Right gives Arnold second look

Washington Times ^ | Aug 21, 2003 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[capocchio]

not to hurt the main effort of getting rid of Davis

Agreed, except the main effort extends to getting rid of the Democrats in the governor's chair. Which includes therefore Bustamente. Which means therefore that 5% of the vote and 50:1 odds don't cut it.

Where and how exactly is McClintock going to multiply his support by a factor of five (5) or more? The simple answer is that he cannot. Conservative messages have sold well in referendums in California in the past, but that was in simple go/no go campaigns.

This recall just has too much "noise" in it for the conservative message to be heard. And thus, I think, the conservatives need to decide whether a governor with an (R) is what they want, or one with a (D). The first is a first step towards change in California, the second is the old politics.

I wouldn't worry about Arnold not being able to solve California's crisis. No one will be able to do much in time for the '04 elections, though some major actions, such as kicking butt in Sacramento will help. After all he will only have a year and will still be in the euphoria stage with the electorate and thus will still have some clout to help GW with.

The corollary to this is that Bustamente won't have enough time to fail much either. So he would have less negative impact on Demo candidates in '04.

So what do we want, one (R) in the hand now, or forego that and go with none now and hope to get maybe two later (R + real conservative)? The time to attack is now. The populace didn't respond last year, and no matter what you say the causes were, it still remains that the R's did not get their message across. Perhaps the R's need to move aside the "real" conservatives and let someone in who at least has a ghost of a chance to win. Even if to some his "R" is tainted with a trailer of "ino".

Frankly, I think we can get the two later with the (R) now, even by osmosis. If Arnold actually makes progress towards solving the California crisis, which I think he may and which will take some conservative actions no matter what, then we have gained. Don't be too quick to mark him down. We could do the same thing with GW right now, and for the same reasons. Does that mean we won't support GW's re-election bid in '04? I didn't think so.

In a race with only two or three candidates, such as the presidential elections next year, a conservative message might be able to tap into the demonstrated strength of certain conservative causes (e.g., no social handouts to illegal aliens, no on bilingual education, limiting affirmative action, defining marriage as one man-one woman, etc.). The problem will then be Bush himself and the stregth and bluntness of his message. Will he be a "Terminator" as he was after 911, or will he be a compassionate conservative as his father was and let the war-time support slip away?

No so much slip away as stay home from the polls, as they did in '96 and '98. What we need is both a motivated R base, plus other "conservatives" and "moderates" (you know, a D to the right of Ted Kennedy) who want something to tie to that hasn't yielded to the complaints of the left leaning antennae crowd.

Bush's cause was going in the toilet in '02 until he got out on the campaign trial with just such a message. Hopefully his "handlers", including his father, will go with a stronger message this time, calling a spade a spade, and a D a traitor, calling them to task for all the opposition and personal animosity towards him they's spent the last 4 years ventilating on.

In short, I think a R as governor of California will do Bush more good than a D. What a joke to have gone to all this trouble and get the electorate all riled up and not be willing to take the opportunity offered rather than to hold out for for religious purity.

[Tamzee]

Oh, please... you know exactly what I am referring to. And it is the same type of "debating" skills you use on all these threads, I don't need to direct anyone to a particular post.

[Roscoe]

you know exactly what I am referring to.

Yep. You're lying.

[Reagan Man]

>>>I never said a seminar, dear...

A minor point. It's not relvent to the debate.

>>>It doesn't fit in with the lies you are claiming, though, so you completely ignore it.... very Clintonian.

Now you went and spoiled everything and just when we were getting along so well. Nice try, bucko. But my conservative credentials remain secure and intact. And your BS is well documented on this thread.

Btw, exactly what lies do you claim I've uttered?

The facts about Arnold are well documented.

Arnold supports abortion on demand. That's a fact. Arnold supports gay rights. That's a fact. And Arnold supports gun control. That's a fact also. Arnold is a social liberal and to date, he hasn't proven that he even comes close to being a fiscal conservative.

Let's see your rebuttal.

[Tamzee]

And you're not worth debating with on this issue... I've seen how you post and I don't think we would ever find mutual ground.

Good night.

[Roscoe]

Pleasant dreams.

[Tamzee]

Arnold supports abortion on demand. That's a fact. Arnold supports gay rights. That's a fact. And Arnold supports gun control.

I've already stipulated that he is not a pure conservative on social issues. I don't agree that he is far-left, but that is a matter of perspective I guess.

Do you agree that he has a documented history going back to 1990 showing his support for conservative economics?

[Reagan Man]

>>>And how can you still insist that Arnold is a fiscal liberal upon knowing this?

I never said Arnold was a fiscal liberal. I said he wasn't a fiscal conservative. Along with being a social liberal, in my book, those two combined facts, make him a liberal RINO. And what happened in 1990 has nothing to do with the words and deeds of Arnold Schwarzenegger today. Arnold wanting to bolt the GOP in defesne of Clinton is icing on the cake.

[Roscoe]

"Our politicians should also work harder to make education a priority instead of paying the teachers a measly $25,000 while a lawyer makes a million." --Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Reagan Man]

>>>I've already stipulated that he is not a pure conservative on social issues.

Not a pure conservative! If supporting abortion on demand, gay rights and gun control, isn't the sign of a social liberal, then you're lost in the political ozone. Somewhere between the outer limits and the twilight zone.

I think you should get a mirror and talk to yourself.

The fact Arnold was on a Milton Friedman video in 1990, doesn't make him a a fiscal conservative, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Tamzee]

And what happened in 1990 has nothing to do with the words and deeds of Arnold Schwarzenegger today

Sigh... I give up.

Wishing you a good night also and looking forward to a day when we wind up on the same side of a debate LOL

With a screenname like yours I just can't help but like you :-)

[Roscoe]

"I'm for gun control. I'm a peace-loving guy." --Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Tamzee]

I said good night, Roscoe :-)

[Reagan Man]

BTW, for your information, Arnold is a self professed social liberal and he's proven it time and time again.

Arnold is also a self professed fiscal conservative, but so far, he hasn't proved it.

[Reagan Man]

>>>With a screenname like yours I just can't help but like you :-)

One conservative video, doesn't make one, a fiscal conservative. Good night! ;^)

[jam137]

Conservatives yesterday indicated more support for Arnold Schwarzenegger's bid to become governor of California.

But they still stood ready to jump to one of two other major Republican candidates if the "Terminator" star stumbles badly in the campaign to replace Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

I think that the above is a very sensible position to take, especially given some of the past events of Schwarzenegger's campaign:

1. Schwarzenegger made his candidacy announcement on Leno, dazzling us with his witty movie references. The fun continued the next day in other interviews, although some people became concerned that he didn't answer questions about his positions using much in the way of specifics.

2. Next, he largely absented himself from the media, and after a few days these consultants with "gravitas" were added to the campaign: Warren Buffett (a liberal) and George Shultz (a Reagan conservative). Rob Lowe (a Hollywood liberal) was also added to the team (he has "gravitas" of another kind, perhaps). Trouble struck soon afterwards, however, when the day after being hired Buffett made remarks which suggested that Prop. 13, the "third rail" of CA politics, is a Bad Thing. In response, a campaign spokesman stated that "Mr. Buffett doesn't speak for Mr. Schwarzenegger."

3. Then, after Schwarzenegger was "virtually silent for two weeks on substantive positions he would take as governor", his campaign announced that he would be holding an economic "summit" with some of his top advisers and would be subsequently interacting with the press. Rep. David Dreier, co-chairman of Schwarzenegger's campaign, said that at the press conference Schwarzenegger "will call for repeal of the tripling of the car tax that [Democratic Gov. Gray] Davis instituted." He added that Schwarzenegger "is going to be strongly conservative, clearly demonstrate that he is his own man and stand up to Warren Buffett." That Schwarzenegger supposedly needed to "stand up to" someone he hired seems strange to me. Stranger still, though, was the fact that the "call for repeal" didn't actually occur. Perhaps in this article Rep. Dreier didn't "speak for Mr. Schwarzenegger," however. It's hard to say, since at some point earlier Schwarzenegger stated that he would roll back the vehicle license fee.

Now, the summit+press conference was generally considered successful, since Schwarzenegger spoke well and got into some depth about his vision. Schwarzenegger sought to allay conservative fears about Prop. 13 once and for all by stating that if Buffett "mentions Prop 13 one more time, he has to do 500 sit-ups." He added, "I am in principle against taxes because I feel the people of California have been taxed enough." Yet, he said that he won't sign on to a "no new taxes" pledge because of the possibility of natural disasters or terrorist strikes. This led to much bandwidth being subsequently spent by conservatives parsing statements such as these -- in part due to the fact that the chairman of his campaign is former Governor Pete Wilson. Wilson is "regarded by many conservatives as a tax-and-spend Republican during his two-term governorship," as it says in the original article of this thread.

Schwarzenegger also tried to diffuse any "carping" about "25-point" plans for solving California's problems. This fit well with another part of his message: "No one ... could figure out or make heads or tails of the state budget. We don't know what is being spent and we don't know where." But, the NY Times notes:

Mr. Schwarzenegger said he would not provide specifics on budget cuts during the campaign. "The public doesn't care about figures," he said.

"What the people want to hear is, are you willing to make the changes. Are you tough enough to go in there and provide leadership. "

So, there is some question about whether any future vagueness on Schwarzenegger's part will be due to inability ("No one ... could figure out or make heads or tails of the state budget") or be due to unwillingness ("The public doesn't care about figures"). Nevertheless, at the end of the press conference, Schwarzenegger did promise that there will be many more opportunities in the future for the press to interact with him.

4. Finally, his tax policy came up again yesterday as well, when one of Schwarzenegger's spokesmen (Sean Walsh) was interviewed by Fox News. Fox reports:

Walsh told Fox News that the state's credit rating — which is barely above junk bond status now — is more important than preserving a "no new taxes" approach to governing. Walsh emphasized the campaign is "in no way, shape or form" considering tax hikes now, but was preserving its options if the state's fiscal crisis worsens.

But, soon afterwards he made a retraction:

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated clearly his intention to cut taxes to make California's job climate a competitive one. Regrettably, in comments I made to Fox today, I left the impression that Arnold Schwarzenegger could consider increasing taxes based on economic conditions. I misspoke," said spokesman Sean Walsh.

"I did not articulate my own intentions and certainly not Arnold Schwarzenegger's position. The impression I left is wrong. As Arnold stated yesterday, I very much believe that Californians have been over-taxed and over-spent."

Now, perhaps Walsh was ordered to do 500 sit-ups himself as penance. At minimum, however, this is yet another incident of someone on Schwarzenegger's staff apparently having difficulty speaking for Mr. Schwarzenegger.

These things being the case, it's still true that many Important Republicans have stated their support for Schwarzenegger. The talking point which says that this election should not contain a "Republican primary" is becoming more and more commonly heard, as pressure is being mounted to have McClintock and others drop out of the race. I think it would be wise for someone like McClintock to stick around for awhile, though. The first candidate forum of the election will be Sept. 3, and all but one of the major candidates have already committed to being there (guess who's the one). But, even if Schwarzenegger doesn't show up, he still almost surely will be at the Sept. 17 debate. Perhaps soon after one of these events candidates should start dropping out -- after Schwarzenegger has had a chance to make his case in this type of arena. We should know much more at that point, since presumably at least the candidate speaks for himself. After all, things might get rocky for his campaign.

[Saundra Duffy]

I'll give this a bump.

[TheDon]

"Good politicians like Ronald Reagan, went in with a detailed plan and specific agenda. And to be a statesman, you first have to be successful."

Really? For a ReaganMan, you have a remarkably faulty memory.

January 12, 1984

The Honorable Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President,

Following your directive to identify and suggest remedies for waste and abuse in the Federal Government, the President's Private Sector Survey (PPSS) offers recommendations which would save:

$424 billion in three years, rising to

$1.9 trillion per year( by the year 2000.

Bring back any memories?

Arnold has totally outclassed his opponents vote pandering gimmicks by suggesting that professional accountants review the budget before deciding on what needs to be done to reduce spending.

McClintock wants "a comprehensive review of every state agency and program now on the books"? Does that mean that he to thinks its a good idea to find out what the problems are first with spending? I'm confused by your reasoning, is this a good thing or a bad thing.

And to be a statesman, you first have to be successful."

I can see what you mean, Arnold hasn't had a lot of success in his life....

At this point of the campaign, any conservative who supports a liberal like Schwarzenegger, needs their head examined.

Of course, I think any conservative who supports anyone but Arnold needs their head examined. Voting for anyone else is a vote for Bustamente, and a continuance of the status quo.

Will you vote for Arnold when Tom drops out and throws his support behind Arnold?

[Reagan Man]

>>>Really? For a ReaganMan, you have a remarkably faulty memory.

Well, I think its you who has a remarkably faulty memory, not me.

Reagan was already President for four years when he requested the "Grace Report", which you refer to, but don't name.

In the 1980 campaign, Reagan gave his specifics/details for what eventually became the Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The RTA was the most comprehensive tax reform since 1954. It affected the following specific provisions for individuals: Individual Tax Rate Changes, Reduction in Top Tax Rate, Impact on Capital Gains, Tax Planning Considerations, Adjustment to Alternative Minimum Tax, Indexation, Marriage Penalty Relief, Deductions for Charitable Contributions, Sale of a Principal Residence, Child Care Credit, Adoption Expense Deduction, State Legislators' Expenses, Tax Shelter Provisions, Savings Incentives for Individuals, Retirement Savings Provisions, Retirement Plans for Self-Employed Individuals, Incentive Stock Options, Fringe Benefit Moratorium.

The RTA also brought a host of other specific changes to the financial aspects of the US tax code, which overall, had significant affects on businesses and investments.

Later on in his second term Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The RTA reduced the marginal tax rates from a high of 70% down to 50% and the TRA lowered it even further, down to 28%. Reagan's reform of the US tax code created a two tier tax rate system of the 28% and 15%. Reagan also reduced actual discretionary spending in his first three years in office. A monumental feat, to say the least. Reagan's fiscal responsibility led to an expansion of the US economy that lasted until the year 2000.

Reagan made proposals before he became President and while he was President. Reagan was never silent on the details of his economic plan. Reagan was a fiscal conservative. Arnold is not a fiscal conservative.

>>>Arnold has totally outclassed his opponents ...

Yes. Arnold is a nice looking candidate.

>>>McClintock wants "a comprehensive review of every state agency and program now on the books"? Does that mean that he to thinks its a good idea to find out what the problems are first with spending?

If you read what I said, who'd see its goes hand in hand with McClintock's plan to reduce spending by 9.5% for 18 months. Guess you missed that specific detail.

And to be a statesman, you first have to be successful."

>>>I can see what you mean, Arnold hasn't had a lot of success in his life....

Being a successful actor doesn't make you a statesman. LOL

>>>Voting for anyone else is a vote for Bustamente, and a continuance of the status quo.

Not in this case. Like Bustamonte, Arnold is a liberal too. That's a red herring.

>>>Will you vote for Arnold when Tom drops out and throws his support behind Arnold?

Well now, at least you asked the question that no one esle has asked. However, since I don't live in California, the question is null and void. Let me be more clear. Than God I don't live in California.

Have a nice day.

[Reagan Man]

correction: "Thank God I don't live in California."