GOP has star-power dilemma: How will party use Schwarzenegger? [Kerry vs. Arnold?]

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 19, 2004 | Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

[RonDog]

.

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

---

GOP has star-power dilemma
How will party use Schwarzenegger?
- Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004

With less than three months to go before the Republican National Convention in New York City, a prime-time cliffhanger is in the works over whether the Bush camp will use it or lose it -- the megawatt influence and star power of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Among the most sensitive issues is whether Schwarzenegger, a GOP marquee name, will be given a prized prime-time speaking spot at the party's presidential convention August 30-Sept. 2 at Madison Square Garden.

On the pro side: As the party's star actor, Schwarzenegger would get worldwide attention, and -- to the delight of networks -- draw millions of potential viewers to the now scripted-for-television political convention.

On the con side: The White House worries about lavishing too much attention on one Republican elected official who has shown an uncanny ability to upstage the party's star, Bush himself. A prominent role for Schwarzenegger also could anger the Republican right wing, which opposes his social views on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Ken Mehlman, campaign manager for Bush-Cheney '04, in an interview with The Chronicle, made no commitment on the specific role the Bush team expects the California governor to play, saying only that Schwarzenegger "is one of the great leaders of our party.''

Asked about talk that the White House is worried Schwarzenegger might outshine Bush at the convention, Mehlman downplayed the matter, suggesting that Schwarzenegger is one of many stars in the GOP...

[NittanyLion]

You are dismissing 40% of all Republicans.

And you're dismissing 60% of all Republicans.

Are you really so obtuse that this escaped your notice?

[counterpunch]

Regardless, a 60-40 split obviously contradicts your contention that it's a 50-50 split.

Semantics yet again?
I said it was close to a 50/50 split. A lot closer than people like you would have us believe. The Republican party is nowhere near a monolithic "pro-life" party. In your mind, anyone who isn't absolutely opposed to abortion is a "RINO".. even though your view only represents a mere 22%.

Let's do some more remedial math, shall we?
40 > 22.

[RonDog]

That image is EXTRAORDINARY, Linda!!!

[NittanyLion]

The ABC Poll you cited has it at 60/40.

Stop interchanging numbers whenever it's convenient to your cause. It makes you look like a disingenuous political hack.

[RonDog]

OUR GOVERNOR CAN BEAT UP
YOUR (WIMPY) CANDIDATE!

[NittanyLion]

Well, as enjoyable as it's been to bat you around all day, I need to run. Go ahead and post some easily-refuted nonsense, and I'll be back tomorrow to dispel it yet again.

[counterpunch]

Get this through your thick skull. Conservatives don't vote for, or support liberal politicians. You support Arnold and you voted for him. You're the undermining the California GOP, not me.

So by helping to elect a Republican I've undermined the GOP..? WTF!?

Maybe you need to get this though tour empty skull:
"Conservatives" make up less than 20% of California voters.
The conservative purists in the CA GOP who keep sending unelectable candidates to the general election are the ones who have been undermining the California GOP for years now.
You tell me why in 2002 Democrats won every state-wide election. Every single one.

When the purists send their candidates out, they lose. Arnold won, the first GOP victory in a decade, and with the help of my one vote in a very small way.
Now you tell me who is undermining who.

How about I start an anti-Pete Coors campaign and work to undermine the Republican candidate in your state, because as a "conservative" purist tea-totaller, I don't approve of his business?
Would I be helping the GOP that way..?
By your (il)logic, I certainly would.

[Kuksool]

[According to them "real conservatives" prefer Democrats being elected. But none of them can explain how that will advance the conservative agenda.]

Some "true conservatives" actually think by allowing RATS to have absolute power, it will cause public outrage that leads to a 2nd American Revolution. "True conservatives" have a "Don't vote, Revolt!" attitude.

[RGSpincich]

And yet you still believe McClintock would have won even smacked full force by Davis/Bustamante/Clintons and the liberal media.

They would have had McClintock for lunch. Starting with his key advisor's actions.

John Stoos' writings outline his vision of an anti-abortion city council and other such action by government. The candidate says he was 'not aware' of his aide's writings.

John Stoos, a key advisor in the gubernatorial campaign of Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock, has a dream:
"I dream of the day when a strong Christian majority is elected to a city council somewhere in America. This council could then pass a resolution declaring that abortion is now illegal in their city," Stoos wrote this year in a conservative religious journal.
McClintock, who employs Stoos as his deputy campaign manager and until recently paid him $93,720 a year as his top legislative analyst, said in an interview last week that he was unaware of Stoos' writings.

Doesn't matter if you agree with Stoos or not, McClintock dropped Stoos like a bad habit. McClintock's unconvincing "Uh, I didn't know" and subsequent "I'll have a word with him" is proof that he wasn't going to stand with Stoos. So the media had already created turmoil in his campaign without even trying.

[b9]

Ron, that looks fabulous with type.
Linda, with your permission, may I reproduce your art onto a huge sign for our Hollywood FReep next Thursday?

[counterpunch]

Get this through your thick skull. Conservatives don't vote for, or support liberal politicians. You support Arnold and you voted for him. You're the undermining the California GOP, not me.
Actually, i was using the CBS poll for "illegal under any circumstances" because that gives a better representation of people's positions than the straight up or down. You see, a lot of people who actually do not fully oppose abortion said they did in the ABC poll, because the other option was for "most/all" circumstances. I was comparing and contrasting the various nuanced positions that people such as Schwarzenegger hold to that of the absolute hardliner ideology that you preach as the on;y "real" Republican position.

But you are right, I should have used a combination of "generally available" and "available, stricter limits" for the "pro-choice" percentage in that post, keeping all from the same poll, and not mixing the two.
That would put "pro-choice" Republicans at 70%, with those who oppose at 28%.
I accidentally cited 22% from "All" which is right below Republicans on the graph.

Well, as enjoyable as it's been to bat you around all day, I need to run. Go ahead and post some easily-refuted nonsense, and I'll be back tomorrow to dispel it yet again.

You sure celebrate and marvel yourself quite a bit, don't you?
I guess someone has to.

[Reagan Man]

>>>So by helping to elect a Republican I've undermined the GOP..? WTF!?

If could you could think before engaging your fingers, you'd understand WTF is going on here. FreeRepublic is a conservative website that is catagorically opposed to the liberal agenda. FR generally supports PresBush in his efforts in the WoT and for the most part supports conservative Republicans who are running in opposition to liberal Democrats. You should read the opening of JimRob's website. He makes his agenda crystal clear. It's an agenda that I agree with and one that you obviously don't agree with.

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.

Governmental largesse means liberalism. FReepers champion the causes which further conservatism, not liberalism, the Democartic Party platform or the agenda of RINO governors.

[counterpunch]

I pasted the wrong quote.
The first paragraph of my post should read:

Stop interchanging numbers whenever it's convenient to your cause. It makes you look like a disingenuous political hack

Followed by the non-italics response.

[IPWGOP]

may I reproduce your art onto a huge sign for our Hollywood FReep next Thursday?

Absolutely!

RonDog - your type-added version is superdooper!!

[counterpunch]

Governmental largesse means liberalism. FReepers champion the causes which further conservatism, not liberalism, the Democartic Party platform or the agenda of RINO governors.

No, it doesn't. Government largesse has to do with liberal taxation and spending. It has nothing to do with social issues of morality.

We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.

And the best way to further conservativism is to prevent Democrats from being elected, not help them by undermine Republicans. Electing Bustamante over Schwarzenegger would advance liberalism. That is what you advocate.

I advocate stopping the bleeding. Arnold may not be your ideal candidate, but his holding the office still prevents Davis or Bustamante from being in there conducting business as usual and doing even more damage.

Most importantly, Arnold turns new voters on to the Republican party. He helps to repair the damage to the party's image that people like you inflict on it in the minds of mainstream voters. That also advances conservative agendas.

[counterpunch]

If could you could think before engaging your fingers, you'd understand WTF is going on here. FreeRepublic is a conservative website that is catagorically opposed to the liberal agenda.

So when you claim Arnold is "undermining the GOP", what you actually mean is Arnold is not advancing conservativism.

I disagree with even that, because you have to understand, before we turn around and change directions, we must first slow the leftward momentum. You cannot throw a car into reverse before hitting the brakes first.

Arnold being Governor will open the door to other Republicans getting elected again in the furture. The way things were going, and the way the conservatives have been acting, that seemed likely to never happen again in our lifetimes.

Since you are insisting that this is a small tent forum concerned only with the advancement conservativism, and not the success of the GOP, then perhaps you yourself should not use the two interchangably.

[RonDog]

I stole the idea for that text from a USA Today interview from 1999 with ANOTHER "tough guy" governor, Jesse ("the Body") Ventura:

Q: Many Minnesota cars now have bumper stickers: "My governor can beat up your governor." Will you get one for your car?

I don't have to. But it's the truth. I went to the governors' convention. There was nobody there I can't whip.

[Reagan Man]

Governmental largesse means liberalism.

>>>No, it doesn't. Government largesse has to do with liberal taxation and spending. It has nothing to do with social issues of morality.

Now I see what your problem is. You're a product of America's liberal education system. I can help.

Liberal taxation and liberal spending equals liberalism. "Largesse" actually means "liberal giving". When you say government largesse, you're talking about government liberal giving, or liberalism. This applies to both social and fiscal issues and is right out of political science 101.

... the best way to further conservativism is to prevent Democrats from being elected ...

Not just Democrats, but liberals and RINO's too.

>>>Electing Bustamante over Schwarzenegger would advance liberalism. That is what you advocate.

Idiot! I never advocated electing Arnold over Bustamonte. I advocated electing a conservative Republican over a liberal Republican.

There is no such thing as an ideal candidate and Arnold doesn't advance the conservative agenda. Arnold advances the liberal agenda.

[Reagan Man]

Look. There is no common ground for you and I to agree on when it comes to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold is the antithesis of Reagan conservatism. Should GovRino wake up one day and have a conservative epiphany, I'll be there to welcome him onboard. Until such time, he remains an enemy of conservatism and a detriment to the California GOP.

[RonDog]

Linda, with your permission, may I reproduce your art onto a huge sign for our Hollywood FReep next Thursday?

Strictly speaking, it will be a "downtown Los Angeles" FReep.

The "Hollywood Has-Beens" will certainly be there...

...but the event itself will be held at the Disney Concert Hall.

From the ORIGINAL (pre-rescheduling) thread:

FReep John Kerry, Barbra Streisand at the Disney Concert Hall in LOS ANGELES

-- snip --

From www.musiccenter.org/directions_wdch.html:

Walt Disney Concert Hall
111 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90012

-- snip --

See also, from Yahoo! MAPS:

Walt Disney Concert Hall
111 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90012