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 ...
Could that be because this is a Conservative/Republican board. For instance, when I am among the general public, where I encounter many democrats, I am far more critical of democrats than any Republican. But when I am on this forum, where we talk amongst ourselves frequently about our own, I am more apt to disuss my criticism of Republicans while assuming the criticism of democrats is understood.
Just to be clear, I am not the author of the above quote. But I agree with the quote, while you do not. Both ideologues and non-ideologues participate in party politics. Complete and total lack of participation gets one nothing. There is no point to having a political ideology if one does not participate in party politics.
"Refusing to participate is not a political strategy."
I and many people on the PA boards would beg to differ with you. People sat out this election to punish Republicans and/or send them a message. They temporarily not permanently exited the political process. They helped the loss of Republicans because they believe it will make the party stronger and more conservative.
Well, I'm sorry but when people calling themselves "true conservatives," or even just plain vanilla regular old "conservatives" come out swingin and hypin some dumbassed liberal peckerhead that continually talks big conservative sounding talk and then signs and supports a huge string of outlandishly leftist and liberal stuff (see calcowgirls "list")... Then they're NOT true conservatives whatsoever!!! Never!!! Not ever!!! They're just as big a fraud as he is and should be charged (as Reagan said) with Grand Larceny!!!
Thankfully. The only thing he and Reagan have in common is they both photographed nicely.
I determine who I believe is and who isn't a conservative, based on issues and except in rare instances little else.
Good man!!!
You are largely correct until they become so pathetically petulant and repetitively redundant as to bore everybody completely to death!!!
Thank God. Tim Russert asked Arnold about being unable to run for president this past Sunday. He answered it very much the way Reagan would have, I thought. Otherwise, he bears little resemblane.
Sure, but McClintock is not Governor so that part of any discussion is really irrelevant. But any Republican who deviates completely from the Republican platform and the representations made in their campaign should be called out in an attempt to be reigned in, IMO. To remain silent and accept the actions just because they have an (R) by their name is senseless.
While many claimed a peripheral benefit of having an (R) Governor, regardless of actions, the latest election shows no benefit and that it has hurt the party tremendously. Not only would he not campaign for other Republican candidates, the Governor refused to endorse the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate (Mountjoy), declined to express any support for the Republican candidate in a highly competitive Congressional race (Pombo), and undermined the candidacy of Tom McClintock by making negative comments about him to the press. As long as he remains "leader" of the CA GOP, there is little ability to launch a new plan for advancing anything resembling conservatism. Instead, the Party is now touting this "centrism" as a way of achieving a "purple party" void of the principles included in the very platform that unites Republicans and differentiates us from Democrats.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful post.
And thank you for yours.
That's, "resemblance."
"Those were the days! Go git me a beah, Edith!!!" (you dingbat)
I undersatnd your point and have had these discussions before. Arnold's mostly leftist (except for a few economic issues like taxes) policies have made the CA Republican party centrist. So I guess you are saying, the state of CA is worse off with Arnold as Govenor than they would have been with Bustamante?
Fascinating indeed, that this so maligned Governor from his own party corners, along side with the Democrat smearing machine on full blast, was reelected Governator by a significant margin, no thanks to the Republican Party back stabbers if you ask me!.
Who knows what Bustamante would have done (and he had about zero chance of winning, IMO.)
I do think we are worse off than had we not had the Recall. Republicans were doing a pretty good job in holding Gray Davis in check on fiscal issues (that required a 2/3 majority vote). Arnold has been successful in getting legislators(R) to agree to things that they fought against when Davis was in office (Borrowing for the budget, record spending increases, etc.). It will be a tough road back from the new Centrism being promoted by the (R) party. Some have said they think it set us back a generation which sounds about right to me (I forget who said that--it might have been one of those I pinged).
Who are you referring to as "back stabbers"?
Again, a flawed logic.
Every profound, political change in recorded history was achieved without partisan pursuit. Political partisans are the residue of great change, not the cause. Partisans, by their basic nature, lack both the energy and commitment to their goals to accomplish great change. Partisans spend their energy compromising, not achieving. The charismatic ideologue changes history, not the partisan.
And commending themselves whilst they're at it.
I call 'em ilk. Anything to keep up the division ...
They do not bore themselves and that is their undoing.
Hold a mirror up to a partisan and watch the animated activity. Draw a partisan into a discussion of consequences and watch the vigor fade because consequences have no partisan allegiance.
Jeez Maggie, do you ever even think about the drivel you write? In the mirror you're seeing yourself and your own animation.
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.