Posted on 02/10/2006 6:59:57 PM PST by calcowgirl
ANOTHER INTERVIEW WITH ARNIE STEINBERG, February 10, 2006Read the prior interview here:
EXCLUSIVE PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW WITH ARNIE STEINBERG, November 2, 2005
AS: Of course not. The party should unite behind the governor. Politics in this state is often governor-driven. Reagan upstaged the party, Deukmejian was aloof from it, and Wilson was conflicted. Oddly, the governor wants right-wing attacks, because he believes it makes him look more centrist. His conservative critics are implausible, because they are blamed (unfairly) for the outcome of special election, which was Schwarzenegger’s idea.
---
I think what he is saying , don't change Trojan Horses in the middle of the stream, or something. ;-)
How the hell attacks from the right make him look more centrist is beyond my discernment. If this is the epitome of expert analysis,, WASS. :-|
Ouch!
Ping. It's a long but insightful interview, whether you agree with him or not.
Personally, I find his brutal honesty refreshing.
As a side note, Fleishman seemed to almost apologize for the previous interview saying it "raised eyebrows."
Instead of criticism, it seems to have brought Steinberg interested clients.
Don't just read my excerpts... read the whole thing.
I couldn't possibly capture the whole theme without posting the whole interview
(which was way too long.)
That's a pretty incisive and accurate commentary, IMHO.
He calls it exactly. Oh Conan...We had such high hopes for you.
Excellent insights.
It’s business as usual in Sacramento. And Republican patronage is back. But if Gray Davis had stayed in power, fiscal reality would have forced serious reforms comparable to what the governor did not pursue initially, or what he later ineptly championed in a special election on auto-pilot for defeat. In retrospect, if Davis were still in office, we would have some major reforms by now, and we would have a decent chance at electing a Republican for governor.
--
FR: You were not excited by his State of the State?
AS: It should have been dedicated to the cement companies and construction unions. And these folks will probably fund the infrastructure bonds. And, then there are the bond underwriters. You know, Schwarzenegger’s politics oscillate like a pendulum. He’s not pragmatic, he’s erratic. We truly need infrastructure, but he doesn’t have a clue how to go about it. It’s a reckless approach.
--
or this?
--
FR: What should the Republican party in California be doing?
AS: I don’t know, and I’m so glad it’s not my problem. And there are many very solid Republican campaign professionals in this state who are doing first class work product for their clients. On the big picture, nothing is happening in the U.S. Senate race. The legislative districts remain drawn against Republicans; and last year’s redistricting ballot proposition was, in my judgment, for show, because it would not have been implemented until the 2008 elections and then ripe for challenge as based on old (2000) census data. I guess the party can try to develop candidates for nonpartisan office and let them graduate into legislative and congressional candidates down the line. But on the governorship, it’s tough going. If he wins, we basically have four years that likely are barely distinguishable from a Gray Davis tenure, and maybe they are worse. And if he loses, Republicans face statewide demographic trends that further marginalize them. He could have been the first in a line of several Republican governors, because he had a unique chance to educate voters. Instead, he could be the last Republican governor.
You mean there's more? :-o
What should conservatives do who brought off on the governor’s campaign of fiscal conservatism?
Steinberg:
Get a life. Arnold himself is delusional. He thinks he’s a fiscal conservative. So, they need not feel badly.
This governor’s instincts on social issues lean liberal, lean Democrat. The conventional wisdom errs that he’s simply pro-choice on abortion. He does not really feel comfortable in defining marriage as one man, one woman. Look at his past comments for where he really stands, not when he felt mildly threatened by McClintock in the recall election, and he was courting the fawning right wing radio talk hosts.
Remember, he is someone who opposed drivers licenses for people here illegally, unless security issues could be addressed. He does not oppose licenses because they compromise what citizenship means, or the rule and process of law.
When you eliminate the social issues, and then the fiscal issues, what are you left with? Infrastructure. That’s a real turn-on? He’ll find soon enough that people don’t believe the government can do much about traffic, and they don’t believe they can get something for nothing. Worse, there is an obvious subtlety – that’s an oxymoron, I know – but all this talk about infrastructure will, down the line, cause the issue of illegal immigration to surface.
Voters will talk about growth in the state population and – when the governor talks about building more schools, the voters will see the growth in schools as related to an influx of immigrants.
Yep. It sounds like what a lot of FR conservatives were saying for about 3 years now.
Putting a liberal Republican in office was the worst thing we could do.
Illegal immigration is the elephant in the living room that no one wants to address. Those who want amnesty or open borders try to paint opponents as "single issue voters." It's not a single issue. It effects evreything. Schools, prisons, crime, healthcare, the economy, etc..
Without illegal immigration, we wouldn't need the same investment in schools, roads, prisons, etc.
The only question is, with everyone (R's and D's) lining up at the trough, who will bring it up?
BUMP!
AS: Of course not. The party should unite behind the governor.
...if he loses, Republicans face statewide demographic trends that further marginalize them"
===
So does that mean you will listen to Steinberg and work on uniting the Republican party behind Arnold, since you think he is right about everything he says?
I listen to a variety of input, FO.
But I don't let any dictate my behavior.
But on the governorship, it’s tough going. If he wins, we basically have four years that likely are barely distinguishable from a Gray Davis tenure, and maybe they are worse.
He also points out what he thinks if Arnold loses:
"...if he loses, Republicans face statewide demographic trends that further marginalize them"
Yep. He outlines the squandered opportunities and the destruction of the party pretty well. He identifies what could have been achieved concluding "Instead, he could be the last Republican governor."
What a legacy.
If the CRP keeps supporting liberals shouldn't it be marginalized?
Why go for a liberal lite Republican when the real deal is available?
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.