Arnoldian Standards (GOPers playing dumb about Schwarzenegger's obvious liberalism)

American Spectator ^ | 08/14/03 | George Neumayr

[Pokey78]

Republicans ravenous for pyrrhic victories are playing dumb about Schwarzenegger's obvious liberalism

Liberals in the California media always counsel the Republican Party to run liberal Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Do Republicans think journalists offer this avuncular advice because they have the GOP's best interests at heart? Let's take a wild guess here and say that journalists don't stay up late at night fretting over the welfare of the Republican Party. Why then do they promote the Riordans and the Schwarzeneggers? Because they want the Republican Party to adopt the liberalism of their party.

Me-too Republicanism is music to the liberal media's ears. It means liberals get to exercise ideological control over both parties and shunt out of the mainstream debate all those "reactionary" Republicans who foil their agenda.

Democrats might well vote for Schwarzenegger. Why not? He agrees with them on the most fundamental philosophical issues. Democrats support it's-for-the-children-and-the-elderly statism; so does he. They want gun control; so does he. They support a constitutional right to abortion; so does he. They may figure, Why not vote for a Republican who will do our work for us? In liberalizing the Republican Party, liberals have two parties to do their bidding. What they do from without -- pressuring Republicans to compromise their principles -- Schwarzenegger can do from within.

Republicans ravenous for pyrrhic victories are playing dumb about Schwarzenegger's obvious liberalism, but liberals are not. They know he is a Hollywood liberal who won't give them much trouble about their statism and political correctness. I have heard Davis-hating Democrats extol Schwarzenegger. They know that he is a Kennedy Republican, that is, a nominal Republican who will advance the views and values of Kennedy liberals under the false flag of Republicanism. "We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people," says Schwarzenegger. Was Schwarzenegger doing an impersonation of Ted Kennedy?

The Kennedy playboy philosophy of Schwarzenegger also puts Dems at ease. "I have no sexual standards in my head that say 'this is good' or 'this is bad,'" he has said to Cosmopolitan magazine. "'Homosexual' -- that only means to me that he enjoys sex with a man and I enjoy sex with a woman. It's all legitimate to me." Has a Democrat every expressed the it's-all-good moral relativism of his party more ably than that?

Schwarzenegger is the sort of "children's activist" JFK could admire: Schwarzenegger can go from an appearance on the Howard Stern show to an elementary school classroom for a little chat with the children about "responsibility." One can only marvel at the cynicism of it all. An actor known principally for bringing R-rated violence to children is treated by the media as one of the leading children activists in the country. As a member of the Kennedy family, Schwarzenegger would know from in-law Teddy that as long as a pol mouths PC pieties about children and women he can get away with just about anything. Who cares if he has pawed women? He holds the Gloria Steinem position on abortion! "I'm for choice. The women should have the choice. The women should decide what they want to do with their bodies. I'm all for that," he says. Teddy couldn't have said it better.

Schwarzenegger's strategists are busy teaching him how to play a Republican on television, and we can expect him to throw a few bones to conservatives so they will politely avert their gaze from his Kennedy liberalism. But he will remain a de facto Democrat for anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear. Republicans who have lost their sight in the glare of his celebrity will call his candidacy "Big Tent" Republicanism. It is more like Circus Tent Republicanism.

Washington Post columnist David Broder -- observing last year that Democrats like San Francisco ultraliberal mayor Willie Brown supported Schwarzenegger's state-babysitting proposition, Prop 49 -- wondered aloud: "Are [Democrats] letting themselves be used to create a new Ronald Reagan for the embattled California Republican party?" Don't worry, Mr. Broder. Schwarzenegger is no Reagan, and the only party that's being used is the Republican one.

Reagan registered with the Republican Party to stop liberals, not elect them. Schwarzenegger's campaign is not the return of Reagan's California party, but definitive proof of its collapse.

A party that abandons its agenda "to win" will have no agenda to promote once it does.


George Neumayr, a writer in Southern California, contributes frequently to The American Prowler and The American Spectator.

[PhilDragoo]

Relax. Your breathing will return to normal.

[PhilDragoo]

And all this time I thought the enemy was Davis. Silly me.

He is. But to California whiners it don't matter. California could elect General Schwarzcopf and they would bitch and say, "yeah, but he was against the war in Iraq" and is nothing but a liberal!

Excellent.

I have his book It Doesn't Take A Hero.

I yield the last word to everyone else, and am heading for the shower.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I don't think so. But I do know compared to the extreme leftist, Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.

[goldstategop]

George Neumayr is correct we mustn't abandon our beliefs and principles. And he's right be must not be tempted to "win" merely for the sake of winning. Power for its own sake will get conservatives nowhere. Power with a purpose does. The question isn't if Arnold is a conservative; he isn't. He's clearly electable. The question Republicans must answer is whether Arnold intends to hold power for its own sake or whether he will use it for better ends. Can we advance the conservative agenda if he will use power in the latter sense? We'd be fools not to. We will have to find a way to use Arnold's popularity to promote and advance conservative beliefs and positions, not Arnold's philosophy. George's warnings should be taken to heart but ideological purity alone will not bring us to a position to save California and lay the groundwork for a conservative renaissance in our state.

[LdSentinal]

Relax. Your breathing will return to normal.

I bear no personal ill will to you. My complaints are directed at Arnold. Your above comment was unnecessary.

[LdSentinal]

I don't think so. But I do know compared to the extreme leftist, Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.

By that logic, Jim Jeffords would be regarded as an extremist conservative when he's most certainly not. Personall, I would not want Jim Jeffords to be the next governor of California.

[Princeliberty]

So he will have to have massive tax increase to
pay his programs then.

[Robert_Paulson2]

count on it.
I am telling you the fix is in.

[goldstategop]

One term Conan. I don't think he'll pull a Kenny Guinn til a second term. You think Arnold doesn't want to get re-elected?

[Princeliberty]

No McClintock simply needs to get the conservatives
to rally behind him.

You are way too influenced by polls.
Does it not give you pause that the polls
are done by the very media guys you can't trust.

[Drago]

...ARNOLD's Campaign Co-Chairman PETE WILSON is saying that ARNOLD will put California on a spend what you can afford basis, just like his After School Initiative is, which has yet to be funded because of the Budget Crisis. ...No money, No programs.

How about "No Money, No Programs", "Plenty of money = Tax Cuts & still no programs"?

[Princeliberty]

I think he do right away, use the defecit as
the excuse.

I don't think in the world Arnold lives
in he will have any idea that a massive tax
will kill him. He will claim he is doing
just like Reagan did and even then a number
you guys probably will accept that since
he is a Republican.

Just for the record if Arnold wins I predict one the
congressman that will defeated by Democrats
in the big blacklash against Republican party
because of Arnold being even worse than Davis
will be his slave follower Roshenbacher.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"He's been to the rodeo before."

---

Yes he has... and he killed the prize bull, gutted it, and ate it...

RAW.
Davis is peeing the panties that hillary loaned him. So are, I think, the ultra right conservatives who have been presiding over the death and burial of the republican party, for the last six years in California. They are wanting to fight over the corpse... but pragmatists realize we need a new body entirely. And the righty tighty brand of conservatism won't cut it.

California has, perhaps the most resilient economy on the face of the planet, and it took a lot of corrupt extraction of wealth into democratic coffers, to bring down the Mighty Colossus. Califorinia will thrive, however if we just get Davis out of the way... even just a little!

California cannot get any worse. What we are seeing and hearing from the "true believer" one issue repubicans, is a palpable fear based on the sure knowlege that the state will get better and a right wing morally religious zealot won't get the credit.

A few morally libertarian victories across the nation, would really upset their place as the "screamers" of virtue in the republican party. They are all biting their tongues for now about the emergence and elevation of "too liberal" Rudy Guilliani. He too is flawed in their morality play handbook. They have a sinking feeling they are headed for 40 years in the wilderness, with fearless leader... patrick j, or his compatriots... the vestigal members of the moral majority...

As a result they MUST be OUTRAGED at arnold! as a matter of survival, it will be too little too late.

Look for the more radicalistas "true conservatives" around here to go all out slurring, attacking and demanding the moderators ban the "fake conservatives" and what they will say are obvious "du members", you know, "arnold" supporters.

Their day is fast approaching.
The true believers of religion AS government, see Arnold the irreligious "body builder" from sin city California as an immoral man... and the idea of him actually pulling this off is more than they can stand.

[Robert_Paulson2]

The chief qualification for winning the endorsement of "true conservatives" is unelectibility...

They consider it "morally superior." After all, if you are actually popular enough to be elected, ods are you are too immoral to pass their morally "superior" smugness threshold. This threshold is absolutely necessary for "true conservatism" to be kept in the losing column of each and every election.

They are practitioners of a political "suicide ideology," akin to the radical islamics... who kill themselves for the cause. True conservatives kill the cause with their intransigence... the state of California be damned. God needs to teach those heathens in California a lesson. They will as a minimum at least shoot themselves in both feet, in the process.

Look for them to be sore losers, and if their pet candidate is NOT close to Arnold in the weeks running up to the election. Watch them, on this very website, brag about how they are going to stay home so that Immoral Arnold and the moral libertarians amongst us, won't have a chance.

bah humbug. Arnold will win without them anyway.
They will still try to take credit... too little too late.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Saying "silly me" doesn't answer my question.

[b9]

Excuse me, what is your question?

[Joe Hadenuf]

I understand fully. None of these people bitching here about Schwarzenegger are any more to the right than I am. None! However, I am smart enough to realize that probably 40 percent of these people resent California for a variety of reasons, the most of which is jealousy. Been that way for many many years. I've seen it first hand, even during the Reagan Administration.

As I said earlier, to California whiners it don't matter. California could elect General Schwarzcopf and they would bitch and say, "yeah, but he was against the war in Iraq" and is nothing but a liberal!

Schwarzenegger has never even held a public office, and they are attempting to destroy him by any means necessary. That in itself I find suspect.

If McClintok were the only candidate he would get my vote, but at this point, that isn't the way it is, and the numbers do not favor McClintok. If the numbers show he has a chance at election time he will get my vote. However if it's Schwarzenegger, I am confident that he too could turn the Davis mess around in short order, and I for one feel he would be many times better than Davis.

Compared to Davis, Schwarzenegger is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, IMHO.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Excuse me, what is your question?

The question was the words with the question mark after it.

Here's another one. Do you agree with Arnold's views on social issues?

[Afronaut]

"In liberalizing the Republican Party, liberals have two parties to do their bidding. What they do from without -- pressuring Republicans to compromise their principles -- Schwarzenegger can do from within."

What part of this statement is not True?

"All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing."

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
John Adams

[okie01]

"But you do not win with Arnold. You win by rallying around McClintock and getting him in."

I don't live in California and, thus, am not in a position to rally around anybody.

McClintock, however, would be my personal choice and I believe he would make a superb governor. Were I in California, I would work for him. But I would not waste my time attacking other Republicans and instead would root for the defeat of any and all Democrats.

If McClintock can't win (and, to be honest, he can't), then Arnold is the next best thing for California...and for Republicans.