a Republican party returned to sound conservative values, we'd all be pulling in the same direction. For whatever reason, the Republican party has deemed this not to be desirable. Through triangulation, they provide the bare-bones requirements that will allow us to vote for a candidate, and that's generally against the vilest of opponents. Schwarzenegger/Bustamante, Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, what choice was there?

I'm not here to trash Bush. A lot of what I have said to this point could be construed that way. That's not my goal. A reality check is my goal. Over the next twelve months we have some of the most important issues that will ever face our republic. Premier among them is the move to create a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. The FTAA is a surrender of our sovereignty to a non-governmental organization (NGO), that will see something like two representatives from every member nation, sit on a committee that will decide policies on behalf of member states. When it starts, Canada, Mexico and the United States will be members. Our two representatives will go up against four representatives of other states (Canada and Mexico). That doesn't sound too good with regard to our chances of prevailing on issues, does it? How much better will it be when Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama, Brazil, Belize, Peru and all the other American nations are members? We will have two representatives buried among fifty. This is one program our leaders are thrilled to be considering on our behalf.

Triangulation has brought us this reality. Triangulation has brought us Schwarzenegger. It has brought us Bush. It has brought us open borders. It's about to bring us a situation where trade and anything even remotely related to it, and many things you didn't think were, will be determined by a transnational NGO. And here we sit bickering, neither side willing to give an inch when it comes to a governor who is a travesty to the state, yet seemingly the only option to many of us on election day 2003.

Was Bush right to use the people you mentioned at the convention? I believe so. Being the person selected by the party, he should have done whatever it took to get elected. What he did succeeded.

We are not fortunate today to have the people we do in office. We are damned fortunate not to have the people we could have had. I'll be the first to state that these blanket comments are somewhat flawed. None the less, overall, they are true. Bush has been brilliant with regard to Iraq. We avoided biting the bullet when Schwarzenegger got the driver's licenses for illegals repealed.

On many issues, these man have both been miserable failures. The Sierra Conservancy was Schwarzenegger's worst. The push for a new worker program for illegals has been Bush's. His medicinal enhancement of Medicare was a close second. His increase of the education department budget was a close third. If he pushes through the FTAA, it will be the most flawed policy pushed through by any president since we became a nation.

Those who oppose Schwarzenegger should read the following closely. As a person who voted for him, I'm going to say something that is important. Voting for a person who doesn't support your values, yet runs from your party, is the most surefire way to make sure your policy preferences will NEVER be implemented, that there is. Whether it be Arnold Schwarzenegger, or George W. Bush, conservatism will be eviscerated as long as either remains in office. Despite this reality, there are worse things. Our policy preferences could be destroyed at an even faster rate under people like Kerry and Bustamante.

We simply must put aside the bickering between us. I may be as dumb as a brick, but those who wish to drive through conservatism need me as much as I need them. We should be looking for the next 'great white hope' (just being figurative folks, don't get excited) right now, so that in the spring of 2006, we can drive them through to victory, in a closed to outside parties primary. If we don't, we're going to see Schwarzenegger win that primary because none of us will want what the other side foists upon the electorate.

Folks, it isn't 2003 anymore. I'm happy to see stats that prove what a miserable failure Schwarzenegger has been. It's just that I'm not convinced that any of us is suffering any delusions about what kind of a governor he was going to be, or has been. I voted for him. I supported his first borrowing. I did not approve of his high Sierra fiasco. I will not approve of any future borrowing. I will not vote for him again, unless I am forced to. I will only be forced to, if we spend our time bickering and fail to loft a sound conservative candidate that can beat him and the democrat challenger.

As conservatives, we are in a world of hurt in this nation. We have people in office that are willing to sell out much of what makes us who we are as a nation. Frankly, the choices have not been the greatest, for us to be able to avoid this situation. And now we either must put our past differences aside and come up with a game-plan, or we are doomed.

That's how I see it for the state. That's how I see it for the nation.

[Carry_Okie]

The sad thing , it played into environmental and financial interest more so, than it did the best interests of the state's residents.

I hope you aren't confusing the interests of environmental groups with what's good for natural habitat. From what I've seen, green groups serve financial interests almost exclusively.

Now I ask you, What does that say about the moderate movement and what they will stoop to?

So far, I haven't seen a bottom. The powers Congress proposes to enforce with these new driver licenses are scary.

[NormsRevenge]

Good point, thanks for the clarification.

[farmfriend]

Until this mindset is changed, it is.

That is exactly what I have been saying. You did a much better job of it though.

[NormsRevenge]

Ditto Bump to both of you.

I liked post 139 as well , DoughtyOne.

[zbigreddogz]

I notice you didn't actually answer the arguement.

There is a reason for that, I know. You can't. At least not logically.

[Carry_Okie]

It seems that most of us have a fairly common view of what conservatism is.

I don't think so. I think conservatives have such a poor understanding of how free enterprise and moral behavior solve vexing social and fiscal issues that they can't communicate to those who might be persuaded.

Each of us wants smaller government, lower taxes, restored land rights, the lives of the unborn protected, the sovereignty of our borders respected. the laws of our nation adhered to.

We disagree. There are quite a number of supporters of Republican "moderates" on this site who advocate gay marriage, abortion rights, and open borders. They regard conservatives who oppose those "social issues" (that have enormous fiscal effects) as ignorant or backward ideologues. As for smaller government, there are many here who support "moderate" candidates for environmental reasons (not knowing that it is the "green" regulatory left which is perpetrating enormous environmental problems while abetting corporate corruption).

Such issues are emotional and do provoke intractable differences. So, unlike you, I believe that the divisions within the Republican Party are more than a matter of superficial bickering.