Republicans First or Conservatives First?

Media Research Center ^ | August 19, 2003 | Brent Bozell

[TBP]

The Arnold Schwarzenegger candidacy may become a classic contest for activists to decide whether they are Republicans or conservatives first. Republicans are urging everyone to jump on the bandwagon, to "wake up and smell the Arnie," to take the pragmatic step that will guarantee the ouster of incompetent Gov. Gray Davis.

But what do conservatives gain for this leap of faith? This movie star’s campaign still is not presenting any concrete positions, conservative or liberal. He would like to be seen as a fiscal conservative, but Schwarzenegger has signed no anti-tax pledge nor offered any spending cuts or bureaucratic reforms. Instead, he has touted advisers like Warren Buffett, last hailed by Ted Koppel as "the sage of Omaha" for opposing the Bush tax cuts. Buffett’s also been a financial booster of Senators Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On social issues, conservatives gain nothing by elevating a Gov. Schwarzenegger. He told Cosmopolitan magazine "I have no sexual standards in my head that say this is good or this is bad." It also doesn’t help that adviser Buffett has been a massive funder of Planned Parenthood, the Vatican-bashing front group calling itself "Catholics for a Free Choice," and a bevy of other radical abortion proponents.

Some suggest Schwarzenegger’s leftist social views are irrelevant because this race is based on economics. But does anyone doubt that the 2004 Republican convention in New York would be dominated by media heavies tripping over themselves to get the governor of the nation’s most populous state to denounce the GOP platform on social issues as "out of the mainstream"? He would probably become the keynote speaker, or be at least as prominent on the podium as Christopher Reeve was for the Democrats the last time around, dominating one of the convention nights.

Conservatives should already notice what is happening in California coverage. The press is using Arnold to marginalize the right. On CNN, reporter Dan Lothian observed that "while Schwarzenegger has been connected to some conservative themes, like eliminating the car tax and voting for the anti-illegal immigrant measure Prop 187, his support of gay rights, abortion rights, and some gun control, [is] turning off the far right."

Lothian kept pounding: "For now, many conservatives are embracing Bill Simon who had impressive numbers but lost to Gray Davis last year, and state Senator Tom McClintock....The big question: Does Schwarzenegger even need the far right to win?" Lothian turned to USC professor Martin Kaplan, who added: "To the degree that Arnold Schwarzenegger tries to appeal to that far right vote, he will alienate the very moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats that he needs to put together a coalition."

The brain trust at CNN would relgate the philosophy of Ronald Reagan, that same philosophy that triggered two landslide election victories, to the "far right."And they wonder why their network is tanking.

CNN doesn’t care that Lothian’s utterly conventional labeling is at odds with its own network polls, that shows that it is Schwarzenegger’s "if it feels good do it" liberal positions on abortion and homosexuality that are out of the majority, out of the mainstream, and therefore better defined as "far left" than conservatives are defined as "far right." Why do these liberal media outlets always locate "the center" of our political spectrum somewhere in Massachusetts?

Lothian even hinted at marginalizing that massive and very real majority of Californians, the 59 percent who voted for the "anti-illegal immigrant" Proposition 187 back in 1994. You will never see Democrats described on CNN as "pro-illegal immigrant." Other reporters have used the appellation "anti-immigration" for that vote. Too many reporters leave out the nuance that you can be for Prop. 187 and for legal immigration. You can love your immigrant neighbors, and still think it’s a bad idea to provide a five-star menu of taxpayer-funded social services to people who have no respect for our legal system.

If desiring a legal, measured system of immigration that doesn’t encourage law-breaking puts you on the "far right," then where on the ideological spectrum do we place the judges and radical advocates who got this majority vote crushed? Once again, the media have described a political battle as between the "far right" and the "public interest," as propagandistic as that sounds.

The politics of Schwarzenegger may remain a mystery, but the politics of the "objective" press never really change. Conservatives have much to lose from creating a Frankenstein monster they can’t control, not to mention how the definition of "Republican" or "conservative" might be warped beyond recognition. Californians should just say no to the Schwarzeneggernaut.

[Roscoe]

Arnold's quotes are very damning.

[TBP]

The problem is that his own words show that Arnold isn;t a conservative of any kind. Every indication is that the steps he will take are in the wrong direction. Why support that?

[South40]

Purposefully, as they really have no rational argument.

[A CA Guy]

What is being said by many is that being stubborn and to vote for a candidate that is unelectable due to principles is not smart and only gets Democrats elected.

That is a fact and can not be argued with.

We have a Dem Cruz with no fracture in the voting because there is no other Dem candidate.

There then is Arnold who is electable, popular and not 100% conservative.
Instead of just him, there are two others who siphon off small bits of the vote like the Green party did from Democrats in 2000. That doesn't benefit Republicans and if they don't get with the program and use their vote for the electable candidate...you instead get a liberal Democrat with ties to a group wanting to give Arizona, California and other parts of the United States back to Mexico.

[TheAngryClam]

Yeah, and the conservative Representative Christopher Cox endorsed Arnold too.

Except Cox also endorsed Riordan.

Why don't you show me a policy paper that would make me believe in Arnold's fiscal conservatism? You can't, because he hasn't issued one.

[Protagoras]

Some confusion here. I was asking about the other poster who will not answer if HE (the poster) is in favor of gun registration. Why do you think THE POSTER refuses to answer?

[South40]

You need to work on your comprehension skills there skippy.

I didn't call you stupid. I said you had a simple thought.

And I can always tell when someone feels they are losing a debate...they pick on spelling. lol!

Good show.

[A CA Guy]

Lets say in a dream that Arnold's numbers hits the floor near McC's and Simon's numbers, how will that benefit Republicans? All that means is Cruz is the next Governor.

[Roscoe]

Cox also endorsed Riordan.

Dreier did too. Deja vu.

[Protagoras]

Arnold's quotes are very damning.

Not as damning as your refusal to answer the question; Are you in favor of gun registration?

[TheAngryClam]

Arnold isn't 1% conservative, even.

And, as I've argued, from a "no new taxes" perspective, it's BETTER to have a Democrat elected than a tax-hiking Republican.

The legislative GOP will hold the line against Democrat-proposed taxes. We saw that in this year's budget battle. However, they break immediately to support a GOP-proposed tax hike. We saw that in 1991 with Wilson.

Ipso facto, it is better to have a tax-loving Democrat in office than a tax-loving Republican, because at least with the Democrat, one party will stand up for what's right.

[Roscoe]

Lets say in a dream that Arnold's numbers hits the floor

Then he can go commiserate with Dick Riordan.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

If the federal government would protect our borders Californians would have a chance at electing a conservative Republican like Ronald Reagan again.
The costs of illegals for the education, health and welfare are enormous. They also take good jobs in construction, hotels, canneries, etc. from many Americans.
California's taxpayers have been paying for the federal government's failure to protect our borders for decades.
With the increase in voter fraud, illegals are now costing us elections; ask Bob Dornan.

[winner3000]

(I oppose your beloved Arnold's gun control agenda.)

I do too. However, I look at the candidate as a whole and I'm starting to like the way he started talking this week responding the Rush's challenge. I think Arnold is a fiscal conservative(at least by CA standards) who was afraid to come out about it because he's always been surrounded by liberals and thought all of California thinks that way. Rush gave him courage to speak out.

On the gun issue, if this was the only issue I cared about I would vote for Dean (it was difficult to type that sentence, LOL). It is an important issue but not the most important in California right now. Regardless, I would like Arnold to answer the question about what gun control and the 2nd amendment mean to him.

[Roscoe]

Arnold's quotes are very damning.

Thanks for the admission.

[Protagoras]

Purposefully, as they really have no rational argument.

You aren't the only one on this forum who thinks that poster is purposely obtuse. But I'm not convinced yet. It may be that he doesn't have the capability to to think.

[A CA Guy]

Not over his politics, only over his movies.

Today we had a dozen major Hollywierd types come speak out against Arnold...he must be doing something right?

[TheAngryClam]

Oh, my mistake. Too many pronouns.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, because it's hard to keep track of minor threads when you're trying to argue with six people at once on FR.

Moving right along, possibly because he doesn't think his own belief is relevant, although when arguing about principles and politics that makes little sense.

Maybe he's ok with some form of instant background check, but not licenses and a master database like "registration" often means to us in the RKBA crowd. By refusing to answer without knowing what "registration" exactly entails, he avoids getting his own position misrepresented, and then having to spend time that he would rather use arguing about Arnold, defining and defending his gun position.

Those are my guesses, at least.

[A CA Guy]

I think Ronald himself spoke against Buffets property tax issue very well. (Not referring to the 500 push-ups)

[Protagoras]

Admission to what? That Arnold is a liberal? Everyone with a brain knows that, even some without. You are an example of that. But the question remains;

DO YOU SUPPORT GUN REGISTRATION?