Arnold a Republican? (Arnold a Trojan Horse for liberals)

NewsMax.com ^ | 8/25/03 | John LeBoutillier

[M 91 u2 K]

Trojan Horses

As candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger tries to not answer specific questions about his stances on issues - and as his poll numbers decline - Republicans should ask one question: if we nominate and elect a candidate who will not tell us where he stands, why are we so in love with him? "Because he can win!"

That is the reply from many who want the power in GOP hands - no matter what.

But let us examine the case of New York City and the so-called Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

Mr. Bloomberg, a self-made billionaire, was a life-long Democrat who voted in 2000 for both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. He then decided to run for Mayor in 2001 and was quickly informed that as a rich white man he probably could not win the Democratic nod for Mayor.

No problem, said Bloomberg. He quickly changed his party registration and proceeded to pour cash into the virtually broke New York City GOP coffers. Quickly the party leaders happily endorsed Bloomberg.

Then came 9/11, a split Democrat field and Rudi Giuliani's attempt to stay in power for an extra 6 months. When all was said and done, Bloomberg narrowly squeaked by Mark Green.

Within a year and a half, the Republican Bloomberg has done the following in New York City: raised taxes, raised rents, raised the cost of water, limited the number of words and numbers on awnings, banned smoking in all public places - which has caused a 40% loss of business in city bars and restaurants - taken over the public schools and created the nation's first all-Gay High School.

This is a Republican?

No, the problem here in New York is that the GOP was for sale and Bloomberg's billions bought the nomination.

Now in California the same thing may be happening. Arnold Schwarzenegger - an entertaining and humorous actor - speaks only in vague generalities. And his aides and campaign spokesmen keep leaking that he may have to raise taxes.

The Austrian-born Schwarzenegger, married to a Kennedy, appears to be a typical western European socialist. This particular brand of thinking believes in capitalism - but also they believe in interventionist government with 'cradle-to-grave' health and security programs.

Even before running for office, Mr. Schwarzenegger campaigned for and won a ballot initiative to provide after-school programs for poor kids. Noble in intent, such a program will cost the California taxpayers more than $500 million this year - in a year with a $38 billion dollar deficit.

He is for gun control, gay marriages and gay adoption. And his chief economic advisor, investor Warren Buffet, a day after joining the Schwarzenegger campaign, came out for higher California property taxes. And Arnold refuses to can him.

These mixed signals indicate that Mr. Schwarzenegger may be - like Mike Bloomberg in New York City - a Trojan Horse. They take power under the GOP party label and then once in office they reveal themselves to be Big Government liberals.

The father of modern day Republicansim - Ronald Reagan - used to say that the key to victory was to have "no pale pastels." In other words, to clearly contrast yourself from your opponent. But today too many Republicans want to hide or shade their views in hopes of sneaking into office.

What is wrong with running for office and making it quite clear what you are going to do - and what you are not going to do?

Isn't that really the only honest way to run?

[M 91 u2 K]

The best way to promote the conservative agenda is to for politicians to talk and act like conservatives. We may lose a elections here and there but we will slowly build up the base.
It is better to build up a real conservative base rather then advance the liberal agenda to gain a few swing votes.
After all they are called swing or undecided voters which means they are undecided if you present the conservative agenda to them in a attractive way they will follow.
Being a RINO leads you nowhere.

[epluribus_2]

He strongly supports President Bush - and would lead the state with the largest number of electoral votes. Do I need any more reason to support him over some loser who will guarantee a Davis or Aztlan-Rat democrat to keep running things (into the ground?). The question is not even worthy of debate.

[Kevin Curry]

Within a year and a half, the Republican Bloomberg has done the following in New York City: raised taxes, raised rents, raised the cost of water, limited the number of words and numbers on awnings, banned smoking in all public places - which has caused a 40% loss of business in city bars and restaurants - taken over the public schools and created the nation's first all-Gay High School. This is a Republican?

Dumb question.

He has an "R" by his name, doesn't he?

[Kevin Curry]

He strongly supports President Bush

His one vote may not make a whole lot of difference to Bush if Bush loses a significant chunk of his base because the base is dispirited and stays home election night.

[Grand Old Partisan]

If you want Bustamente to win, then it is you who is a Democrat and a Republican-In-Name-Only.

[comebacknewt]

A better comparison would be to Rudy Giuliani. He is a RINO on many issues, but he has been a tremendous asset for the GOP overall.

Arnold would be similar to Rudy IMHO.

[TheDon]

A rather simplistic and speculative opinion piece.

"Mr. Bloomberg, a self-made billionaire, was a life-long Democrat...

He quickly changed his party registration and proceeded to pour cash into the virtually broke New York City GOP coffers. Quickly the party leaders happily endorsed Bloomberg.

This is a Republican?

No, the problem here in New York is that the GOP was for sale and Bloomberg's billions bought the nomination.

Now in California the same thing may be happening."

Cute, many on FR have tried to make the same comparison. Unfortunately, Arnold was not a lifelong Demorat who switched parties recently. He's been in the party longer than most Freepers.

Read the article carefully and notice how many "mays", and statements from others the author uses. Also, count how many quotes from Arnold are provided.

[pogo101]

William F. Buckley calls upon CA GOP to unite behind whomever leads two weeks prior to election -- "even" if that's Arnold.

[pogo101]

Is it fair to say your position is, "MCCLINTOCK OR BUST(amonte)"?

[TheDon]

People seem to confuse Republican with conservative, and not only in the press.

[Mr. Bird]

Even before running for office, Mr. Schwarzenegger campaigned for and won a ballot initiative to provide after-school programs for poor kids. Noble in intent, such a program will cost the California taxpayers more than $500 million this year - in a year with a $38 billion dollar deficit.

I'm not familiar with the merits (or absurdities) of the program, but lamenting its cost in the context of the state's deficit isn't helpful.

Needless to say, $500 mil is real money. But maybe that particular program is worth the expenditure. We shouldn't slam certain government programs (although it is proper for that to be the instinctive desire) primarily because they cost money. The $38 billion has a lot of crappy programs in it. So does the portion of the budget that is in balance. I would rather read that the program sucked for whatever reason than read that it adds to the deficit. Those are arguments used by the pro-taxation crowd. Sometimes you do things that are right and good, regardless of the cost.

Now, on to the RINO, Bloomberg, dangers of Ahhhnold arguments.

[brownie]

If you want Bustamente to win, then it is you who is a Democrat and a Republican-In-Name-Only.

I love the logic of equating the questioning of blind support for Arnold (who appears to be liberal) with supporting a liberal. It is an idiotic argument, which works both ways. You do realize that b/c you support Arnold, who is splitting the republican vote away from McClintock, that you are helping Bustamente to win?

And, exactly what do we win, if our candidate votes for all of our opponets policies (higher taxes, more spending, gay-adoption, gay marriage, etc.)? If you call that victory, then I do not think victory means what you think it means. I"m not saying that Arnold will - for sure - be against everything conservative, but he certainly has not shown that he is for anything conservative in his campaign to this point.

[afz400]

"Arnold would be similar to Rudy IMHO."
I suspect he would pull a Jim Jeffords, only become a Demo after elected, IMHO. Look what family he married into.

[pogo101]

Mr. Schwarzenegger campaigned for and won a ballot initiative to provide after-school programs for poor kids. Noble in intent, such a program will cost the California taxpayers more than $500 million this year - in a year with a $38 billion dollar deficit

Two points. I've repeatedly read that Prop 49 programs won't even kick in this year; it's unfunded until the state economy grows, and it hasn't. Second, although I voted NO on Prop 49, I didn't know at the time that it was supported by Christopher Cox, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Taxpayers Union, California Chamber of Commerce ... and opposed by a bunch of liberal groups.

[Kevin Curry]

Conservative Republicans made this recall possible. Sit-on-the-sideline so-called moderates now want the conservatives to go sit in a corner while Arnold plays out his megalomania.

Poking hard-working conservative Republicans in the collective eye with a pointy stick is not the way to motivate them to support your candidate.

[brownie]

You can't use quotes from Arnold b/c he has not laid out his position on anything. The only thing we know for certain, is that Arnold has NOT ruled out raising taxes.

I cannot believe that I am actually arguing with Freepers over the questioning of a candidate who won't tell anyone his positions. I can't believe Freepers want us to blindly and unquestioningly support a candidate who won't state his positions on issues, who surrounds himself with liberals, talks about possibly raising taxes, supports homosexual adoption and gun control, supported more spending at least on a recent proposition, supports abortion, and is married to a kennedy. I think that is astounding!!

What is wrong with refusing to vote for the guy unless/until he gives conservatives a reason to???

[imawit]

You're the one trying to lead everyone nowhere. Your advocating Davis or Bustamonte, defacto !

You're certainly not a team player. 2nd string is up and this mess may get pulled out of the fire and you want to dump the only Repulican chance.

A you a defeatist or a spoiled brat that can't get his way.

[Atlas Sneezed]

You can't use quotes from Arnold b/c he has not laid out his position on anything.

---

Here's some:
"Gun controls should be stiffer." -Arnold Schwarzenegger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953400/posts

[Kevin Curry]

Poking hard-working conservative Republicans in the collective eye with a pointy stick is not the way to motivate them to support your candidate.

[ExpandNATO]

A better comparison would be to Rudy Giuliani. He is a RINO on many issues, but he has been a tremendous asset for the GOP overall.

Arnold would be similar to Rudy IMHO.

Rudy Giuliani has the following conservative positions: cut taxes (not much, but there was a cut), very tough on crime and unafraid of the criminal lovers, tried to do something useful about one of the excrement covered blasphemous so-called works of arts. His truly bothersome liberal position, sabotage of illegal immigrant enforcement.

The last moderate Republican of California (Pete Wilson) managed to veto gun-control, lower taxes and be anti-illegal alien in position and deed.

With Arnold, I have no accomplishments, lots of liberal positions (pro-gun control, pro-abortion, advisors that are pro-tax (offsetting his latest speech), pro-illegal alien) and literally nothing to offset them and no proof that he will not "outgrow" whatever conservative stand he might take.