Posted on 07/02/2005 2:33:57 PM PDT by calcowgirl
LONDON - In a British newspaper editorial, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged governments - including that of President George W. Bush - to face up the reality of global warming.
"The debate is over," he wrote in Britain's Independent on Sunday newspaper.
"We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate. And we know the time for action is now."
Climate change is one of the major issues to be discussed at this week's summit of the G8 wealthy nations at Gleneagles in Scotland.
But reports suggest that Bush is blocking a deal on action to tackle it and that Washington is unwilling even to sign up to a document which states that global warming is occurring or that human activity is responsible for it.
Schwarzenegger did not mention Bush by name, but called on "governments everywhere" to join action to combat climate change.
He contradicted Bush's claims that taking action will damage the U.S. economy.
"Global warming threatens California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastlines and forests - our entire economy and way of life," Schwarzenegger wrote.
"We have no choice but to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Schwarzenegger has vowed to make California a leader in the battle against global warming, calling on the state to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while increasing use of renewable energy.
He believes that developing cutting-edge environmental technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells will conserve energy, curb pollution, protect natural resources - and be good for business.
Last month, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order that calls for reducing the state's emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
"These steps are great for the environment but great for our economy, too," Schwarzenegger wrote in the Independent on Sunday.
"Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy.
"Nothing could be further from the truth. In California, we will do both."
He is misinformed.
Maybe he ought to read up on this stuff before shooting off his mouth.
Schwarzenegger's ratings are dropping in the public opinion polls, and if he were a career politician he would compromise. Sure, he has backed off a little here and there, but on the key issues there has been no accommodation.
There is no moral equivalence with Arnold's supporters here, Alia. The reasoned discussion you just had here was attempted so many times and met with such vicious derision, that what you see is the result. They were unable to show how he was going to be the "fiscal conservative" he falsely claimed to be. They continually asserted that his wealth placed him above influence while he raked in money from all sorts of habitual political financiers. They denied he would do what he plainly said he would do as regards his environmental policy. Arnold's supporters had no facts to support their claims that failure to support him would elect Bustamante, but it was their only tool, and we were constantly accused in very unpleasant terms of supporting that leftist candidacy.
Alia, had you been identified as a "TobBot" during the recall, you would never have had a discussion as you have had here. We offered reasoned debate, got crap, and are now holding them accountable seeing as the results are becoming all too apparent. It may seem like opening old wounds, but as far as I am concerned, it's to put in a drain.
Pure editorial posturing.
It may be that after a year and a half, Arnold is finally learning that the compromise he thought he would bring to Sacramento will never work as long as he wants to spend one dime less than the Democrats would wish, but I seriously doubt he has any idea about the kind of heat he would experience should he actually invoke substantive cuts. The author has absolutely no clue what is going on. Given that the proposed level of State spending in Arnold's budget INCREASES SPENDING NINE PERCENT this year, one can hardly accuse him of trying to bring responsibility to Sacramento.
Here is an article that explains the situation. I know that the legislative budget isn't the same as the governor's submission, but it differs by substantially less than the deficit about which he speaks.
Well Arnie, if you don't like global warming just wait around awhile and you will find that you really dislike global cooling. But then again, if you don't like global cooling you can just wait around a little longer and you can have global warming again.
Arnold's supporters had no facts to support their claims that failure to support him would elect Bustamante
You mean like, projective stats? Or even "past stats"?
we were constantly accused in very unpleasant terms of supporting that leftist candidacy.
Ah. You received "rhubarbs" instead of principled discourse.
I've seen the same scenarios happening in other threads: Schiavo, Public Breastfeeding, etc.
It just takes one person tossing a "stone", and another person taking offense and doing ad hominem "payback" to start a flamewar. In principled debate -- everyone comes away with newer thoughts to think about; with therefore the gifts to refine and redirect, possibly, one's own knowledge base, and therefore "decision-making" skills.
In a flame-war, everyone comes away with fury, hurt, and bad memories; feeling unjustly accused, not properly listened to, not respected. And of course, the imps are the ones usually starting these flamewars, for whatever their reasons. And then there are those who, in the passion of the moment, lose sight of self-control.
We've had military members brought up on charges for "losing control" or behaving in inflammatory ways. Conservatives -- all sides, could do, in my very HO, to take a lesson from our heroes in combat. Especially when it comes to impassioned topics. Particularly when it comes to impassioned topics.
I've said it before, I'll say it again -- it is "okay" to ignore and bypass ad hominem attacks from forum members. It is also okay to pick one's battles. Military members go where they are told to go -- to get the job done. Forum posters have many more freedoms in when and how to conduct themselves.
Alia, had you been identified as a "TobBot" during the recall, you would never have had a discussion as you have had here.
? What's a "TobBot"?
It may seem like opening old wounds, but as far as I am concerned, it's to put in a drain.I don't see it as opening old wounds, I think it is pretty darned important to discuss some of the older wounds, especially as the heat of "passionate" debate cools.
I've read numerous "departing opuses" lamenting the lack of reasoned debate as cause for the poster's "leaving". Or that "Free Republic" is not as it once was. FreeRepublic has been experiencing tremendous "growth"; and with it go growing pains.
OTOH, passionate debate is productive. There are some ways of being passionate which address the issue without attacking the poster, personally -- which nearly ALWAYS carry more weight, win "supporters" than the "ad hominem" attack. Part of what is killing the Dem Party is the routine use of "ad hominem". I think the "scream" was more productive for Dem fundraising purposes (but beside the point, I know).
En point, there are more productive ways of "calling a spade a space" employing good ettiquette but yet while still getting one's point across without going into a lowball modus. I think there is also productive "lowball". I've laughed myself silly at some of the clever posts which do accomplish exactly this. Maintaining an arena of civility; while yet still making a point perfectly clear in response to another's post.
Doing so is "powerful", and those watching I do think, can see the difference. However, some choose not to. It makes clear, then, what their *real* point is, no?
If you don't like my planet....leave!
Chuck Hage, R-Nebraska, is saying essentially the same things you (and others) are saying. Have any ideas on what Hagel might propose to be "done about this"?
LOL! A ToMBot; i.e., a McClintock supporter.
I guess I would be a TomBot, with a code id duh head (to coin a pun for a change).
It makes clear, then, what their *real* point is, no?
It takes two mature and reasoned sides to have such a debate, and such is precisely where FR found its early strength. When one offers such on many occasions and gets branded as trying to elect Bustamante at every return, that option no longer exists. When FR moderators failed to quell the slings and arrows early in the recall campaign, there were no options left.
There is no reason in a debate with fear. What you describe has all been done to no avail.
It should only rain during the week between the hours of 1pm and 3pm. And never on the weekend.
It's, If you don't like my planet . . . . . . make like a tree and leave!. To which I say, after you.
OTOH, Arnold's response to snivelling Dems "hiding behind their 13-year-old daughter's skirts" as "Girly Men", I thought was appropo. There was no reason for Nunez to bring his daughter into a "personal" defense of his own. I thought that was wayyyy low of him to do.
When FR moderators failed to quell the slings and arrows early in the recall campaign, there were no options left.
I don't have a good handle on the role of FR moderators. But what I've been wondering and suspecting for quite some time -- is this: For a group of posters claiming they wish limited government, freedom, and self-rule -- perhaps they (FR Moderators) are in hopes they'll see those espousing this credo -- behave accordingly -- and not need "forum" police to step in routinely when "civil dissent" or "cyber brawls" breakout.
There is no reason in a debate with fear.
Do you mean.. fear of being "name-called"? Or do you mean "hunted down" like NCPAC and Buckhead were?
It worked.
For a group of posters claiming they wish limited government, freedom, and self-rule -- perhaps they (FR Moderators) are in hopes they'll see those espousing this credo -- behave accordingly -- and not need "forum" police to step in routinely when "civil dissent" or "cyber brawls" breakout.
One would like to think so, but then one would expect such maturity to be expressed evenly. Considering what has happened to many who oppose illegal immigration, such is not the case.
There is no reason in a debate with fear.
Do you mean.. fear of being "name-called"? Or do you mean "hunted down" like NCPAC and Buckhead were?
Neither. The spectre of "former" Mechista, Cruz Bustamente, as Governor of California drove reason from the minds of many of Arnold's supporters. One can offer all the logical arguments one desires under such circumstances to no avail. The response was often shrill and always unproductive.
Even the claim that McClintock remaining in the race would split the vote to Bustamante proved to be false because he polled only 31%, for which there was never an apology. At the final point before the recall, McClintock had HIGHER favorable ratings than Arnold! He still does.
Here is the man for whom they voted:
Arnold's supporters cite his signing of a unanimous bill rescinding SB60 as some sort of accomplishment, even though there was a referendum on driver licenses for illegals almost qualified for the ballot. Then Arnold turns around and starts negotiating driver licenses for illegals with One-Bill Gil Cedillo!
Schwarzenegger on Driver Licenses for illegal aliens during a January Interview with Univision:
Interviewer: How would you deal with more conservative members of the legislature...?
Schwarzenegger: Again, it's one of those things where we all have to get together and see that this is a good idea and this is the way to move forward. So, I am talking to my Republican friends all the time about it, and also to my Democratic friends. We will do it.
"Our staffs have met, and they're working on this together,"
said Vincent Salido, spokesman for the Republican governor
STILL they credit Arnold for getting rid of driver licenses for illegals explaining that he's playing Cedillo for a fool! As if a governor with those ethics might not treat them the same way.
Nothing could explain support for a man with those beliefs and behavior like that other than fear. They were driven like frightened sheep and all they want now is cover; "Get over it." Well too bad, I'm a gonna blow that cover. The vote for Arnold was a successful campaign of fear by the California Republican Party that to do otherwise would elect a leftist separatista that I don't ever want to see work again. I believe they hired posters to work this site to precisely that end. I know for a fact that paid operatives do work this site. FairOpinion has never denied that charge directly, preferring to front load threads with unsubstantiated accolades and then cut and run whenever Arnold's record is posted. Nobody who saw that record of documented facts so regularly would keep up that kind of behavior without ulterior motive.
Arnold's supporters bought a chimera and got a pig in a poke. When you see articles like the one you cited in WND, what you are getting is a hopeful editorial stretching the truth trying to drum up support for a particular option.
There certainly are registered Republican Party members here, especially since the 2000 election cycle, but they are part of the mix, not the center. Republican partisans are tolerated and or encouraged when they recognize and promote conservative principals, criticized when they support or tolerate liberal principals and shunned when they sacrifice principals for party (power).
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an excellent example of the mess that results when compromising principal to achieve power, a hallmark of political party ethics and the California Republican Central Committees over the past 5 years. The fact that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans in California is no consulation to conservatives.
The fact that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans in California is no consulation to conservatives.
I am informed and knowledgeable of WHAT is the "conservative" principle(s). Again, I ask -- what do you propose for getting that message "more across"? Tom McClintock IS exactly such a conservative. I could go on the down list citing STAUNCH conservative candidates in CA who stood on conservative principle. Tell me, how many won the popular vote? I learn in this thread, it's because (paraphrasing here); that the GOP is socialist, won't give money to genuinely conservative candidates; therefore the conservative message isn't getting out. Meaning, the GOP does not wish "conservatism" to be heard.
As I've pointed out in other debates, Ralph Nader has the same argument with the Dems that you have with the GOP. And then there's Libertarians who also say they can't get "funding" for their candidates. Then there's McCain -- trying to get "non-traditional party" candidates 'HEARD" (ipso, funded) through legislations. A true conservative rejects such legislations, no?
What -- exactly do you propose for "true" conservatives to DO to overcome the "socialist GOP Party"?
How, I'm asking, are you going to lead either newer voters, or GOP so-called "loyalists" back into the fold of genuine conservatism?
Thanks for the stimulating thread and comments, calcowgirl and alia.
----
alia, Good reply and very thoughtful, it made me set my pitchfork down for a minute so I could read it..
Your comments about supporting other parties are interesting. Unfortunately, The little fellars I have in the past voted for are still little, what's up with that? ;-)
Ahh, the Recall days , sigh , when this state had a chance to make a statement, and the message and party got mugged instead by a novice politician, behind the scene elite advisors, a bargeload of hype, and a lot of dough from supporters worldwide, large and small.
Which should raise the question, How does a little guy (Tom)with sound ideas make it on the stage when he is outshone by GReen, hype and has little plans at hand to talk about other than generalities, cut cut cut taxes, etc ad nasueum.
Here we are 2 years down the road, and the state debt is larger, the budget is larger, some progress has been made in a few areas, but , overall, California has turned no corner nor changed its direction much at all the last 2 years. In fact, has gone backwards as more GReen influence is now exercised than ever before.
It doesn't take a poll or a focus group to tell me how or what I would like to change in this sticky mess of gubamint special effects that has leeched onto this state's tax coffers like The Blob.
The voters of California will vote for who they feeel like it, if they show up at all the next few elections. Here's hoping sanity prevails! ;-)
It will be a wild ride, a real E ticket one!
PS - did ya know the GUb says global warming is real and something must be done asap.? And he supposedly speaks for the voters of California, :)
Which should raise the question, How does a little guy (Tom)with sound ideas make it on the stage when he is outshone by GReen, hype and has little plans at hand to talk about other than generalities, cut cut cut taxes, etc ad nasueum.
That is EXACTLY what I've tried my darnest to address or question in this thread.
PS - did ya know the GUb says global warming is real and something must be done asap.? And he supposedly speaks for the voters of California, :)
YUP. I wondered "what's up with that"? This would be the right time for genuine conservatives within the CAGOP to crank out letters to the editor making their own case for principles, IMHO. Articles submitted to e-zines, magazines, etc.
On another matter -- re Arnold and global warming... It's just gotta be infuriating to the Dems and their allies -- him upstaging their own agenda. Oh well, I bet their protests and "anti-Governator" money gets bigger and bigger and wilder and wilder. E-ticket ride? No kidding. (Pretty please, NormsRevenge? You do post the best gifs of the usual "blue zone" protests in CA. Remember me if ya ping, pls? I wanna see if they've changed their usual fashions yet while doing protests. Some of the puppetry antics were definitely due for an update to being more "progressive", IMHO.)
Back to it, it does come down to the vote. And genuine conservatives in CA can simply vote NO or yes, or whatever they please. It does put the "conservative" CAGOP into position which can definitely be disconcerting. But, I don't think CAGOP should fear. A principle is a principle, and truth does bear out.
Answer: Defend themselves against those who intend them harm.
Specifically, in the matter before us, turn Schwarzenegger out of public office as soon as possible. It is no surprise that Schwarzenegger's public policy has alienated the right. Neither is it a surprise that the MSM has attributed his descending public, political popularity to a union smear campaign when the impetuous behind his collapsing trust quotient originates on the right.
Question: How are you going to lead either newer voters, or GOP so-called "loyalists" back into the fold of genuine conservatism?
Answer: Government can't legislate morality and friends can't teach common sense.
I have no idea what defines genuine conservatism. My purpose in this discussion is not to expose Schwarzenegger, his public record over the past 7 years speaks for itself, but rather to make it more difficult for Republican partisans to spin the obvious.
Question: I could list STAUNCH conservative candidates in CA who stood on conservative principle. Tell me, how many won the popular vote?(implied state wide)
Answer: Most all (when supported by their party).
I realistically expect conservatives in California to face a substantial challenge with Rove in charge at the RNC flooding the state with illegal immigrants, the kids running the CRCCs in almost a blind panic and Wilson's gang of opportunists/entrepreneurs guiding their Trojan horse as he carries the pork to their larders.
No, I never mentioned "moderates" in my post. I refer only to those who think that having an (R) by someone's name is enough and that what the candidate actually stands for does not matter (as evidenced by their responses to factual posts about issues). I prefer to look at things on a factual basis, not a partisan basis.
...why continue to fight for a principle within a party some see as already "sold out"?
I feel like I am getting the New Majority spin here, trying to purge the conservatives and hijack the Republican party.
...if indeed it is a shared view that the GOP is sold out to Socialism...
Many have sold out to corruption. I'm not sure about the Socialism, except for those socialist programs which feed their pockets.
why not promote at same time your own newer party...
Why not just expose and purge the infiltrators who promote a platform largely in conflict with that of the GOP? A much more direct and honest approach, IMO.
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.