Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrat Joins Schwarzenegger, and the Grumbling Is Bipartisan
NY Times ^ | December 28, 2005 | SARAH KERSHAW

Posted on 12/28/2005 5:59:57 PM PST by calcowgirl

The enemies were on high alert and the blogosphere had a juicy news flash: Susan P. Kennedy, a prominent Democrat who will soon take over as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, was spotted having lunch with the chairman of the California Republican Party at a popular steakhouse here called Chops.

"You should know our sellout Susan Kennedy is having lunch at Chops right now with your party chairman - probably re-registering," the blog, Flashreport, reported recently, quoting a Democrat as one of two informants about the lunch.

(snip)

But Ms. Kennedy said she had decided to join the Schwarzenegger administration because she believed in the governor's agenda.

(snip)

Both Ms. Kennedy and the governor also say they support the death penalty and abortion rights. They are both pro-business, and they both insist that the time has come for the state, entrenched in a vicious partisan divide, to set aside party labels and create what Ms. Kennedy described as "a new kind of politics."

Still, Ms. Kennedy struggled with the decision after the governor approached her about the post. "It was a test of my beliefs," she said.

But, she said, "If I agree with where he's going, why would I not support him just because he has an R next to his name?"

Even so, Mr. Schwarzenegger has seen the need to explain his decision, praising Ms. Kennedy at recent news conferences and agreeing to be interviewed on the subject.

(snip)

Ms. Kennedy, he said, "wants to go and make this the perfect administration and to implement my vision and to implement my philosophy."

"And I'm not stuck on my philosophy in a groove, like some people are - like the Republican or right-wing philosophy," he said.

(snip)

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: cagop; schwarzenegger; susankennedy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last
To: Hildy; calcowgirl

"why do Conservates ferverishly believe that a Conservative could ever win in California?"


===

They don't. Pretend-conservatives want to run ultra conservatives, so the Dems will keep winning undisturbed. It's a divide and conquer strategy -- sucker some conservatives into not supporting a moderate Republican, who actually has a chance of winning, to strengthen the Demoicrats. The defeat of the reform propositions has been a great victory for the Dems. Some here who claim to be conservatives, such as calcowgirl were voting exactly the same way as the Democrats. They were never able to explain how voting with the Democrats on important issues is "the conservative thing to do".

These are the same people who supported McClintock, to split the Republicans and give the Dems a better chance at winning. How do I know this, because now, when McClintock strongly supported and campaigned for the reform propositions, they turned against him.

How is it conservative to push the Dem agenda and help more Dems be elected is beyond me.


61 posted on 12/29/2005 7:55:58 PM PST by FairOpinion (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

We were talking about Prop. 76 -- you keep trying to change the subject, because you know that your opposition to it, just like that of the Dems is NOT a consevative position.


62 posted on 12/29/2005 7:57:00 PM PST by FairOpinion (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

How could a conservative be against the Live Within Our Means Act?


63 posted on 12/29/2005 8:04:41 PM PST by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Still playing the same old broken record I see, FO. "It's all conservatives at FR's fault for the Gub's defeats."

Divide and conquer, sounds like the CA GOP's MO the last few elections, where fat cats could care less who wins the big seats, the slop all rolls downhill to them anyway from those in power, an R or D by their name seems to matter not.


64 posted on 12/29/2005 8:13:06 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
They don't. Pretend-conservatives want to run ultra conservatives...

Who do you consider to be an "ultra conservative". Can you please cite some examples from past elections?

They were never able to explain how voting with the Democrats on important issues is "the conservative thing to do".

Really? It is true I opposed Prop 76, vehemently. It authorized more debt and more borrowing instead of the CUT CUT CUT platform on which the governor won his election. I offered all of the explanation necessary HERE.

How is it conservative to push the Dem agenda and help more Dems be elected is beyond me.

Yet you have supported more socialized spending through Prop 57/58, stand by in silence when a governor appoints leftist judges and leftist cabinet members, promotes taxpayer funded embryonic stemcell research, promotes an environmental platform written by leftist enviro-wacko RFK, jr, signs pro-GLBT legislation (that you describe as "mere crumbs"), signs more gun-grabbing laws, puts 1/5 of the state land under an unaccountable, unelected quasi-governmental body .... etc. Now who exactly is supporting the leftist/dem agenda?

65 posted on 12/29/2005 8:18:02 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Speaking of back stabbing, who will the CAGOP run against McClintock and force him to spend money in the primary that would be better spent in the Nov election...
66 posted on 12/29/2005 8:18:06 PM PST by tubebender (You can't make Chicken Soup from Chicken Poop...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam
How could a conservative be against the Live Within Our Means Act?

Easy. Read the fine print. It was a measure that masked more borrowing and did nothing to control or cut spending. HERE are but a few of the reasons. And, some comments from the Prop 76 campaign manager:

"The key is not to crank government spending down," said Tom Campbell, Schwarzenegger's former finance director, who left the post to campaign for the initiative. "It's just to spend no more than we have."
San Diego Union-Tribune, October 21, 2005

But Campbell said he has looked forward starting in 2006, which is when the measure would take effect, and doesn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013. "That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2005


67 posted on 12/29/2005 8:21:36 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: tubebender

The only name I saw floated around here was Carly Fiorina.
She seems to have the big-tent country club credentials.
Run a company into the ground then tout your business experience.
Sounds about right, huh?


68 posted on 12/29/2005 8:23:45 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Interesting. But it seems to me it MIGHT have helped with the spending out there in Cali. I also find it interesting that the unions didn't like it.


69 posted on 12/29/2005 8:29:51 PM PST by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
... "It's all conservatives at FR's fault for the Gub's defeats." ...

Nope, its the middleground which didn't turn out. They saw it as a battle of conservatives against special interests and they couldn't care less. Why couldn't they care less? Ask the ilk.

70 posted on 12/29/2005 8:33:42 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam
But it seems to me it MIGHT have helped with the spending out there in Cali.

When the campaign manager himself says it won't, I have a hard time believing it would. And the fine print did not support that result.

71 posted on 12/29/2005 8:40:40 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam

You might also find this article interesting. Deception in propositions is nothing new to California:

http://www.rppi.org/suchadeal.shtml

Such a Deal: Californians Have a History of Buying Ballot Measures that are Deceptively Written and Advertised

by Ted Balaker
Ted Balaker is Jacobs Fellow at Reason Foundation

March 2, 2003 -- Like doughnuts or deodorant, politics is about selling. And what sells a product isn't so much what the product does, but what the buyer thinks it does. Take Proposition 56. It doesn't really matter if it actually reforms the budget, because as long as people think they are getting budget reform, they will vote for it.

Special interest groups and politicians have learned the trick is to get people to pay attention - but not too much attention. If you're at the supermarket perusing deodorant options, industry executives don't expect you to ponder the active ingredients in each; they figure you'll simply reach for the one with the commercial that made you feel robust and athletic. Likewise, those selling propositions don't want you to think too much, they just want you to vote for the one that feels right.

The big problem for California arises after voters have cast their ballots. If you're duped into buying deodorant that doesn't work, you can simply buy a different brand next time. But once voters pass a proposition, the whole state is stuck with it.

Thankfully, political peddlers aren't particularly creative. Over the years they've stayed loyal to a few tricks, and a perceptive voter can learn to spot the shady sales tactics.

Beware of propositions with impressive names

Proposition 111's alias was too enticing for voters to pass up in 1990. After all, even the most skeptical among us might have rolled the dice on a tempting title like the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act."

Perhaps voters dreamed that one grand proposition could unlock the secrets to rescuing California from slow moving streets and fast spending politicians. Sadly, the key features were hardly revolutionary. To relieve traffic congestion, the proposition would fund transportation projects by raising gas taxes. To "limit spending," it would loosen spending restrictions enacted by the 1979 Gann Spending Limit. How would loose spending restrictions limit spending? Couldn't tell you. But the "Traffic Congestion and Spending Limitation Act" sure sounds promising.

(snip)


72 posted on 12/29/2005 8:44:52 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam
"How could a conservative be against the Live Within Our Means Act?"


===

THAT is precisely the question. That's why I maintain, that some who cover themselves with the mantle of conservatism aren't really conservatives, far from it. When someone votes with the Dems all the time or most of the time, how can they claim to be conservative?

Several people loudly proclaiming continuously how conservative they are and how they are the only true conservatives, were vociferously AGAINST the "Live Within Our Means Act", even though their previous hero, McClintock was for it. But this time McC was actually hurting the Dems, so they denounced him too as not conservative enough. The definition of a "pure conservative" is one who advances the leftist Dems agenda -- according to them.

73 posted on 12/29/2005 8:46:09 PM PST by FairOpinion (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

Nope, its the middleground which didn't turn out. They saw it as a battle of conservatives against special interests and they couldn't care less. Why couldn't they care less? Ask the ilk.

--

The middleground?

Do you have a phone number for the (M)ilk, btw? I'd like to thank them for showing how divide and conquer is done by "pros".

Oh, I really liked how you tried to paddle calcowgirl, too.

Calling her a liar and such, what a touch.

Don't give up your day job at the PR firm.

Happy Holiday


74 posted on 12/29/2005 8:49:32 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Why didn't the unions like it? I normally will vote opposite the union vote since it is always liberal.


75 posted on 12/29/2005 8:51:17 PM PST by ChuckHam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; ChuckHam; 68 grunt
calcowgirl:" It is true I opposed Prop 76, vehemently."

=====

Judge allows extra union dues to fight Calif ballot Props 75, 76, Nov. 4, 2005

THE CA PROPOSITIONS; Democratic and Republican activists discuss the propositions
Dean urges voters to reject measures governor supports [California]
Davis opposes Schwarzenegger's reform initiatives
CA: Feinstein to oppose Schwarzenegger's special election initiatives
John Alden (Marin cnty Dem Party chairman): Vote no on Prop 76 - we need better leaders
Top Democratic leaders at Penmar Park rally to 'swat' governor's special election measures. Key note speaker: Angelides, Dem candidate for governor
Liberal groups (Moveon.org) try to link special election to broader GOP agenda
Open letter from Phil Angelides (opposing Schwarzenegger and the Propositions)
McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties
CA: McClintock stumps for governor's ballot initiatives
Ad watch: McClintock in radio spot supporting Prop. 76 (includes actual text)
Supporters of the CA Propositions 74-77 include CA Club for Growth, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, Ray Haynes, San Fernando Valley Town Hall Conservatives, Republican Party, and many others. Click on the link for a more comprehensive list.
And you can see from links above who are the ones opposing them: Democrats, Unions, Gray Davis, Howard Dean, Phil Angelides, MoveOn.org, various Dem party chairmen, etc.

======

As I said, birds of a feather... you and the Dems... flock together.

76 posted on 12/29/2005 8:52:49 PM PST by FairOpinion (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam

The main purpose of Prop. 76 was to take the power out of the previously passed Prop. 98, mandating huge spending for schools, no matter what and to control spending.

Its defeat is a disaster for CA.


77 posted on 12/29/2005 8:57:37 PM PST by FairOpinion (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

78 posted on 12/29/2005 9:10:30 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

You know who the ilk are, heck you pander to 'em, meta-denials, et-al. And a Happy New Year to you, also.


79 posted on 12/29/2005 9:44:09 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ChuckHam

There were certain powers that were given to the governor's office that they didn't like. I would contend, that if (or when) a democrat were in power, Republicans wouldn't like those powers being transferred to the Executive branch either.

If he wanted a real spending cap, he had been offered one backed by Republican legislators--he rejected it for a much more complicated and deceptive measure. The proposition was highly (and unnecessarily) complex and had something to both like and hate for everyone. The problem is, you couldn't just take the good parts as it was offered as a package.


80 posted on 12/29/2005 10:08:36 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson