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.

[TheAngryClam]

That's grammar, not spelling.

I am guilty as charged as a grammar nazi, anyway. It's a pet peeve of mine to see people say that "Your being silly" and "this is you're bike."

[pogo101]

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.

Even your generalization were accepted, you must bear in mind that the governor appoints hundreds of judges and thousands of bureaucrats. Holding the line on taxes is extremely important, but there are other issues to consider too. Who knows how wacked-out left-wing the state judiciary would be, for example, if not for the judges appointed by Deukmejian and Wilson instead of Bradley, Feinstein and K.Brown during those years? There's a trade-off involved.

[South40]

You may have a point, though I'd be willing to bet he's just painted himself into a corner and sees no way out.

Then again...

lol!

[TheAngryClam]

Dean and Bush are actually identical on the gun issue.

Dean and Bush both support the 1994 Crime Bill's assault weapons ban, and want to leave any additional regulation up to the states.

Then again, Dean is from the state with the best gun laws in the country (excluding Alaska, which recently copied Vermont).

Strange days, aren't they?

[Protagoras]

Those are my guesses, at least

You left out the most probable one. That would be because he does support gun registration and doesn't want to admit it openly for fear of people finding out that he is actually a liberal on this forum pretending to be a conservative and acting like a buffoon in order to discredit conservatives. He has been doing it for years. Hard to believe you never saw this little dog and pony show from him.

[TheAngryClam]

These are the same people who call Gray Davis a conservative.

That doesn't mean that Davis is doing something right.

[Roscoe]

Buffett's Laguna Beach property taxes are much higher than he stated. The press gave him a pass.

[Maelstrom]

You are consistent.

RINOs support Bustamonte if they can't have Arnold.

The same RINOs gave us Davis because they couldn't have Riordan.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

He said his team will put something together soon.
Right now, California does not have enough conservatives to elect a good conservative. But, we have more than enough liberals to elect Cruz Bustamante.

[TheAngryClam]

Judges need voter approval. Californians can and will throw them out- look at what happened to Justice Rose Bird and her pals.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

They also take good jobs in construction, hotels, canneries, etc. from many Americans.

Funny, the free-traitors tell me that there just doing jobs us 'Mericans won't do...maybe you should clue them in. /heavy sarcasm

With the increase in voter fraud, illegals are now costing us elections;

(snicker) as the Republikans (i.e.Stupid Party) move ever so closer to court the hispanic vote.

[Protagoras]

Bingo. It would expose him to answer, so he doesn't. Instead he pretends you ask a different question and answers that. School children do that kind of thing all the time. :^}

[TheAngryClam]

Apart from the freepers I know in real life, I tend to not pay much attention to who the other posters are, rather, what they say.

So I probably did miss it.

[Roscoe]

That Arnold is a liberal? Everyone with a brain knows that

That still leaves open the question of whether you know it.

[South40]

You're {contraction necessary] parsing again.

As long as the message is clear, what difference does it make if there is a spelling or grammatical error?

[A CA Guy]

What seems to fly over many people's heads here is that the more conservative choices are totally unelectable at this time.
I have never claimed Arnold is my dream go-to guy from a conservative political point of view.
I have said we have lost battle after battle for the hearts and minds of Californians because we keep trying to get elected the whole conservative package at once. That doesn't work and isn't possible.
So either we keep losing races and elect Democrats by putting the same whole package out there or we learn by our mistakes.
If we learn we go with the electable people and as we win, slowly put more and more conservative candidates out there.
Do this over 20 years and you might be then able to elect a "Whole Package Conservative".
There can be no shortcuts in the process though. Just doesn't happen.

[Maelstrom]

Hello Senator John Jeffords.

[hobbes1]

Actually, make that CINOS, McClintock, and Simon....and you would be correct.


Act like a libertarian perform like a libertarian.

[A CA Guy]

So you prefer Bustamante?

[Roscoe]

You can ask me.