AP Exclusive: Schwarzenegger helped disrupt Nazi gatherings

AP ^ | 10/4/03 | VANESSA GERA

[Mark Felton]

Inspired by a weight trainer who witnessed Nazi slayings of Jews during World War II, Arnold Schwarzenegger used his menacing muscular physique to help break up neo-Nazi rallies as a teenager, his ex-trainer said Saturday.

In an interview with The Associated Press, gym owner Kurt Marnul said the young Schwarzenegger participated at least twice in organized disruptions of Nazi gatherings near his hometown of Graz during the 1960s.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[Sabertooth]

You have been a McClintock supporter. I recall the McCain events of 2000. McCain, I think, earned some considerable points with how hard he campaigned for Bush.

Yeah, I saw McCain at a Bush rally in Burbank in October of 2000. He gets props for loyalty to the nominee.

We are defining conservatism today by litmus tests du jour -- abortion, gun control, Iraq. How would we label a person's philosophy from say, 75 years ago were he to arrive on the scene today and know nothing whatsoever of these issues. Is there not a broader definition of leanings that goes beyond the current litmus tests? And if so, can not an individual come down on the wrong side of an occasional litmus test and still be conservative?

I read a biography of Patrick Henry a while back, called "A Son of Thunder." I was struck, in the reading, of how much our current politics recapitulates the rift between the Federalists and the Antifederalists.

Labels are fluid, and compromise can be good, but I think it's also good for voters to have trip wire issues, if done so judiciously.

I'm attracted to ideas and methods that make politicians fearful of their constituents.

[Yardstick]

I agree, the lack of even the most basic sense of reason in the public conversation these days is really dismaying. I keep thinking that surely people aren't falling for this sort of stuff -- surely, surely people can see the difference in admiring a person and admiring something *about* a person -- but I never see any broad sense of disgruntlement over the media's and the dems' assumption that people are indeed so stupid as to fall for it.

Could it be that the media and the Dems have appraised the public correctly? that the public really is so foolish? Surely not, I hope not. I know no one who would commit the "Arnold is a Nazi because he admired Hitler's speaking ability" fallacy. It's like I keep hearing about this dumbed-down public and they obviously make an impact on polls and things, but where are these people? Who are they? Maybe we've managed the paradoxical feat of being reasonably sophisticated and discerning as individuals but foolish and sheeplike as a collective -- a dumb public made of smart individuals.

[ambrose]

Think this will get as much play as the original smear?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I'm sure it will be above the fold at the New York Times, and lead with a bullet on ABC News.

Sorry. There is only so much room above the fold and prime air time, and they have to cover the Arnold Nazi affiliation and groping stories, the Rush racism and drug addiction stories, the rehash of the Bush bashing yellow-cake and other "It's Bush's Fault" leads, Hitlery's "Bush's Policies Will Reverse the Gains of the 20th Century" non-partisan commentary, and how vitally important to our survival Dufus, Cruz, and the rest of the Dims are. Feh.

[tallhappy]

Arnold's camp has already said things that happened 30 years ago are of no consequence.

The double standards and lunacy...

[Holden Magroin]

You are naive if you think the L.A. Times will admit it was wrong. They attacked Arnold during the 2002 campaign - long before the recall - because they knew he would be a future candidate. His ballot initiative to increase funding for after-school programs was the only such initiative that the L.A. Times opposed - this from a newspaper that has never heard of a welfare program it didn't absolutely love. Obviously, they wanted to deprive him of a record of accomplishment that he could use as a springboard to higher office. The L.A. Times is nothing but a newsletter for the Democratic Party.