Posted on 08/10/2003 12:18:33 PM PDT by nwrep
In a typically caustic and brilliant column 3 years ago, Ann Coulter accurately described New Jersey RINO Governor Christine Todd Whitman as a "half wit". This characterization was vindicated last year when the New Jersey Supreme Court, which included 5 LIBERAL judges appointed by Gov. Half-Witman set aside the election law and allowed Robert Torricelli to be substituted by Frank Lautenberg, thus handing the Senate seat to the Democrats.
For those who are considering supporting Arnold for Governor of California, the lessons learned from the above episode should not be forgotten. A liberal Democrat running as with an R next to their name is still a Democrat.
Individual rights, the Republic, and the Constitution must be defended against attacks, whether those attacks are launched by liberal D's or liberal R's.
In terms of policy positions, Arnold closely mirrors the views of half-Whitman in such areas as the intent and size of government and gun control. Instead of using the argument about supporting a Republican who only agrees with them half the time, those here supporting Arnold should wonder whether they agree with him on ANYTHING.
Here are some of his stated positions:
Pro-abortion, pro-gay adoption, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-big government (as evidenced by his ballot initiative last year), pro-environmental legislation and pro-immigration.
Of his unstated views, I venture to guess the following by "connecting the dots" from his various interviews and TV appearances:
Anti-death penalty, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-gay marriage, and pro-Affirmative Action.
If all this is true, one wonders precisely what differentiates this man from a moderate-left Democrat candidate. One is also left with the unfortunate eventuality of Arnold actually being to the left of some Democrats on at least one of the above issues (say the death penalty).
Let us move on to the other argument posited by his supporters. A Republican Governor will make California more Republican-friendly territory, help Bush's re-election campaign there next year, and force Democrats to spend large sums of money defending this state.
To check the plausibility of this line of reasoning, one need not look any further than the 2000 Presidential Election. Here are the states which had Republican governors (some conservative, too):
* Michigan - John Engler
* Pennsylvania - Tom Ridge
* New York - George Pataki
* New Jersey - Christine Whitman
* Illinois - George Ryan
The outcome of the election in these states, ofcourse, was sobering. Bush lost every single one of them. So much for Republican Governors helping with Presidential prospects.
Bottom line, having the Governorship of California (or any other state) has nothing to do with General Election prospects of that party in the Presidential Election. These elections are won and lost on issues independent of who is in the Governors' mansions.
If conditions are favorable for a Bush landslide, that will happen regardless of how many Democrat Governors there are in the country.
The Governorship of a state like California is too important to be sacrificed for the lure of star power with the correct party affiliation and ill-conceived arguments about Presidential elections.
Exactly. Without AS, the GOP has about as much chance as the Green Party of getting an elected governor. Way to go, guys. Hope you're up on your Spanish.
This article was not written by Ann Coulter, but by a AP writer named Erica Warner.
But what the hey if you want to follow the ways of Tubbyshow rhetoric so bet it, it's a free country.
Appt. of John Ashcroft as AG over a vitriolic battle with Senate Dems, rejection of : Kyoto, ICC, Clinton OSHA rules, abortion funding for Mexico, ABM treaty, and various environmental laws signed via executive order by BJ Clinton.
Further: 3 tax cuts (2 income and 1 Dividend), Elimination of estate taxes, increase in military spending, privatization of 800,000 Federal Govt. positions, set to sign PBA ban, nomination of 100% conservative judges so far for District Courts (none of whom have been confirmed, BTW) and a superb execution of the WOT.
These are conservative positions, bud.
He may have disappointed you wrt spending on education and prescription drugs, but remember, this was in his election platform. You knew he was going to do this because he promised to. So don't be surprised.
With Bush, conservatives will get about 75% of their wishes. With Arnold, its more like 2%.
******************************************************
June 23, 2000
Serious Republican candidates don't get serious press
Ann Coulter
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- ONE OF THE INJUSTICES of the world is that Democrats can run stupid and insubstantial men for important national offices and no one will ever know. The adversary press will rush to cover up a liberal candidate's gaffes, finish his sentences for him, defend his arguments and provide substantiation for his ludicrous claims.
Republicans, on the other hand, can't even run serious men without the media diminishing them, usually by recycling the media's own sneering attacks on the candidate through unnamed sources, innuendo and reported rumors. Republicans must be portrayed as either stupid or mean-spirited -- preferably both. Consequently, the image of George Bush as an "airhead" -- as The New York Times put it -- is being carefully nurtured and promoted by the media, especially the Times.
In a recent New York Times profile of George Bush's college years, all humans and Lanny Davis are quoted praising Bush for his high intellect. Still the article squeezes in repeated insinuations that Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed with deus ex machina asides.
Suggesting the existence of legions of unnamed sources and expert opinions, the Times casually refers to anonymous classmates "who frowned on Mr. Bush, seeing him as an airhead party boy." Also, the Times reports that "(f)ew, if any, (Yale) professors seem to have left a mark on him, or he on them."
In a seething rage that Bush does not defer to important Ivy League intellectuals so admired at the Times, the article calls Bush "determinedly nonintellectual," and says he "has resolutely cultivated an anti-intellectualism."
Most preposterous, the article observes: "With his grades and college boards, Mr. Bush might not have been admitted (to Yale) if he had applied just a few years later."
"Might not have been admitted"? He also "might not have been admitted" if he hadn't scored about 100 points higher on his verbal SATs than did Princeton man Bill Bradley. Come to think of it, he "might not have been admitted" if he had died as an infant in the crib. What on earth does that mean? It means that it absolutely galls Northeastern liberals that the Republican candidate for president went to an Ivy League school.
Fortunately for the media, Republican Dan Quayle did not offend their dignity by having attended an Ivy League college. But the press still had to go beyond the facts to ensure that Quayle was not just perceived as a little dim, but as laughing-stock stupid. Though widely circulated and rarely refuted, the story about Dumb Dan Quayle saying he was sorry he hadn't studied his Latin after a trip to Latin American was completely apocryphal.
Meanwhile, it's difficult to come by even the true stupid stories about Al Gore, Quayle's Democratic counterpart in the 1992 election. In 1994, Gore praised Milwaukee for its ethnic diversity, saying it manifested America's national motto: "E Pluribus Unum -- Out of one, many," even though it means the opposite -- out of many, one. He had to ask the curator of Monticello to identify busts of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. He startled Chicago Bulls fans in January 1998 by saying, "That Michael Jackson is unbelievable, isn't he?" evidently referring to Bulls forward Michael Jordan. But Gore is reported to be hampered only by his outsized intellect.
Of course, some Republicans do not find their IQs and compassion under attack. Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey has been gushed over in The New York Times as the GOP's "New Idol." Whitman's groundbreaking "philosophy" -- the Times has actually called it a philosophy -- is characterized as "sophisticated," "prosperous," "moderate" and "tolerant."
But the thing is, the woman is a half-wit. Recently she responded to a question about whether Bush should have an abortion litmus test for Supreme Court justices by saying this: "I'll tell you something. I have now appointed five of our seven Supreme Court justices in New Jersey, and I never asked a one of them what they thought about a woman's right to choose. ... It would have been inappropriate."
It also would have been moronic inasmuch as New Jersey judges do not determine this country's abortion policy. Presumably Gov. Whitman doesn't ask candidates for the New Jersey Visitors Bureau what they think about abortion either. You wonder if she knows that Roe v. Wade was issued by the Supreme Court of the United States , and her little state court judges can neither repeal nor uphold it.
Like all the other "Whitman Republicans," she's just smart enough to realize that if she cannot rely on her genetic capacities to avoid being called stupid, the only a surefire way to be identified as an intellectual in the press is to be
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.