Skip to comments.Arnold Is No "Liberal" (Truth is Out!)
Posted on 08/26/2003 1:14:51 PM PDT by familyop
In order to make this determination, one has to plumb Schwarzenegger's background, actions, and past statements for indications of his politics. The evidence strongly suggests Arnold is not, in fact, a liberal. From the Wall Street Journal: "Bill Saracino, a former head of Gun Owners of California, believes that when it comes to conservatives evaluating Mr. Schwarzenegger, 'the glass is half full or way more.' He notes that Mr. Schwarzenegger has opposed strict gun controls." In a magazine interview, Arnold said, "Outlawing guns is not the right method of eliminating the problem. If you outlaw guns, people will still have them illegally." According to NewsMax: "Arnold has given private assurances to congressmen and Republican Party leaders that he will come out against partial-birth abortion, pederasts in the Boy Scouts, and welfare for illegal aliens. Couple that with a knowledgeable defense of free market economics gained through study of Milton Friedman and years of attending Reason Foundation seminars, and Arnold takes the wind out of his Republican opponents Bill Simon and Tom McClintock."
Arnold supported Proposition 187 to deny taxpayer-funded services for illegal immigrants. When criticized for it by the media, he did not backpedal and instead conveyed the importance of rule-of-law. On family values, Arnold understands the importance of two parent households. In Salon.com, he called the phenomenon of broken homes one of the most pressing problems in society today. These are some of the reasons that Hugh Hewitt came out in support of Arnold in his column on WorldNetDaily ("This conservative is voting for Arnold"). Hewitt summarizes his thinking this way, "I support the most conservative candidate who has the most realistic chance of winning. A vote for Tom McClintock, Bill Simon or Peter Ueberroth is a vote for Cruz Bustamante. It really is that simple."
Regarding his fiscal inclinations, Arnold's successful rise from rags to riches suggests that he respects the role of entrepreneurs in creating jobs and building the economy. According to the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Schwarzenegger's biography exemplifies the American dream...At age 21, he came to America in 1968 with little money and even less command of English. A natural capitalist, he bought up office buildings and apartment complexes before he ever made a film. His business empire now includes shopping malls, a Boeing 747 he leases to an airline, and a large chunk of Santa Monica real estate. He took evening courses in business at UCLA, and earned a bachelor's degree in business by mail from the University of Wisconsin at Superior." Arnold's business background suggests he will be responsible with taxpayer money and knowledgeable on financial matters.
A recent Contra Costa article ("Arnold's finances reveal a shrewd tale") reveals how Schwarzenegger built his personal fortune through successful entrepreneurship and perceptive business moves. Arnold told the Financial Times, "I am more comfortable with an Adam Smith philosophy than with Keynesian theory." He has also said, "I still believe in lower taxes -- and the power of the free market. I still believe in controlling government spending. If it's a bad program, let's get rid of it." According to a San Jose Mercury News report, Schwarzenegger is a "fan of the University of Chicago Economics Department, which had provided President Reagan's economic advisers".
There are some who call Arnold a "compromise candidate". But given his past actions and statements, it's clear that a strong streak of conservatism runs through him. At very least, he is no "liberal".
Arnold Schwarzenegger's views in his own words:
"I'm for gun control. I'm a peace-loving guy." - Time magazine cover story Aug 18, 2003
Schwarzenegger appeared on FoxNews' "Bill O'Reilly" program in May 2001 and said he disagreed with President Bush's pro-life position. "I'm for choice," Schwarzenegger said on the program. "The women should have the choice. The women should decide what they want to do with their bodies. I'm all for that."
From Cosmopolitan magazine, "I have no sexual standards in my head that say this is good or this is bad. Homosexual-that only means to me that he enjoys sex with a man and I enjoy sex with a woman. It's all legitimate to me." He also supports gay adoption, despite the fact that both conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats voted by a 61 percent margin for Proposition 22, the Defense of Marriage Initiative, which defined marriage as that between a man and a woman. Newsmax, 28 July 2003
Regarding the passage of Proposition 49: "Every California child deserves access to a proven, quality, life-changing afterschool program, and now they will have it. My hope is that, as goes California, so goes the rest of our nation."
In 1999 Schwarzenegger told George magazine of his bitterness about the frenzy over Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton and the waste of time and energy it represented. "That was another thing I will never forgive the Republican party for," he said. "I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period."
Last year, while campaigning for his Prop. 49 after-school programs initiative, Schwarzenegger...declared in answer to a question from the audience: "I would never stand in the way of any child going to school, whether he or she is here legally or illegally, it does not matter." - Sacramento Bee, 24 August
Many Republicans think this is just peachy - that we need someone who isn't really a conservative and isn't really a Republican to win in California. I'm not sure what the point is in running such an animal, but these timid Republicans are legion.
Rush Limbaugh spanks all of these timid Republicans who cringe at the idea of pushing a conservative candidate right now when, actually, the time is ripe to elect a REAL conservative.
California Needs Conservatism
California is a liberal proving-ground run amok. Its crushing debt - resulting from years of pandering to unions, bureaucrats, illegal immigrants, environmentalists and trial lawyers - has led to huge tax increases, major cuts in basic services, a reduction in the state's credit rating, brown-outs, water shortages and a large exodus of citizens from the state.
None of this decay is surprising. The left's promises of Nirvana never measure up. But what does surprise me are the reactions of some conservatives who see California's problems as so severe that they can't be solved by the application of conservative principles. Their thinking has led them to support Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, to my knowledge, has yet to embrace any conservative positions, though he has embraced Warrent Buffett. Hasta la vista, whatever.
There's no better time to advance conservative principles than when they're most needed. And California needs a large dose of conservatism. Recent history should be our guide.
Conservatives need to learn from Ronald Reagan. They need to stop being timid, pessimistic, and insecure. California needs solutions. There is no better time and place to establish and illustrate the primacy of conservatism. True, not all of California's problems mirror those of the late '70s and '80s, but many do, particularly those that forced this recall. Now, if one man with a vision completely changed the course of a nation, why can't it happen in a single state?
-Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal, 20 August 2003
Obviously, Rush is saying that we need a true conservative and one with vision. And he makes it clear that it isn't Arnold who, he says, "has yet to embrace any conservative positions."
Rush doesn't rehabilitate Arnold much at all in the whole 'Arnold Got His (Conservative) Groove Back' thing. Far from it. Rush's support of Arnold's alleged conservative credentials it as tepid as Coulter's. So Arnold brought in Schultz? And?! That certainly doesn't immediately make him a conservative. Other people he's brought into his campaign detract from the conservative illusion. For example, he's brought in A. Jerrold Perenchio, the leftist CEO of the Univision and a long-time Davis supporter as well as leftist reconquista Carlos Olamendi, Vice President of the open borders National Coalition of Professional Mexicans Abroad.
In 1966, When Reagan ran for Governor of California, he was considered too extreme to be elected governor. The leadership of the Republican Party in California preferred a moderate who was "electable". Reagan was not only considered "too right-wing" for California, he was also considered to be tainted. He was portrayed by the media as an extremist because some of his supporters were members of the John Birch Society. He was tainted by his close association with the widely disparaged Goldwater campaign of 1964, which was hysterically denounced by the political establishment of California as too extreme. Considering that the more moderate Richard Nixon had failed to win the Governorship in 1962, nobody gave the Gipper any chance. A vote for Ronald Reagan in 1966 was considered by many Republican naysayers to be a vote for liberal Democrat Pat Brown. California was just too liberal to elect a conservative.
Either conservative principles are right and worth promoting or they're not. Either conservative policies are the best thing to save California or they are not. Either the Republican Party is the vehicle for electing representatives who will promote conservative principles - or it isn't.
Right now, with the Democrats in disarray and failed liberal policies obviously destroying the state of California, is the best time - an extremely rare alignment of the planets - for electing a true conservative. Yet so many Republicans are getting distracted by Arnold's star power and forgetting why we're Republicans in the first place. They are about to waste the perfect tactical opportunity to elect a real conservative because it is far easier to just go with Arnold and not do the work to get McClintock elected.
This could be conservatism's finest hour - the opportunity to prove that liberal policies are destructive and that conservative policies can succeed, save a nearly bankrupt state, and prove to the rest of the nation that we need conservative policies everywhere. We might be able to save California through true conservative ideas and capitalize on that victory to advance the conservative message nationwide. Or you can elect an inexperienced RINO and cross your fingers and hope. If, somehow, purely by luck alone, the RINO appears to save California all we have is a victory for RINO, non-conservative principles. A "new direction" for the Republican Party - away from conservative ideals- will be celebrated. Thereby, the cause of conservatism would suffer a serious, possibly deadly blow.
As Ronald Reagan said, "Weve come to a moment in our history when party labels are unimportant. Philosophy is all important." Schwarzenegger has made his philosophy apparent through the comments he's made and that philosophy is far from conservative and far from traditional Republican principles despite the party label that he has adopted. The party label means nothing if you don't truly represent the ideals of the party. You know this is true. You know that conservatism is the answer. You know who the conservative Republican candidate is in this race for Governor and it isn't Arnold. Vote accordingly.
He's a populist movie star, with a mish-mash, unfocused, conflicting agenda that has no solid ideological underpinings.
He's a perfect fit for California.
I can see that rule has been broken already. The McClintock-Bots are in a hurry. No need to let facts get in the way.
As a dear California friend told me a few weeks ago, you don't want Hillary's offal in California again, in any way!
And BTW, those who argued with the article above did not read it! This, even though I asked politely that they do so for once.
As long as he's fiscally conservative that will do just fine for now.
As far as I'm concerned, it's settled. Arnold ain't perfect, but he's our man.
On to the wreck of the Cruz Bustamante!
It took guts to tell a pinko liberal publication like Salon Magazine that kids need two parents. That, not to mention the other most conservative points he's in favor of (article above), puts all on notice, including the liberals, now!
And BTW, he's been coached by good Republicans all along.
It's go time! Go! Go, Cali!
After his speech of last week, he said he wouldn't rule out new taxes in case California had some catastrophic event, i.e. earthquake. No catastrophy, no taxes.
He says that "children will have first claim on the treasury.
This state is in the strong grip of the "mommy party". This is only an issue for the conservative puristas in Calif.
He's for gay marriage. That is a part of the social agenda that a governor can affect, and Schwarzenegger is on the wrong side.
Where is the quote "I'm for Gay marrige and, if elected, I will sign a bill that makes it the law of California." Bustamonte wouldn't think twice.
He's married to a Kennedy
Haven't you seen all the jokes about Arnold scr#ing a liberal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.