Posted on 11/24/2006 8:10:17 PM PST by FairOpinion
Quietly encouraged by the Schwarzenegger administration, a lot of pundits nevertheless have been pushing this idea of an Arnold Way for the Beltway. But conservatives - the ones who would actually have to change their course under the Arnold Way — aren't buying it.
CNN's Bill Schneider "informed the GOP that the way to recover from midterm losses is to imitate Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and embrace liberal policies," the liberal-media hating News Busters concluded. My favorite response to the Whalen piece came from Weekly Standard reader Calcowgirl, who simply pointed to Schwarzenegger's deeds as proof he wasn't one of them. She (I assumed Calcowgirl is a female) keeps a list of the governor's offenses from 2006:
.........
-- Signed AB 1207, Code of Fair Campaign Practices (homosexual agenda)
Absentee ballots are part of the homosexual agenda? Anyway, the real question is: How many of these would President George W. Bush support?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Well, "faux conservatives" or "pretend conservatives", it adds up to the same party-above-principle Big Tent CAGOP crowd of centrists/moderates who fall for the liberal line because they stand for nothing themselves. They have for far too long cluttered up this conservative site.
Precisely! And strangely, that's what CCG, NR, EGD and a whole bunch of other long-standing, traditional conservatives are being beaten up about on these CA threads. It's like we're constantly being cheap shotted because we care more about issues, democratically adopted party platforms, consistency and careful consideration rather than JUST politickle strategery!!!
We find all this undying celebrity swoonery insipid and insulting!!! I guess we're just too sensitive to decency and debating the issues. That's probably why we prefer "a government of laws, rather than of men!" (or women, for that matter)
Sounds to me like you're on some kind of chicken hearted "witch hunt," or something!!!
What're you gonna do when we all git together and pull your covers???
I think that partisan Republicans add a useful dimension to this forum. They give it depth. They cause conservatives to think, to research, to analyze and to respond.
Without the partisan, forum dialog would be simple agreement. It would be dull. It would be preaching to the choir. Were it not for partisans, would calcowgirl have done the research?
I am thankful when partisans, whether the FairOpinion account or the tamzee account or the Alia account, participate to these discussions. Their participation incites responsibility. Injecting their partisan views demands a more informed and studied response from conservative ideologues.
When partisan Republicans participate, conservatives benefit.
Well said, as was the rest of your post, and it is indeed scary. The ilk will loudly rant their self-righteous indignation as they continue in their intolerant attempts to divide. Any form of unity is their antipathy.
It's like you're constantly being pegged as being the most disruptive voice of the extreme right. Its so much like a caricature that you're accused of being fifth columnist phonies, just like Archie Bunker. Well, not you, just the smarter ones. Not that you're not like Archie, its more like you really are an Archie. Archie did conservatives no good in the seventy's and you do us no good now.
I see plenty of partisanship but little depth in what streams forth from these kneejerk RINOs. I find their mindless cheerleading to be obstructionist and tiresome. It adds nothing to the "debate" because they seldom confront the real issues, usually slipping, sliding and spinning off into another "Yea Arnold!" direction.
You may find it useful. I do not.
You ain't so crazy 'bout me showin' up, though. You'll know then that your ilk is showin'.
I rest my case.
You can't even win your side to an issue and you think you can win an election?
Though, McClintock's chances of winning were not as good as Arnold's, he still had a great shot. And we win far more when a conservative like McClintock wins than we do with a Liberal like Arnold. Therefore, I probably would have voted for McClintock. I did read (and very occasionally comment on) a number of the threads at the time.
But my comments here were regarding the strategy differences between those conservatives who basically opt to vote with the party and those who opt to stay home and punish the party. They are both political strategies and (hopefully) we opt for the strategy we believe is more effective. Choice of strategy doesn't mean one individual is more or less conservative, though each group claims the other is not conservative. I say there are "true" conservatives in both camps and get very tired of each side insisting the other is not truly conservative.
Ask Tamzee what her views on the issues actually are. I would venture they're a lot like yours.
I don't rest mine. The ilk that pretend to be the most extreme of the right play to the good people of the extreme right, to neutralize them. Those good people of the extreme right should desire not to be perceived as 'Archie Bunker'.
"The posters I was referring to above are the ones who feel it would be better if Schwarzenegger lost even if someone like Bustamante or Angelides won instead."
It would not have been better if Bustamante or Anglides had won. Then, NONE of our conservative principles, would have been represented. Now, unfortunately, the party is stuck with a Liberal like Arnold. However, yes, better for the party to be stuck with Arnold and CA stuck with him as governor for eight years, then to be stuck with Bustamante or Anglides.
However, in the first election, a rare circumstance to be sure, I would likely have voted for McClintock who was viable. Had he won, neither Schwarzenegger, Bustamante, or Anglides would be a problem for us today.
I know this is a California thread but also a "conservative" thread. Hopefully, you won't mind if I repeat the above paragraph.
The left is far more adept at sticking together, you couldn't be more correct. This has been going on for many, many years now, and has been one of my main complaints regarding the right, for almost as long.
It's not about Arnold. It's not about McClintock. It's all about the issues. The agenda being promoted today is liberal (global warming regulation, environwhacko landgrabs, Bigger Government, Bigger budgets, Borrowing for day-to-day expenses, Government subsidies for favored interests, Healthcare for illegal aliens, etc).
Many of the agenda items of the past three years were those that Republicans vigorously fought against when Democrats held the Governorship (Deficit spending, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, etc.). When those same items were introduced and promoted under an (R) label, many of us (consistently) fought against them. Instead of getting support in opposition to these liberal moves from some of the more partisan posters, we have been called "ilk", "purists", "fake conservatives", "far-right-wing", or accused of having an "all-or-nothing radical ideology".
These are not "far right" positions--they are the positions outlined in the Constititution and the GOP platform. Instead of standing up for conservative ideology, or Republican for that matter, some are either eager to capitulate to the Democrats or think that remaining silent will somehow result in an "incremental" benefit to the conservative cause.
The current administration likes to call their actions "Bipartisan", but the truth is that most of the subject legislation was written by Democrats, introduced by Democrats, promoted by Democrats... and accepted by the Governor (R) with little or NO support from Republicans whatsoever. Take the trio of legislation that has been touted: minimum wage hike, greenhouse gas regulations, and the prescription drug program. Of the 138 Republican legislative votes that could have been cast for those three bills, only six were. This is not "bipartisanship", it is the Governor joining with Democrats in advancing a Democrat agenda. It does nothing but move the state further toward full socialism while destroying the GOP from within. Those of us who dare to criticize this are accused of "bashing" or "hating" Arnold and subject to unending namecalling.
With Arnold the Liberal, more Liberal legislation was signed into law than would have been signed into law had McClintock the Conservative been governor. Yes, or no?
"This is not "bipartisanship", it is the Governor joining with Democrats in advancing a Democrat agenda."
Exactly.
"It does nothing but move the state further toward full socialism while destroying the GOP from within."
Absolutely.
" Those of us who dare to criticize this are accused of "bashing" or "hating" Arnold and subject to unending namecalling"
Personally I like Arnold. As Governor of California (will he ever learn to say that word correctly?) he is everything I feared he would be. Still, you must concede he is better than Bustamante. You are right to criticize him when he deserves it and to praise him when he deserves it. And I'm sure, like many of you, I would be criticizing him more than praising him.
Now there may be moderates on this board, I ran into some of them when I first signed up and still do. But in my opinion, from much (and I do mean much) observation many true conservatives, have each other wrongly pegged as "faux" conservatives, which quite literally drives me insane.
Tamzee is a true conservative for instance, and so are you, AND so am I. On most issues, except possibly for those regarding strategy, I would venture to say, our views would be quite similar.
I am sorry for the poor state of CA and the poor state of the Republican party in CA. I deeply admire you're persistence and determination to fight back, despite the horrendous obstacles you face. NONE of the conservatives I have known over the years advocate silence, or would advocate it in the face of such a Liberal onslaught. The very idea couldn't be more foreign to my line of reasoning. Those who do advocate it are quite simply very wrong.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful post.
Consider for a moment your accusers. Think of what they've contributed to our society.
Wear their descriptions as a badge of honor. Consider it bona fides.
It's your house, not their's. You're the resident. They're the interloper. Keep your chin up.
There's the flaw that invalidates the argument. Refusing to participate is not a political strategy. That small flaw is indicative of the larger flaw that permeates the TAdams8591 account's contributions:
The exercise of political ideology necessitates partisan participation.
It doesn't. An ideologue and a partisan are widely separated entities. They are for good reason.
Partisan pursuits require compromise. The ideologue must exist to establish the boundaries of compromise. No ideologue, no boundaries. No partisan, no compromise. They are very dissimilar yet form the basis of the principal symbiosis in things political.
Arguments between partisans and ideologues can never be resolved. Commentators of these events are engaged in foolish pursuits.
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.