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]

Logic

Blind partisanship isn't logic.

[Orangedog]

Here's what I don't get. These people live in one of the two biggest liberal/marxist hell-holes in the country and they actually act stunned that a conservative can no longer be elected as governor. And like the election is going to decide anything. Since the 2000 Gore-fest, elections don't determine who wins, the courts do. This worked in the GOP's favor in 2000, but I don't think The Nine in DC are going to hear this one. It will probabaly end up at the state supreme court or at the most, the 9th Circus.

[TBP]

Declaring someone unelectable and refusing to support him for that reason is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone who agreed with the conservative candidates voted for tehm instead of the "pragmatic" Kennedy Republican, they would have enough to build a plurality and win this race. But too many of you would rather waste your vote on a liberal because he is a movie star with an R after his name.

Pragmatism doesn't work.

[floriduh voter]

Winning v. strict conservatism. That's what it's about imo. I think the DNC is so corrupt that beating them is very important to me. Who can beat the dems? That's what it comes down to.

I am neutral & in Florida, but Arnold supporters seem to be more prepared. Prove me wrong but please don't flame me. I present this for discussion purposes, not for personal attacks.

[hobbes1]

No. Only Miss Cleo carries sight into the Future. One never knows what is around the corner.




No Taxes Pledges are a nice gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless.

[Texas_Dawg]

Blind partisanship isn't logic.

Blind partisanship? McClintock, Simon, and Schwarzenegger are all Republicans.

[hobbes1]

And two of the Nations Foremost Economists (Laffer, Kudlow) advising him and in his corner.

[TheAngryClam]

How is McClintock unelectable?

He got 103,000 more votes than Bill Simon in 2002, despite being outspent 10-1 and in a downticket race.

He won a strong re-election in his state senate district in 2000, at the very same time it voted for Gore over Bush by 19%.

Yeah, sounds like he really could never win, huh?

[hobbes1]

I meant Foremost CONSERVATIVE Economists.

[Texas_Dawg]

I think the DNC is so corrupt that beating them is very important to me. Who can beat the dems? That's what it comes down to.

Not to mention that wherever there is a Democrat somewhere, it is in the best interests of conservatism that they be kept from political office. The successes (or total lack thereof) of the California conservatives and GOP over the last decade speak for themselves. They are as politically ineffective at advancing conservative causes.

[Roscoe]

Main Entry: 1par·ti·san
Variant(s): also par·ti·zan /'pär-t&-z&n, -s&n, -"zan, chiefly British "pär-t&-'zan/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French partisan, from Old Italian partigiano, from parte part, party, from Latin part-, pars part
Date: 1555
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition

[Orangedog]

Logic sure doesn't.

Hey, no fair dragging logic into politics!

[TBP]

Not a gimmick. Principle. Something a lot of Republicans don't understand.

Simple: If they send me a tax increase, I will veto it. Period. Simon and McClintock can take that position on principle and there is every reason to believe that they will stand by it.

Arnold, OTOH, "won't rule it out" becuse "you never say never." Just like a liberal Republican.

[TheAngryClam]

Note that the poll sample is badly skewed.

almost 25% of the respondents aren't even registered voters.

Slightly over 25% are registered, but not likely voters. That leaves less than 50% likely voters in the poll.

The idiots and the apathetic are Arnold's main constituency.

The Field Poll, which leans leftward about 5-10% due to its sample selection methods, had Simon at 8% and McClintock at 9% in the first few days of the Schwarzenegger bandwagon.

They didn't lose nearly have of those conservative votes to Arnold as he was sending up trial balloon after trial balloon of raising taxes, first with Buffett, then with Sean Walsh just a day ago.

[TheAngryClam]

Supreme Court of California is actually quite good, politically.

[Roscoe]

almost 25% of the respondents aren't even registered voters. Slightly over 25% are registered, but not likely voters. That leaves less than 50% likely voters in the poll.

Good points.

[Texas_Dawg]

Are you not in support of a Republican candidate (or any candidate for that matter) in this race? Sounds like you are just as partisan, if so.

[floriduh voter]

There are some decent GOP members in congress but their numbers are limited.

Further, we have some great freepers in California. They all have my respect and admiration.

[Roscoe]

Are you not in support of a Republican candidate

There's more than one candidate with an "R" behind their name and some of them have more than just an "R".

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

Arnold is not a liberal. In his press conference this week he spoke clearly in support of conservative causes like being over taxed, how he legally became an American citizen, how important it is to be fiscally responsible. He may not be as conservative as we would like, but the alternative is Bustamante.
Splitting the Republican vote is just going to elect Bustamante. McClintock and Simon do not have a chance in California. I voted for Simon the first time, but in this race he cannot win.