|
|
||
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
||
Posted on 10/10/2003 7:15:42 PM PDT by Pokey78
SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 10 — In Arnold Schwarzenegger, the national Republican Party now has a magnetic movie star in charge of the most populous state in the union, a governor-elect who has already emerged as an articulate, media-savvy and earnest figure who does not play by the conventional rules of politics.
But far from simply rejoicing over his election, the party finds itself entangled in a debate over whether it should follow Mr. Schwarzenegger's path by moving to the center on social issues in order to become even more competitive in state and national races.
Mr. Schwarzenegger's sweeping victory stirred anxiety among some conservatives, as much as it has cheered moderate Republicans, who have seized on it as evidence of how the party should position itself to fortify its standing, even at a time when it has proved increasingly dominant in American politics.
Several moderate Republicans said Mr. Schwarzenegger was now in a position to be a hugely influential and moderating force on his party, should he choose to be.
"How he won tells me that his message — he's both fiscally conservative and socially inclusive and moderate — was one that appeals to the middle," said Christie Whitman, a moderate Republican and former New Jersey governor who recently stepped down as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
"To me, it's a very strong signal to win statewide in a state like California," Mrs. Whitman said on Friday. "It's a socially inclusive message, but not hard-edged and leaving-people-out. And I think that's a national thing."
William F. Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, said: "There's a lesson here for the national party. This absolutely takes the curse of the stereotype off of Republicans that the opposition seeks to hang around their necks."
That argument has run up against stiff opposition from other prominent Republicans. Some suggested that moderates were seizing on an anomalous election — a movie star defeating a highly unpopular incumbent in a largely Democratic state — to try to relight the coals of an old fire.
"I don't think that's a fair lesson, because I think this election was more about Gray Davis and less about the particular ideological stands of the candidates," said Matt Dowd, a senior adviser to President Bush's re-election campaign. "If Arnold Schwarzenegger had been a celebrity politician that was pro-life, I don't think he would have gotten any less votes."
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative group, said Mr. Schwarzenegger's victory was more of a lesson about how to win a state like California than about what the party should do nationally. "I don't think this means that the party nationally should move to the center in any way," he said. "The party that has to do some soul-searching right now is the Democratic Party."
To a large extent, what is taking place now is a replay of an old fight that President Bush adroitly managed, Republicans said, by positioning himself as a "compassionate conservative," while embracing traditional conservative positions on issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.
But the difference is Mr. Schwarzenegger, who like another actor who became governor of California, is proving that acting skills can be transferred to the business of politics. In the flush of his victory, several Republicans went so far as to talk him up a future presidential candidate — a move is already afoot in Washington to start the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution to remove the prohibition on foreign-born citizens serving as president.
As unlikely as that would seem, Mr. Schwarzenegger's success and his new prominence in national politics seems likely to complicate Mr. Bush's efforts to balance the conservative and moderate wings of his party. He is a more compelling public figure than some of the other moderate voices in the party — in particular, Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and Rudolph W. Giuliani — and he is certain to be awarded a prime speaking slot at next year's Republican convention in New York.
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida who is now a television commentator, said the White House would be wise to take a lesson from Mr. Schwarzenegger's victory, noting the close 2000 presidential race and the number of states that were decided by a relatively handful of votes.
Asked whether he thought it was a good idea for the party to move to the center, Mr. Scarborough, who described himself as conservative, responded, "If I'm a strategist, then yeah.
"I think the country right now continues to get more conservative on economic issues and more progressive on social issues. I think Schwarzenegger is ahead of the curve."
According to a New York Times/CBS News poll taken July 13 through July 27, Republicans are generally supportive of abortion rights; 22 percent said that abortion should be generally available, and another 41 percent said it should be available under stricter limits. Republicans are divided on homosexual relations.
Rick Davis, a Republican consultant who advised another prominent moderate Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, when he ran for president in 2000, said he viewed the California election as evidence that "there is a pendulum swinging."
"Our party for the last 10 years has tried to run off the moderates," Mr. Davis said. "But it's happening without them."
Steven A. Merksamer, a lawyer in Sacramento who is active in Republican politics, said a big factor in Mr. Schwarzenegger's success was his celebrity, but he added: "His campaign can be a model for Republicans. I'll tell you this: Arnold Schwarzenegger succeeded in uniting the California Republican Party in a way it hasn't been united for years."
Not surprisingly, Mr. Schwarzenegger's victory has created mixed feelings among many conservatives. On one hand, many are delighted that the Republican Party has captured such a huge prize the year before a presidential race.
Yet many have expressed hesitation about this new symbol of the party, questioning his ideological bona fides and wondering how the party could embrace someone who was confronted with accusations that he groped and made lewd comments to more than a dozen women.
"These Schwarzenegger conservatives — now, there is an oxymoron for these times — have embraced a man who is, politically, Hollywood's culture leavened by a few paragraphs of Milton Friedman," George Will, the conservative columnist, wrote this week.
"Schwarzenegger's conservative supporters have furled the flag of `family values' while mocking their participation in the anti-Clinton sex posse," Mr. Will wrote. "They were unoffended by Schwarzenegger's flippant assertions that only the `religiously fanatic' oppose human cloning — not just stem cell research, but cloning."
For all that, there is no reason to believe, at this point, that Mr. Schwarzenegger is looking to do anything outside California. As several Republicans noted, he has more than enough work to do taking over this state, and he spent much more time in his campaign talking about cutting taxes than about his support for, say, abortion rights.
"He's got some real challenges right now," Mrs. Whitman said.
|
|
||
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
||
LOL
This guy needs to check himself in.
This candidacy has been the most divisive issue for the Republican Party in decades.
Asked whether he thought it was a good idea for the party to move to the center, Mr. Scarborough, who described himself as conservative, responded, "If I'm a strategist, then yeah.
"I think the country right now continues to get more conservative on economic issues and more progressive on social issues. I think Schwarzenegger is ahead of the curve."
It's official. Joe Scarborough has lost his mind.
But what on God's green earth does that have to do with all the states, and counties, that were solidly Republican in the last election? Nothing. If there were either integrity or competence in the reporters for the Times they would conclude that because only a Democrat like Zell Miller could win in Georgia, therefore the Democrats should be moving to the right. Not a snowball's chance in Hell the Times will ever publish anything like that.
Congressman Billybob
Oh I am sooooooooooooooooooo sick of this myth. I'll say it now and repeat a thousand times in the next year. Arnold didn't win because he was a liberal. He won because he was a CELEBRITY. He had virtually unlimited resources at his disposal and the party establishment caved for the sake of winning.
Not once did anyone during the course of the campaign ever indicate they would support him because he was a liberal, not Darrell Issa, nor Bill Simon, nor Ray Haynes, or Jim Brulte, nor the CRP board, nor the County Chairmen's Association, nor did any major endorsement outside of Richard Riordan, the man we invented the term RINO to describe.
The final polls that did one-on-one match-ups showed that McClintock would have beaten Bustamante by nearly as large of a margin.
Let's not start this. I'm really going to get sick of posting and re-posting how shallow and empty that argument is.
No one should take strategy advice from the New York Times.
Tell Orrin Hatch and his buddies that. He wants to amend the Constitution to that effect.
Absolutely. Arnold's election had nothing to do with ideology.
His re-election will, however.
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.