Sean, Sean, Sean (Hannity Supports Arnold Snubs McClintock)

From the very minute that Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy for Governor of California, Sean Hannity's behavior has been more like a star struck groupie than a professional commentator or political pundit.

Sean has admitted many times, on both his radio and television shows, that his views are much closer to those of State Senator Tom McClintock, the real conservative in the race. Yet, Hannity supports Arnold.

He insists that he "hasn't endorsed anyone," but it's clear who his horse is in this race. Hey, we like Arnold too--and if McClintock wasn't running, we'd support him over Davis or Bustamonte without hesitation.

Sean praises Arnold at every turn. He repeatedly quoted from Arnold's "editorial" in the Wall Street Journal last week, stating his admiration for Arnold's views and citing the article as proof of Arnold's conservative bona fides--even after he was informed that the piece was ghost-written by the Club For Growth's, President, Stephen Moore. (How a seasoned political pro could even give that article a quick skim without questioning it's authorship is beyond us? Does it sound even remotely like any of Arnold's other campaign statements?)

Hannity defends his impartiality by saying that he has given more airtime to McClintock than Arnold. Even if that isn't simply because McClintock has been more available than Arnold, it makes little difference when the bulk of the interview is spent asking the same question a half a dozen different ways. The question, of course, being, "You can't win, why don't you drop out? Why are you going to split the vote? Aren't you going to give the election to Bustamonte?"

Sean maintains that he couldn't talk up McClintock early on because he didn't know enough about him prior to the debates. I maintain that part of his job is to learn more about the key players. It would have minimal effort to call a couple of his colleagues in California, i.e., Melanie Morgan, Roger Hedgecock and Tom Sullivan to find out if any of the other candidates were serious and/or viable. They would have all mentioned McClintock and Sean could have done some additional research--talked to Tom and found out that he was for real.

Sean's unequivocal and blind support from the beginning for Schwarzenegger is baffling. More importantly, his support comes at the expense of intellectual consistency. Consider the following:

Even though he thought Bill Clinton's actions 25-30 years ago were relevant to an election, as do we by the way, Sean repeatedly says that he "doesn't care about Arnold's actions from 20 years ago," and his views as expressed in the interview with a porn magazine in 1973. Sean says, "Hey, I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago." Actually, Sean, you're not the same person you were just a couple of years ago...

Based on his statements over the past several weeks, Sean thinks that we should vote for Arnold because:

Doesn't this sort of thinking suggest that we should only back "moderate" Republicans in all races? This would especially hold true for Presidential races--which means we should back someone like Olympia Snow or Colin Powell in '04 rather than Bush. After all, Bush is just "too conservative."

And here's another thought for you Sean. What happens if the Gray Davis Dirt Digging and Demonization Machine finds the magic bullet and takes down the Terminator at the 11th hour? It's a very real scenario--and if it does happen won't we all be glad that McClintock remained in the race?

Worse, what happens if Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California were to either not endorse Bush in '04 or even announce his support of a moderate Democrat?

Again, Sean should have done his homework. My guess is, he would have support Tom from the start. And that being the case, perhaps Tom would be 20-25 points in front of Arnold. Who knows, maybe Arnold wouldn't still be in it? Maybe he wouldn't have ever jumped in...

We love ya Sean. We thank God for you and your (usually) firm, brave voice for conservative issues. We put this site on the web over a year and half ago--we've supported you for a long time. But on this one, Sean, we respectfully think you're wrong.

We understand the arguments for supporting the guy who can win, "it's better than Bustamonte." And we agree that Bustamonte would be a true disaster for an already ailing state.

We also understand that most of the social issues where many conservatives agree more with Tom than Arnold, are out of the sphere of influence these men will enjoy in their role as governor.

But besides standing on principle and conviction, the main reason we support Tom is simple. We believe he can do the job. He's spent 25 years working intimately with CA budget issues and can spout off a systematic plan to reversing the state's fortunes on demand. This guy knows what needs to be done. What can be cut. What needs to be left alone.

And this recall election, the dynamics of which are so unique, may provide the best opportunity to project a true conservative into the position of Governor. Squandering that opportunity just to play it safe seems foolhardy to us. If Californians were given the chance to see a conservative in action, solving the state's problems and debunking the doom and gloom scare tactics the Left has used to keep conservatives out of office, i.e., scaring senior citizens that their social security will be cut or taken away, scaring women regarding the "right to choose" and so forth.

Unfortunately, thanks in no small part to your position on this issue, California is likely to lose that once-in-a-generation opportunity. Yes, he will probably not raise taxes. But we will subject California to governance by a total novice--to deal with problems that cause even the most experienced to tremble. Should his inexperience, regardless of who he surrounds himself with (And some of those on his team gave California its largest tax hike in history!), leave the state worse for his being there, Republicans will be blamed.

Will it be cool to have The Terminator as Governor of our State? Of course. But c'mon, we're not all young teenagers. Shouldn't we make our political choices based less on testosterone and adrenaline? And lastly, do we really want a man who calls Sen. Kennedy, "Uncle Teddy" to be carrying our banner? :::Shudder:::

Expediency vs. principle
If Supreme Court puts recall back on track, a crucial choice looms Oct. 7
By DOUG GAMBLE 9/16/2003
The former writer for President Reagan lives in Carmel.

Assuming the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and puts the California recall election back on track, and state Sen. Tom McClintock stays in the race, Republicans will have to choose between expediency and principle Oct. 7. At the moment, expediency is leading in the polls.

If this were a primary, the conservative bent of state Republicans would probably mean a McClintock victory over Arnold Schwarzenegger. But since the candidate receiving the most votes becomes governor if Gray Davis is recalled, conservatives are tempted to give Schwarzenegger a free pass on ideology just to have a Republican as chief executive.

Even if it means postponing a GOP governorship until January 2007 - and I believe a conservative running a smart campaign can win statewide office in this state - I hope California Republicans will match McClintock's principled stand on the issues with principles of their own and vote for him over a watered-down Republican whose unofficial campaign slogan seems to be, "Details, schmetails." If he were Arnold Schwarzenegger, insurance agent, instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor, his campaign would be a joke and unworthy of coverage.

The fact is his support is built entirely on a foundation of celebrity. How else to explain the all- news channels breaking away from regular programming to cover live the actor's every utterance before a microphone? It is only a movie star's fame that makes him more media-worthy than McClintock.

When Schwarzenegger is greeted at campaign events by throngs of squealing teen-age girls and crowds pressing forward for handshakes and autographs, it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with fame. The actor's calculation, probably correct, is that in our celebrity-obsessed culture, star appeal trumps substance.

Those who vote for Schwarzenegger will do so without really knowing what they'll be getting. He still speaks in vague generalities and has not spelled out the particulars of achieving stated goals. According to TV ads that contain more fluff than the lint filter of an overused clothes dryer, his entire solution to the budget deficit is to "open the books."

He has said nothing about what programs he'll cut, and, although he insists he won't raise taxes, I don't believe him.

Particularly irksome is his decision to duck all but one of the scheduled debates. What other than political cowardice and contempt for the voters would cause a candidate to pass up opportunities to make his case before a statewide TV audience, a viewership made all the larger by interest in the recall? And what credible candidate would refuse to hold a news conference at a party's state convention as Schwarzenegger did last weekend?

Yet even such solid Republicans as Orange County Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and conservative spitfire Ann Coulter seem to have fallen under the Schwarzenegger celebrity spell, backing a candidate who is pro-abortion, favors gun control and gay adoptions and is to the left of Sen. Dianne Feinstein on school vouchers.

Schwarzenegger is compared to Ronald Reagan, but the real Reagan Republican in this race is McClintock, a courageous fighter against big government and higher taxes for over two decades. Also, it is McClintock who has seen a recent surge in poll numbers while Schwarzenegger's have remained relatively stagnant. But apparently no good work goes unpunished as the California GOP sees it, so it's the genuine Republican the party wants to boot to the sidelines.

If enough Republicans vote for Schwarzenegger, he may become governor, but at what cost to the party's soul? Their votes will decide if conservative principles are worth fighting for or whether most California Republicans are just star-struck groupies.

http://www.ocregister.com

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.