Hear Me Now and Believe Me Later (Limbaugh on Schwarzenneger)

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | August 7, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[ElkGroveDan]

Here me now and believe me later, my friends: all these conservative orgasms over Arnold Schwarzenegger are - like the "Gorbasms" liberals experienced over Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev - fake. I know that (R) next to Schwarzenegger's name excites the White House, but his own words prove he's not a conservative. I call this "The Hollywood Syndrome," and it happens every time some actor-type says anything even remotely conservative. I'm not trying to cold shower anybody here, but don't look to anyone in Hollywood to validate your political ideas.

The American Prowler's George Neumayr detailed Arnold's politics in his article "Here's Arnold!" Quote: "[H]e spoke in generalities and banalities about his plans for the state. To the extent that he said anything, he sounded not like a fiscal conservative but a moderate Democrat. He said that he wanted businesses to come back to California so that the state government could collect enough tax revenues to provide social programs. This is the sort of obtuse comment middle-of-the-road Democrats always make, forgetting that businesses are leaving the state because they are tired of paying high taxes for those big government social programs."

More: "He has told the press he is 'very liberal' about social programs, supports abortion and homosexual adoption, and advocates 'sensible gun controls.' His entree into politics last year was a proposition Democrats endorsed because it raised state spending for what amounted to state babysitting - before-school and after-school programs that cost the state up to $455 million a year. He has complained openly about the party's conservatism.... Talk magazine described him as 'impatient' with the religious right.... [H]e expressed disgust with the Republicans who impeached Clinton. 'That was another thing I will never forgive the Republican Party for,' he said. 'We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure. I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period.'"

Does this sound like "the Next Reagan," as some people are calling Arnold? Hardly. This guy may be the next actor elected governor of California, but that's where the similarity between him and Ronaldus Magnus end.

[daviddennis]

Arnold also sponsored Proposition 49 in such a way that it would not do any of those things, because it would feed off "excess" state revenues.

But here's a thought I've had, and I'd really like your views on it, since it cuts to the chase about why Arnold might be the only viable candidate -- not because he can win the election, but because he has a better chance than anyone who's running to win the aftermath.

Schwartzenegger knows how to manipulate the public. There is no time in our state's history when the need to have the public manipulated is more acute. We have all these powerful forces arrayed against cutting the budget: The legislature, the state employees, the lobbyists and so on. The only way to counteract this is to get the public on your side, to get them writing letters and making phone calls and pushing legislatures towards thinking his way.

I feel your pain and those of others who say that he's not a true conservative. It wounds me to say that I think we need a master showman as governor, not someone who's right on every issue, but someone who's a real fighter who can battle the enemies and emerge more or less triumphant. As long as he agrees with me on the no tax increase issue (which I think we'll learn in a few days), I think he would be the best candidate. I surely don't care what his position on abortion or homosexuality is; the governor has a minimal impact on those issues anyway, so it matters little.

I think Schwartzenegger is the only politician running who could be successful in lobbying against the powerful forces arrayed against us, through the sheer force of personality.

He might actually be able to pull off fixing this state. I don't think the other candidates are up to the task.

I'd love to hear some serious discussion of this issue. I feel that it's a very important point to ponder.

D

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Destructor]

"Thank you Rush. I'm turning blue in the face trying to get this message across to all these star-struck celebrity slobbering Arnold fans. The guy is a big liberal. We don't need him and we WILL win without him."

Anywhere else in the U.S. yes, but in California this is exactly the kind of "conservative" we need. After Arnold solves the Gray Davis budget crisis the people of California might just become a little more open to the Conservative philosophy. If Arnold Schwarzenneger does a good job as governor he could have a bridging effect in that way.

[Reagan Man]

As a group, the Founding Fathers were radical revolutionaries, not impractical ideologues, reactionaries, or absolutists. The Constitutional Convention was not a picnic and drafting the Constitution was not an easy task. The Founders were serious politicians who negotiated and compromised on most of the details and aspects related to the creation of our constitutional republic. George Washington was the glue that held everything together and his efforts gave America the solid unity that was required for a fair and honest beginning.

[Flyover Country]

Californi's politics are in the toilet. What's the difference in Gray or some other Democrat being there or some RINO/liberal Republican, (hint) Nothing! I used to live in California years ago, and as far as I am concerned, If the Lord was going to give the world an enema, he would stick it in California.

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

I've come to the conclusion that I disagreee with your assessment that we can win in California without Arnie. I'm a diehard conservative and would love to see a Ronald Reagan leading California again. But I've decided to vote for Arnie knowing full well that he isn't the conservative that he never claimed to be. Here's why:

My primary goal, as a Californian who's SICK of where this state is headed, is to get Davis out of office. I'd be hard pressed to vote for any Democrat running as a replacement to Davis, and Bustamente (motto: I call them "N's") and Garamendi make it particularly easy for me to discount Dimocrats.

That leaves all those running on the Republican ticket, recognizing that some are more liberal/conservative than others. Issa has dropped out. McClintock is a conservative but has hardly any name recognition and will not, i believe, carry enough votes. Thank God Riordan dropped out because he was more Democrat than many registered democrats. (arianna) Huffington is an idiot. Michael Huffington isn't officially running yet but doesn't matter, he doesn't have enough name recognition either to win an election barely more than 2 months away. Bill Simon? Well, i voted for him last time around, but he blew it and in my book, he doesn't get another shot at it.

Who does that leave with the name recognition to overpower any Democrat that's put on the ballot and isn't as bad as Davis? Well, that leaves Arnie.

Maybe if Arnie is elected it'll start to pull this once-grand state back to center, and then from there, move it to the right further. But i don't think that 2 months of campaigning is enough to generate voter recognition and support for a little-known conservative candidate.

Even Reagan had to work his way through primaries and had more than a year of campaigning. Remember the time constraints, people, of an election barely more than 2 months away. Don't lose the election to a Davis-clone just because you want to hold out for a real good conservative. At this point, almost ANY Republican is better than Gray Davis, and i want to vote for the Republican who has the best chance of wresting control from the Dims. That's my rationale, and i really hope more Californians will see it that way. Usually i respect Rush's opinion, but this time i think he's flat-out wrong. There are many of us who will vote for Arnie without any illusions that he's a conservative, but at least will not do as much damage as another 2 yrs of Davis policies will wreak.

[Digger]

For what its worth, from the posting here I hear that there is a sizable conservative community here. Now just because Katie & the rest are opposing Arnie so much only means that because he now has a (R) behind his name - not because of his views. So rule out any liberals view toward any pubbie. This is the most perfect time for a true conservative as McClintock to win. The conservatives will be the bigger voters here. Bustimante gets 28%, Garamendi 4%. That is the 32% dem vote.One the other side, Arnie starts to fade after his liberalism is exposed. Simon gets 5%,Arnie gets 27%, the true conservatives give McClintock 30% & 6& goes to all other fringe candidates. Give Tom 30% & he will win this. Surely there are 30% in this recall which is highly touted to be a more conservative to put Tom over the top.

[Cyber Liberty]

You're correct. If the some of us FReepers have our way, there will be wall-to-wall Democraps in Sacramento for the forseeable future.

[_Jim]

Find anyone - ANYONE - who fits the classic conservative box that Rush draws

Reagan ... (you didn't limit it to past or present or politicos) ... plus any number below-the-RADAR up and comers around the country ...

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP

[So Cal Rocket]

Hugh Hewitt ( http://www.hughhewitt.com ) has nailed this:

Rush is reported to be slamming the AS candidacy. I haven't heard him do so, but many conservatives are most definitely doing so, so here are the reasons why center-right Republicans and conservative Republicans should vote for AS:

1. AS can win. The others in the race who would make acceptable governors --Bill Simon, Tom McClintock, and Peter Ueberroth-- cannot marshall enough votes to top the almost certain 25 to 30% that Cruz Bustamante will roll up. Objectivity matters a great deal here, and even if AS hadn't gotten into the race, the presence of more than one "movement" candidate dooms them all. Period. End of story. Arguing this point doesn't change the facts on the ground.

2. AS is best positioned to withstand the Graystopo, as the slime machine Gray has perfected has come to be called. Even if there was only one movement conservative in the race, he would be a target that would be mercilessly mowed down. Complaining about it doesn't stop it from happening.

3. AS does great things for the candidacy of Tony Strickland against Boxer in '04 and of course puts California in play for President Bush. So he's closer to Pataki than to Reagan, so what. A candidate who wins and governs to my satisfaction 65 to 75% of the time is better than a candidate who talks like I talk and loses.

4. Finally, imagine you are Jim DeMint and you need to raise some money. Wouldn't you love to be able to call the Bush people and ask them to get AS on a jet to Charleston for a little $1,000 a head gathering? This is what Bill Clinton does 24/7/365. AS is a hyperdraw, matched only by the President and the Veep. Three such draws is better than two.

5. Finally, the state is in desperate shape. AS is right, businesses and talent are fleeing. Unless the bleeding stops, this economy continues to drag the national economy down, and with them both, the re-elect numbers of the President.

The purists have to get over it and get behind a winning effort.

[Lancey Howard]

Schwarzenegger, for all his faults (and he has many), is conservative where it counts--economic and fiscal policy

What planet are you from?

[Poohbah]

Earth, and not some BizarroWorld where Californians will vote en masse for Tom McClintock.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Schwarzenegger, for all his faults (and he has many), is conservative where it counts--economic and fiscal policy,

With all do respect, do have a source for this Fiscal Conservatism, or is this just more starry-eyed wishful thinking?

I keep hearing this old line about "conservative where it counts" ad hominem, much like I hear that Howard Dean is really a "fiscal moderate or even conservative" yet there's no evidence. But if this were all true, why isn't he explaining what he will cut- which will be the clearest reason to vote FOR him.

[Cyber Liberty]

Bottom line best reason...the one that will get AS elected if the conservatives can get over themselves long enough to see him elected...is that he isn't Gray Davis.

Hello! This is a recall election. One subject matters, and his name is Davis.

[alwaysconservative]

If you want PROOF that Arnold is a fiscal conservative, please take note, he started with nothing but a dream and with hard work, self-deprivation, and smart attention to his principles, became a winning body-builder. He parlayed the money from that into a successful movie career, with again, his HARD WORK and sacrifice. (Most leftists wouldn't recognize hard work or sacrifice if it bit them in the butt!) Politically and fiscally, look at his dedication to making money and understanding what has to be done in order to do that. Don't you think California needs a proven businessman with great PR skills to move into better economic waters, not a failed politician who has been playing the game as unsuccessfully as Simon or McClintock have? I think California deserves a chance at real fiscal change, and they're not going to get it with either of two proven minority party players. Arnold can make surgical cuts that neither of them would be able to get away with in the California legislature.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

But.... ho wdo you expect to win with the GOP vote split 3 or 4 ways. The Dems will be split 1 or 2 ways and they WILL win.

Cyber, you and I have agreed on alot of things, but you are simply FAR to cynical on this issue. The Dems are going to be split more than 2 ways, after all the kook candidates appeal mostly to THEIR base, not ours. Also Davis naturally splits them.

Couple that with Issa out, and Simon (Hopefully!) out soon, and we will see the choice between McClintock and Arnuld the clique speaker clear as day.

Keep optimistic.

[GraniteStateConservative]

California needs someone to cut taxes to lift all boats with a rising tide of economic growth like JFK did. If Arnold does the same, CA will have been much improved over Gray Davis' tenure.

[B Knotts]

I noticed he dodged your question.

There have been conservatives who have lost (Simon, Herschenson), and moderates who have won (Wilson, although he was conservative on some issues, like illegal immigration).

But, what you say is basically right on. Frankly, a lot of it boils down to how good at running for office a candidate is, regardless of philosophy. But, there need to be at least some bones thrown to conservatives in order for a Republican to win statewide, IMO.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Hello! This is a recall election. One subject matters, and his name is Davis

Hello yourself Out-Of-Stater, you people like Parsky and Rove have been trying to shove RINOs down our unwilling throat for years now. When will you wise up? We DON'T VOTE FOR THESE LOSERS! How is it that Davis is the 2nd Dem Gov in almost 30 years? We aren't as liberal as you "think" you know.

What you said was almost correct, but one word makes everything else you say incorrect.

The one subject that matters is; California.