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...

[ZULU]

How about as chauffeur?

He would look grerat driving Bush back and forth from the White House.

[NittanyLion]

And Arnold will speak glowingly of Bush and his leadership. If you doubt this, realize that Arnold wants to be President and he'll want to help Bush as much as possible. Arnold is VERY popular and him selling Bush might reach a lot of middle voters.

Will someone who represents the GOP's mainstream speak any les glowingly of Bush? Do they have any less reason to help Bush? Is Arnold as popular outside of CA as you think (not among the mainstream GOPers I know). Will Arnold's social liberalism turn off as many conservatives as "middle voters" it attracts?

These are all questions that need to be answered.

[counterpunch]

Thanks again for supporting my point. If Arnold was not on the ballot another replacement would've been chosen.

That's always the case. Hell, if GWB wasn't on the 2000 presidential ballot then someone else would have won instead, so lets screw him too!

This is the hollowest argument I've ever seen in my life. You've really backed yourself into a corner now. Is this really your final answer?

If Arnold was not on the ballot, the winner would not have recieved half of the vote, nor would have they been as good a candidate. They probably wouldn't have been a Republican.

The recall even passing at all would have been far from assured.
If half the people were afraid Bustamante might win, and the other half was afraid McClintock might win, then both sides would have voted against the recall, and even if it passed, the winner would not have had the ability Arnold has to govern.

[votelife]

the conservative base is already voting for Bush. Arnold is there to "pump" up the troops and get the undecided voter to vote for Bush. I don't think many conservatives will not vote for Bush just because Arnold spoke at the convention. Plus, Arnold will focus on the war and tax cuts, not on abortion and gun control.

[onyx]

YES!
Arnold brought out the voters.
Arnold got MORE votes for than the others combined.

Arnold brought out the vote.

I don't recall the numbers or percentages,
but Gray's ouster was NOT a sure thing until
Arnold threw his hat into the ring.

Even then, the LASlimes tried to smear him.

[NittanyLion]

This entire line was in response to onyx's comment "Arnold won in CA! THAT is miraculous!"

I responded that "Given the confluence of events, anyone who opposed Davis would have won. The people wanted him out, period.."

To which you replied, "Your ignorance is on display again." and then continued on to substantiate all the ways anyone who opposed Davis could have won.

And you're claiming I've backed myself into a corner? I almost feel guilty, beating up on someone so overmatched. And the funny thing is, you have no idea how ridiculous you look.

[NittanyLion]

I don't recall the numbers or percentages, but Gray's ouster was NOT a sure thing until Arnold threw his hat into the ring.

They could've thrown a homeless guy from San Fran on the ballot and CA still would've voted Davis out.

[counterpunch]

There are rights, and there are laws. Some laws support rights, other don't. Rights survive law, as their existence is undeniable based on religion, logic, etc

If you want to speak philosophically, then we start life with full rights, and government only takes them away.

But realistically speaking, government decides which rights you have, and the Constitution protects just a select few of them from governmental encroachment.
Then it is up to the courts to decide the meaning and extent of those protections. If the law says you are not entitled to a certain right, then from a legal standpoint you do not have such a right, and it is wise not to try to excercise it.
You can proclaim your rights as you see them all you want, but no one's going to hear you from your jailcell.

I may hold certain subjective ideological philosophies, but I do not allow them to get in the way of understanding and accepting objective reality.

[NittanyLion]

But realistically speaking, government decides which rights you have, and the Constitution protects just a select few of them from governmental encroachment.

No - it decides which rights you are allowed to exercise. A crucial difference often overlooked by leftists like yourself.

[counterpunch]

And you're claiming I've backed myself into a corner? I almost feel guilty, beating up on someone so overmatched. And the funny thing is, you have no idea how ridiculous you look.

Have you bothered to look around?
Have you not noticed that you are all alone in your thinking?

[NittanyLion]

I notice you avoided addressing the remainder of my post.

I'll take that as affirmation that you realize your claim that I backed myself into the corner was raving lunacy.

[NittanyLion]

{{{{{{{{{crickets}}}}}}}}}}

[counterpunch]

No - it decides which rights you are allowed to exercise. A crucial difference often overlooked by leftists like yourself.

Back to arguing semantics and name calling?
Show me once where I advocated socialism.
That is the definition of a leftist. It is a socialist.

You are also parsing words here. I already acknowledged what you said just now in the first part of my reply, but you selectively edited that out.
You have completely missed the entire point of my post.

The point is, that you have not addressed the merits of what I stated yesterday - that AWB and abortion are federal issues now, out of the hands of the states and governors.

That is a statement of legal reality, not idealistic ideology. Instead you shifted gears and attacked me personally for not expounding a purist philosophy as you saw fit.

You have demonstrated a consistent MO of hit and run, constantly shifting the debate instead of addressing the issue as your points are knocked down one by one.

[hchutch]

Actually, I think he is more upset that someone he disagrees with is getting a national stage. There are some people don't want to win unless they can do so in a manner that is ideologically pure.

For them, ideological purity matters more than winning elections.

[NittanyLion]

What I stated at the time was that you certainly don't talk like a libertarian. It was only later that I discovered you have no ideology whatsoever; that you prefer to simply bounce around among a number of conflicting and contradictory statements.

[onyx]

They could've thrown a homeless guy from San Fran on the ballot and CA still would've voted Davis out.






*SIGH*
I give up.
That is a wholly stupid statement.

I have packing to do.

[NittanyLion]

For them, ideological purity matters more than winning elections.

As I recall from some of your posts, "them" includes you. Among the two of us, you're the only one voting against your Republican representative to spite them for past actions you didn't like.

[NittanyLion]

I notice you never did explain how Arnold would help Bush by speaking in a primetime slot.

[onyx]

Absolutely.
Furthermore, there's a reason
Arnold is getting the national
stage in prime time:

CA Governor and superstar Arnold is a HUGE GOP asset.

[Reagan Man]

Congrats! You've done a fine job at rebutting the "punch drunk one" at every opportunity. And you've done a good job at explaining to the "Arnold Groupies", why its so important to have mainstream Republicans dominate the speaker openings at the GOP convention. PresBush must give a right-moderate to conservative tone to the convention. Allowing a liberal to speak in prime time, will leave people confused. Pat Buchanan's culture war speech at the 1992 GOP convention left many people confused. I doubt the President wants a repeat of that fiasco.

The choice belongs to the President, but he will receive a lot of input from the GOP`s conservative base. I don't think Bush wants to further piss off conservative Republicans. Although he has advanced several key social welfare programs and increased budgetary expenditures to levels never before seen. Yet conservatives have been very loyal to Bush and for good reason. Conservatives like Bush`s increases in defense spending, his passage of three income tax cuts and his strong stance favoring pro-life issues. All things considered, the President is in good shape with his base.

Since 9-11, Rudi Guilani has become a powerhouse in national politics. With the convention taking place in NYCity, its a given that Rudi will get a primary speaker slot. However, I sure Rudi will stay away from the hot button issues. Let Rudi speak. Let Arnold sit.

Since the vast majority of convention delegates will be comprised of staunch conservatives, I'm sure the President doesn't want to advance liberal issues. And allowing GovRino a prime time speakers slot, serves no good purpose. Arnold may draw in some left of center moderates and wishy-washy centrists, but the GOP doesn't need liberals joining what is, for all intents and purposes, the conservative party. That defeats the purpose of the GOP's conservative platform agenda.