Ahnold Recruits Warren Buffet As Economic Advisor

AP Wire | 8/13/03

[presidio9]

Developing...

[DB]

Didn't Arnold come out later and deny he supported 187?

[Clemenza]

This oughta scare the Birchers/NWO/Tin Foil Hat crowd.

[spokeshave]

This is MASTER STRATEGERY in action....

The dems are GOING NUTS RIGHT NOW...

Just when they were going to unload on Arnie for 157/immigrants/nude pics/pot smoking/etc...etc...

Arnie drops an economic nuclear bomb on them....

Now all the discussion for next week will be on Buffetts contribution to saving the CA bonds and the MASSIVE INTEREST payments etc etc....and guess who is responsible....rats and greyout.....

[freekitty]

Is this suppose to make us feel better?

[George W. Bush]

Sure, Arnold can recruit a big-time liberal, tax-and-spend, abortion/antipopulation maniac Dim like Buffet. But Arnie's still a good conservative...

[Helix]

LOL! Dif'rent strokes, it takes dif'rent strokes...

[George W. Bush]

Why? He isn't being appointed to any political position. He is just an advisor.

The article says he hired Buffet. Funny, I didn't think that even Arnie had that kind of money...

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Exactly. Arnold picked a guy known world-wide as a smart businessman to help create policies to bring businesses back to California to fix the deficit -- Arnold opposes tax increases to solve the budget problems.

Buffett's also known world-wide (or nearly so) to be as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual special rights, socially liberal as they get... maybe even more-so than (R)nold himself.

Ergo, if Buffett says this program or that regulation needs to be cut back a bit, it's hard to paint him as a "heartless conservative" -- he has impeccable "compassionate liberal" credentials (y'know, killing babies, etc). And, if Buffett can't fix the Budget and the Economy in the next coupla years... well, then (R)nold can always say, "I'll have it fixed in one more term -- even Warren Buffett couldn't fix this wreck that fast".

Good? Moral? Commendable? Something I personally support? No, none of those things. But I can, at least hypothetically, see how it could be a politically shrewd choice -- at least for (R)nold as Governor, and the liberal wing of the California GOP.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Sure, Arnold can recruit a big-time liberal, tax-and-spend, abortion/antipopulation maniac Dim like Buffet. But Arnie's still a good conservative...

Arnold is going to be judged by the CA electorate (including many, perhaps most, CA Repubs) on one thing only -- bringing business (and therefore economic strength) back to California. Buffett does know enough about Balance Sheets to know how to get this done... not that he will necessarily, but he knows how.

And considering how eye-to-eye they see social issues... think about it. If Arnold/Buffett proposed a "Social Tax Cut" for "good" corporations -- say, indexed to the Fortune 500 "diversity index" (i.e., homosexual rights and affirmative action) -- he'd have the Tax-Cut Businessmen, the homosexuals, and the race hustlers all lined up on his side.

It's probably not impossible to be both a "Fiscal Conservative" (of sorts) and a "Social Liberal" at the same time. It's simply a matter of doling out the Tax Cuts to the favored (pro-"diversity") groups, and not to the disfavored (Christian bookstores). "Division of spoils", classical Roman style.

[The Old Hoosier]

Proof that Arnold is not just a social liberal, but a LIBERAL liberal.

[The Old Hoosier]

Hopefully Arnold's horse sense will filter out the horse manure from Buffet.

How naïve can you get! Of course it won't! Arnold is choosing the guy, and it's meant to send a signal to Californians. He's a LIBERAL ON EVERY ISSUE!

[Quix]

Given his comments about Milton Friedman's classic economics book--I don't think he's

LIBERAL ON *EVERY* ISSUE.

In any case, regardless of my reservations about Arnold or yours . . .

he's exceedingly likely going to be California's next governor.

AND I HOPE AND PRAY HE WILL CLEAN HOUSE ON THE POLITICAL MACHINES AND CORRUPTION. I won't be holding my breath and I won't be overly shocked if very convoluted things occur.

I do believe he's the best realistic choice on the horizon.

[George W. Bush]

Arnold is going to be judged by the CA electorate (including many, perhaps most, CA Repubs) on one thing only -- bringing business (and therefore economic strength) back to California.

Maybe it's more shallow. They don't like Davis and the results of their having voted Dims into office at all levels for so many years. So now they'll have a celebrity governor who will ride in and save them. Of course, Arnie couldn't do any worse than Davis. But given how liberal some of his advisors and remarks are, the problem is that he may not do much better while further liberalizing (destroying) the GOP, not only in California but even affecting the national internal politics in '04. Electorally, his situation is much like Clinton vs. Bush Sr. They don't want him quite so much as they really want the current officeholder out, a scapegoat they created and who has merely given their elected representatives what they wanted. His actions in tripling car taxes and such measures can be no surprise and are certainly no worse than what the Cali legislature has done.

The whole thing is kind of a granola White Knight fantasy, like they're waiting for some Nietschean superman to save them from themselves and their voting habits. Oops. I think George Will had it about right a while back when he more or less said that the voters of California really ought to be left to simmer in their own juices until the next general election. It might provide them enough education to last for the next few elections.

And considering how eye-to-eye they see social issues... think about it. If Arnold/Buffett proposed a "Social Tax Cut" for "good" corporations -- say, indexed to the Fortune 500 "diversity index" (i.e., homosexual rights and affirmative action) -- he'd have the Tax-Cut Businessmen, the homosexuals, and the race hustlers all lined up on his side.

You have a truly morbid imagination. Hopefully, you're not prophetic.

It's probably not impossible to be both a "Fiscal Conservative" (of sorts) and a "Social Liberal" at the same time. It's simply a matter of doling out the Tax Cuts to the favored (pro-"diversity") groups, and not to the disfavored (Christian bookstores). "Division of spoils", classical Roman style.

One will corrupt the other. It's inevitable. The Fiscal Conservative will always, at the worst possible juncture, be replaced by his evil twin, the Social Liberal. It's a Jekyll/Hyde thing.

Modern liberalism is a chronic ailment, generally terminal. Initial symptoms are mild but it's a progressive disease that spreads inevitably until the victim succumbs entirely. Observing the GOP over decades tells us how true this is. Quite often, we've lost ground on our issues because of it. We've lost battles we could have won but our leadership had a sudden pang of liberalism. Or in the case of the GOP socializing prescription drugs, our 'conservative' leaders will get a sudden bout of liberalism and march around passing socialist laws with Teddy Kennedy and then the press congratulates them for bipartisanship. A sad spectacle. This is what liberalizing the party means. As far as electoral politics are concerned, Schwa's candicacy and governorship in Kali is probably more important to the average citizen of that state and more interesting to the average American than is the vice president, congressional leaders, or even their own elected leaders. The celebrity aspect of this is going to be far greater than Ventura had in Minnesota. Schwa will actually rival Bush. This is why BushCo has expanded their earlier comments favoring Schwa and today suggested there are several good candidates.

BTW, I think it's interesting that Ventura was a former wrestler and Schwa is a bodybuilder. It made me remember an old photo of Mussolini posing on a balcony, shirt off, doing strongman tricks. Early on in his Black Shirt days and when he first came to national prominence, he did some strongman demonstrations and traded on his looks, taking quite a few dramatically-posed (comedic today) photographs for public consumption. I don't expect some imminent fascist rally in L.A. if Schwa is elected but I find the type of appeal made and especially the way that voters are reacting to it to be interesting.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Maybe it's more shallow. They don't like Davis and the results of their having voted Dims into office at all levels for so many years. So now they'll have a celebrity governor who will ride in and save them.... The whole thing is kind of a granola White Knight fantasy, like they're waiting for some Nietschean superman to save them from themselves and their voting habits.

Strong-Man on Horseback... I'd thought about that, too, even before I ellipsed the rest of your first paragraph.

And considering how eye-to-eye they see social issues... he'd have the Tax-Cut Businessmen, the homosexuals, and the race hustlers all lined up on his side. ~~ You have a truly morbid imagination. Hopefully, you're not prophetic.

Well, I'm probably not... except, as an Economist might say, "at the margins" -- which is where Liberals usually make their gains. But I doubt I am in any way "prophetic" (which is a hubris I rarely claim anyway; my hubris runs towards an overconfidence in my Intellect, not in my talent for Prophecy). If anything, I don't think "prophetic" is even the issue here -- more like "historic".

Have not many eminent PaleoConservatives commented upon the resemblances between the Pax Romana and the Pax Americana? You yourself once favored Pat Buchanan; and you probably know I favor Joseph Sobran (Sobran is, at the same time, both more Reactionary and more Radical than Buchanan. As am I).

Modern Liberals basically abhor America. You know this. I know this. But I dare to say, the American Electorate is learning this too. Even a consummately brilliant campaigner like Bill Clinton had to pretend to NOT be a Liberal in order to win 43% of the vote. Americans no longer desire Hard-Liberals (who are now dead) nor Hard-Conservatives (who have been dead a long, long time).

We don't envision the Puritan Conservative "Shining City" anymore. We don't envision the Liberal Socialist "New Order" anymore. We just want our Bread and Circuses. (Show me I'm wrong. PLEASE. Show me, don't tell me.)

In Classical Rome, there was no place for a Party which favored the annihilation of the Roman System (such as modern liberals -- who court electoral doom without mass immigration, which most Americans oppose). Rather, two Parties (well, four or more, but the lessers were just match-makers) competed for the Loyalty of the Mass: the Patricians, and the Imperialists.

• The Patricians favored Business, Patronage, and noblesse oblige -- keep the Peasants happy, as long as they Serve you.
• The Imperialists, on the other hand, favored Expansionism, Conquest, and Populism -- rally the Peasants to your cause, as long as they Bleed for you.

AT the present time, traditional union-marxist Economic Socialism is against the ropes (as opposed to the socio-cultural liberalism which has been embraced by Republican Patricians, and tolerated by Republican Imperialists). Howard Dean will almost certainly take the Democratic Nomination (Dean is not a juggernaut. Rather, his opponents are infantile, impotent nincompoops), and then he will almost certainly lose -- leaving Bush in control.

And then -- more of the same.

IMHO, what we see over the past few years is not a great competition between Democrats and Republicans. Even Clinton, economically at least, governed like a Bond-Market Republican -- FAR MORE than "conservative" Bush.

Rather, we see a competition between Patricians and Imperialists. Liberals (with the exception of Bush's Education and Medicare Bills, which are half-measures to them) have not been in Power in 25 years. And I think that it is fair to say, by any substantive (that is, more than 1% of GDP) measure, we have not seen a single Conservative Bill passed in 20 years.

It's Patricians versus Imperialists, Division of Spoils, all over again. Arnold Schwarzenegger fits in just fine. Does this mean it's the "Fall of the Roman Empire"? Of course not!! That's not for 400 years yet. This is when it is just getting fun -- the beginnings of Legal Sanctions against Christianity.

Lick your chops, Simba... if you thought 40 million abortions was pretty cool, we may have seen nuthin' yet....

[George W. Bush]

We don't envision the Puritan Conservative "Shining City" anymore. We don't envision the Liberal Socialist "New Order" anymore. We just want our Bread and Circuses. (Show me I'm wrong. PLEASE. Show me, don't tell me.)

I can't. I generally thought such comparisons strained, when they first became fashionable clear back in the Sixties among the anti-war Left. That was a long ways back in terms of our culture and our increasingly pronounced tendency to foreign adventure. But given our current politics, I don't find the comparison farfetched at all these days. Perhaps I'm pessimistic because I recently watched I, Claudius again and just loaded Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on my PDA for reading last week.

AT the present time, traditional union-marxist Economic Socialism is against the ropes (as opposed to the socio-cultural liberalism which has been embraced by Republican Patricians, and tolerated by Republican Imperialists). Howard Dean will almost certainly take the Democratic Nomination (Dean is not a juggernaut. Rather, his opponents are infantile, impotent nincompoops), and then he will almost certainly lose -- leaving Bush in control.

I agree about Dean. He could still be stopped by the Eight Dwarves. But probably not if he has good handlers and can stay on message. And he could actually win. There are a number of things that could happen to propel him to the presidency. Sustained unemployment problems in key states, sour results in Iraq, the inevitable alignment of libmedia to help him, etc. Unlikely but certainly possible. His candidacy has been so far predicated on exactly these things and it has gotten him much further than anyone could have expected (except me who predicted it all along). But it has surprised even me, much like Clinton's tenacity did back in 2000. The Dim bloc doesn't care about anything (including terrorism) except hating Bush. Much as we would have been if the SC had favored Gore instead of Bush.

IMHO, what we see over the past few years is not a great competition between Democrats and Republicans. Even Clinton, economically at least, governed like a Bond-Market Republican -- FAR MORE than "conservative" Bush.

Agreed. The GOP has changed, neo-cons in an ascendancy phase (which will fail or recede), RINOs making progress (Schwa a big example), and more than anything, attaining and holding majority requires the GOP to become the party of patronage and handouts. This is why the South is going Republican. The basic federal wealth transfer systems largely transfer Northern wealth to Southern states. In the Roman analogue, FDR would play the role of the first caesar and his successors would rule using the political and economic machinery established during his reign, one which require the destruction of the essense of the old republic.

It's Patricians versus Imperialists, Division of Spoils, all over again. Arnold Schwarzenegger fits in just fine. Does this mean it's the "Fall of the Roman Empire"? Of course not!! That's not for 400 years yet. This is when it is just getting fun -- the beginnings of Legal Sanctions against Christianity.

In modern times, empires fall to pieces much more quickly. Especially with Chinese pressure and open borders.

[SolutionsOnly]

Arnold my subscribe to Friedman's theories, but I'm not sure the Warren Buffet does. Buffet seems like he leans times. Buffet is an investor - not an economist. They are different things. I'm not convinced that Buffet completely agrees with Friedman's philosophy.

[SolutionsOnly]

repost - correcting my typos - sorry about that....

Arnold may subscribe to Friedman's theories, but I'm not sure the Warren Buffet does. Buffet seems like he leans left at times. Buffet is an investor - not an economist. They are different things. I'm not convinced that Buffet completely agrees with Friedman's philosophy and that Buffet will have greater influence in the final decisions.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Buffet may disagree with us and/or Arnold on tax reform issues, but he may agree with us on pro-business policies-- pension reform, etc. Besides, Arthur "Laffer Curve" Laffer and Steve Forbes are on Arnold's team, too. Arnold is building a bipartisan team to create a pro-growth plan for CA. Yes, Buffet is very liberal on social policy, but he may have very good ideas to fix the energy mess, the pension problems, etc. in the state.

[SolutionsOnly]

I'll admit it, I'm splitting hairs. Arnold could have done much worse in his selection. From a purely political perspective, he lobbed a nuke into the democrat's lap.

[1Old Pro]

Soros? Bite your tongue!

I should have added that I mentioned Soros....tongue in cheek :)