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.
FMCDH
Im cheering on the Democrats who are busy making Howard Dean the Democrats presidential nominee. Im cheering them on because he is destined to lose. He will lose for the same reason that this ideological predecessor, George McGovern, did: he is too far outside of the mainstream. And that means that my candidate, George Bush, will win.
Deans supporters are denouncing the more centrist candidates. They want red meat, and by God, Dean is the only real Democrat who will give it to them. Deans electability is of no concern to them. First, because they would rather be right than President; second, because everyone around them believes the same things they do, and that makes them believe their ideas are echoed by most of the people in the country.
Unfortunately, Deans supporters have their counterparts on my side of the political fence. Purity is more important than winning and they know that everyone agrees with them because all their friends do.
Stupidity is no respecter of ideologies.
While I agree with you on the above principal, and while my argument against Arnold smacks of ideological puritanism (which it is not), allow me to point out the obvious fact that there is less difference between a Dean and a Lieberman than there is between Arnold and McClintock.
On the issue of Arnold, all I am asking for is honesty, not purity. Please supply evidence of one policy espoused by Arnold which indicates that he is a Republican (other than his claim to be one).
Lieberman, on the other hand, has mainstream Democratic views on almost all issues (incl. AA, abortion, tax cuts, gun control, judges, immigration, gay unions), except for the war. Thus, the ideological purity that you accuse us of is actually more severe and suicidal on the other side.
BUT he has an R after his name so he must have a conservative impulse somewhere in that mass of muscle. Second, this is a very short campaign and McClintock is an obscure pol who has neither the resources nor the perceived ability to win. He may be the Second Coming, but unless hes got a secret weapon, he will not win.
In World War 2 we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. After the war was won we changed our position. After someone with an R after his name wins in California we can begin the big debate about ideological purity and getting our guys into positions of power. To do that, we have to win, not make a virtue of losing well. Right now, that person is Arnold. I may wish it were otherwise, but as someone once said if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Point taken. I will wait and see how things unfold over the next 2 months.
1) This is a California issue. If you are not from California, mind your own business. The national conservatives were more than willing to ignore the California conservatives when you felt that you could not benefit from us because of the over whelming liberal population.
2) We are far better off with an incremental move to the right. Anyone who advocates a non-compromise position is willing to condem Californians a future of ultra-leftist administrations for their own personal agendas.
McClintock is probably the best but it's better to be realistic! Maybe some future time he can run and win as governorPrecisely my thinking. One must bear in mind that McClintock is only 47.
"I really consider myself to be VERY liberal on social issues" --Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"I actually play someone who is very religious and very much against it. He's very old-fashioned, but I just think cloning is terrific. I love the whole idea of animal cloning... I also approve of human cloning as long as you make sure that it's not going to be used by someone to create his own little army" --Arinold Schwarzekennedy on the differences between him and his characther in The 6th Day
"That is a another thing I will NEVER forgive the Republican party for" -- on the investigatons into the Clinton adminstration illegal activities --Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"You know, I have always supported a woman's right to choose" --Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"I'm ashamed to be a Republican" -- Arinold Schwarzekennedy, reacting to news that Republicans voted to impeach Clinton
"Gays would make great parents, I don't understand all this anti-gay rhetoric and opposition to gay adoption". --Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"Republicans should support sensible gun controls, especially the ban on assault weapons." --Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"I support the President, but it bothered me when he lead the United Scares out of' the Kyoto accord" --Arinold Schwarzekennedy
You were saying? I don't recall President Bush coming out in favor of any of that garbage...
>> while considerably more libertarian. <<
"Everything has to be provided for the people." --Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"Gun laws should be stiffer." -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"Californians have overcome the special interests who talk about after-school programs without standing up and adequately funding a statewide program...my hope is, as California, so goes the rest of the nation." -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"We can afford all kinds of different programs that are very important". -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"We want to make sure that the children are not left with without any books. We want to make sure have they have after school programs." -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care" -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"The truth is, I'm a peace-loving guy, I support gun control. I always say, we need to get the guns off the streets" -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"We want to make sure [the government] gives older folks their care that they need". -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"As Chairman of the PCPFS, [I] have established 80 fully functioning and staffed fitness facilities...the facilities are in high schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, community centers and housing developments. Three are on Indian reservations. We have requests pending for more than 70 additional facilities from government agencies and organizations that have seen current OFK centers in action.... an organization must allocate at least 3,000 square feet for each facility, which must be supervised by qualified staff members and be able to secure operational funding. The value of the equipment funded to date has been estimated at over $5 million" -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
"As governor, I want to ensure that all Californians have not only a job, but a great job, a fantastic job" -Arinold Schwarzekennedy
Try making those kinds of "libertarian" statements at some Ayn Rand fan club or liberty Think Tank, let me know how warm the reception is.
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.