Schwarzenegger Would "Do Damage" to Republican Party Suggests Political Analyst

LifeSite.net ^ | August 28, 2003

[miltonim]

Social conservatives have a viable candidate in McClintock

TORONTO, August 28, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Steve Jalsevac, a long-time political analyst with Campaign Life Coalition Canada suggests that were actor Arnold Schwarzenegger to capture the Republican Governorship of California it would mean political damage for the Republican Party. "A core constituency within the Republican Party is its social conservatives, most importantly those who are pro-life and pro-family. Schwarzenegger is so obviously a liberal on social issues, his running as a Republican reeks of opportunism and demeans the party's integrity," said Jalsevac.

Republicans have another capable candidate in the race who is considered authentically conservative. California State Sen. Tom McClintock, first elected to the State Assembly in 1982, is also running. McClintock ran for state controller last year and lost by a margin of 0.3% to a Democrat. In that race, McClintock captured more votes than any other Republican on the ballot. In an interview with Human Events released today, McClintock acknowledges that he is pro-life and pro-family and willing to act legislatively on those convictions.

"As we have seen so many times in Canadian politics, conservative parties are usually a delicate balance between fiscal and social conservatives, and where fiscal conservatives are so insensitive as to alienate social conservatives, the Party suffers debilitating division," Jalsevac told LifeSite News. "Arnold may well give the Republicans Governorship of another state, but his strong liberal stance on social issues will damage Party unity and weaken critical differences in policy between the two major parties."

On a radio talk show yesterday, Schwarzenegger attempted to appear less offensive to social conservatives saying that he is pro-choice, but against "partial-birth" abortion; that he supports current domestic-partnership law but not gay 'marriage'". However, Schwarzenegger's Republican strategist Allan Hoffenblum was candid about the actor's negligible chances of appealing to social conservatives. Speaking of "family-value types", Hoffenblum said, "that is the group that is least likely to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger regardless."

[Kevin Curry]

We can still have an highly experienced, knowledgeable, proven, straight-up, and no-nonsense conservative governor in Sacramento. Arnold needs to swallow his monumental ego, withdraw, and throw his support to McClintock. If he does, McClintock will win by at least five percent of the total vote over Bustamante.

If California ends up with another liberal governor on the morning after the recall (whether Bustamante or Schwarzenegger), the blame will lie at Schwarzenegger's and his swooning supporters' feet.

[huck von finn]

But some of us take this all a little more seriously, and therefore support Senator McClintock

You can't even vote in the election! You don't even live in California! It's the voters in California who will decide. (At least I hope so--they're the ones who will have to live with whoever winds up being governor.)

[huck von finn]

That sounds like classic fiscal conservatism to me. It sounds like my parents, God rest their souls.

I hope Arnie can pull it off if he gets elected. And it's going to take some sacrifices to clean up that state.

[JoeSchem]

The first thing you need to remember is that we're the tough-guy conservatives and you're the moderate wimps.

Now, bend to our wills.

[Tamzee]

You should hear the audio... it's a 45 minute rant against high taxes, high government spending and excessive costs/regulation strangling the businesses in California :-)

[huck von finn]

What are his views re environmental matters? That can be thorny in California, and it seems as if the debate gets clouded by extremists on both sides. If he had a moderate, common sense platform regarding environment there, he could really make some headway.

[Tamzee]

From his website at www.joinarnold.com:

You have stated that you are a friend of the environment. What does that mean?

I will be a passionate defender of California's environment, providing real leadership to protect our precious land, air, and water. I believe that part of California's greatness lies in its natural resources and beauty. It is an essential part of the California experience. It is much easier for an employer to attract talent to our Golden State with its majestic coastline, snow-packed mountains and limitless recreational opportunities.

I believe what we do in this state must improve our quality of life, and environmental damage runs counter to that. Even from an economic perspective, our environment must be protected. If we have beaches soiled by oil spills, tourists will not come to this state. If we log our forests irresponsibly, stream beds will be destroyed and our fishing industry will be damaged.

I believe we can improve our economy without impairing our environment, and will govern by this belief. I am assembling a team of environmental advisors that will elaborate on key issues in the coming weeks.
***


There are details on all of his positions there and, if you need more elaboration, I've been collecting his assorted interviews and articles written about him... just holler :-)

[zook]

I don't think you can demonstrate that being ideologically pure is going to strengthen the Republican Party. I believe that men like Pataki and Giuliani have contributed greatly to the party. I don't believe that having a big tent is the threat it's made out to be. If that were the case, I can think of a number of relatively conservative Democrats who should have destroyed their party by now.

[huck von finn]

Holee Cow! He's a moderate Republican, from the old school! I thought they were all dead! (Or if not dead, certainly out of favor.)

I have to tell you, I am impressed. His checkered past pales in comparison to what you posted in your last two posts.

He would likely be very good for California.

[ezo4]

CA is the strangest state in this country. It's a circus and all they need now is a ring leader. To make it a bigger circus. I wouldnt vote for arnold if I lived there at all. The guys name only. I havent been moved on anything he has said. What has he said??? This man is not RR

[chimera]

Simon himself made some major mistakes in the campaign. None of this helped Simon although he almost got elected in spite of everything.

My impression is that Simon's campaign was poorly run and hit quite a few bumps. The fact that it was a close decision speaks more to the unpopularity of Davis than positively-viewed aspects of Simon. And the fact that it was close means nothing in terms of der realpolitik: if you lose by a single vote, you still lose. Close doesn't count in politics.

Note that McClintock got more votes than Simon; so I think that would still be evidence that McClintock could do it if he got a straight shot.

My understanding is that last time out McClintock ran for controller. Certainly a lower-profile position than governor, and probably one wherein media and voter scrutiny of the candidate's positions would be somewhat less than for the top spot. My concern is that in a liberal Rat-trending state like CA, the media and the Rats will hammer to pieces any candidate who takes a pro-life position on anything, because for liberal Rats, the "right" to abortion is probably the most salient issue of any campaign, with the possible exception of taxing the lifeblood out of productive and honest citizens.

[Tamzee]

I think he would be very good for California, also, and I'm hoping we get a chance to see it :-)

[teletech]

Republicans (i.e., principled conservatives) can and will wait three years, if need be, for the real thing. They will vote McClintock now and in 2006 will rule in a GOP primary and the general election. By then, even Barbra Streisand may be ready to support a real Republican by then. She pays taxes too.

The future of your party and your state is too valuable to roll a 2 in the crap game of 2003 by voting for the surrender monkey puppet Barbarian. Arnold is a RAT in GOP drag, no better than Doofus or Bustamante. Considering that he is managed by Wilson and advised by Buffett, that is no surprise.

If a RAT rules California until 2006, tax payers in the other 49 states will be bailing out YOUR state! McClintock will have faded into obscurity and "Babs" will STILL be bashing Republicans! Companies will be leaving California IN DROVES to avoid the taxes! The Republican party will have survived. But hey, you'll still have your "principles" intact.

[af_vet_1981]

In an Arnie-style "anything goes" social liberal state, the first thing to go is your money--to the state, to pay for the excesses of social liberalism.

California is already lost to the Democrats. Schwarzenegger is an improvement to Davis or Bustamante. You must have an addiction to losing.

[Maelstrom]

The entire point is that Liberal Republicans in office do not represent small beginnings for conservatives.

Use your memory or do some research.

What I despise is delusion.

[srweaver]

Thanks Scott, for your thoughtful responses.

Blessings on your efforts to move individuals and our country in a RIGHT direction.

Steve

[srweaver]

Thanks Scott, for your thoughtful responses.

Blessings on your efforts to move individuals and our country in a RIGHT direction.

Steve

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Actually, Slade Gorton, as liberal a Republican as there has ever been (west coast Arlen Spector), provided a critical vote for both Reagan's 1981 tax cut, and for the defense-appropriations acts in the early to mid 1980's. He also was instrumental in helping Bob Dole beat back Hillary-care in the Senate in 1994.

Rudy Giulianni did yeoman's work in beefing up the police force and dropping the crime rates in New York City.

Even jumping Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe provided Bush with critical votes needed for his tax cut package -- part of the pre-jump deal.

Bush I got support for the first Gulf War vote from folks like Lugar and Spector.

The Pershing II missiles would never have been placed in Europe -- would never have even made it into the budget -- in the early 80's without the support of liberal Republicans like Dan Evans, Slade Gorton, John McCain, and quite a few others.

The list is endless. So, I guess I've used my memory and done some research there. When you have people who you can at least talk to, there are deals that can be done.

If you despise delusion so much, you should really check out the number of doctrinaire conservatives that are holding statewide offices on the west coast. What is delusion is thinking that something that works in Utah or Alabama will work everywhere.

[OldFriend]

Check your history.

Who signed the so called tax fairness bill that suddenly made it impossible to take a tax deduction on your auto loan interest. Who made it suddenly impossible to deduct the mortgage on a second home........and endless other little tax INCREASES, and that's what they were.

And who went to Bitburg to honor the German soldiers who fought against us in the second world war.........and by the way...... SS were buried there too.

And who signed social spending bills the meant that more money was going out than coming into the treasury.

We honor Reagan for the patriotism that returned to America after the feckless Carter and of course, for defeating communism. Let's not lose our memories about the whole story.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Improve once you've WON!!"

Yeah? Well this is where that idea falls completely apart and proves itself totally unworkable. Not to mention not being morally unacceptable.

There is no "improvement", no holding feet to the fire, no demands for more conservatism, just cult worshippers who call conservatives "Bush bashers" for stating the obvious and demanding the candidate "improve" his conservative performance.