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...

[counterpunch]

I'm sure he's a real nice guy. Just too liberal to be a prime time speaker at the convention.

Yeah, Arnold and Rudi should both be disinvited to the GOP convention.
Rick Santorum and Judge Roy Moore will bring so much more prestige, attention, and energy to the convention than these nobodies.

*sigh*

[counterpunch]

I am a partisan first.
My core principle is not electing Democrats.
That's more than can be said of you.

You keep your masturbatory "purist ideology". I'll go with re-electing Bush and expanding the GOP majority in the Senate instead.

[hchutch]

John Warner openly helped defeat a conservative Republican. If you want to blame me for calling that independent what he is, and voting that way, that is your business. But you sure seem willing to give Warner a pass for openly sabotaging a conservative - and sure seem eager to condemn Arnold Schwarzenegger for his ideological impurity.

You don't have any room to criticize me.

[counterpunch]

I notice you avoided addressing the remainder of my post.

I already addressed your ridiculous attempt to deny Arnold's mandate. Your points regarding this are patently false to every clear thinking individual.

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

Well I'm glad you take this point of view.
You've provided proof just now that you realize I am correct on every single point I've made which you didn't attempt to refute. I've matched each one of your points head on, only to have you change the subject after each of my replies.

[Chemist_Geek]

Is winning elections anywhere in your agenda?
How do you expect to advance any part of your agenda if you don't first win the election?

No, winning an election is less important than maintaining ideological purity. At least, to far too many posters here, it is. They don't even stop to think that in order to govern conservatively, one must first win elections...

[onyx]

The "out-of-staters" have ALWAYS misread CA politics.
Some worse than others, but not one of them KNOW a
thing about CA politics.

[onyx]

Allso, my favorite term for their third party votes: masturbatory.

[Reagan Man]

>>>No, winning an election is less important than maintaining ideological purity. At least, to far too many posters here, it is. They don't even stop to think that in order to govern conservatively, one must first win elections...

Another centrist speaks with forked tongue.

This is simple stuff. Conservative Republicans don't support advancing political liberals or the liberal agenda. I don't think you'll find many right of center moderates who do either. Conservatives aren't demanding unanimity on all issue. Conservatives want political unity within the GOP in order to secure victory. The best way to accomplish that is to stand for what you believe in. Stand on the core set of principles, values and beliefs that constitute the conservative base agenda of the GOP party platform. IOW. The objective is to advance conservatism, while denouncing liberalism in all its incarnations. Once you get into power, you may have to compromise on some issues, but you still don't ever reject your core principles. Ronald Reagan won two landslide victories, revitalized the US economic and achieved victory over totalitarism by sticking to his principles and only compromising as a last resort. Reagan compromised on issues, but never surrendered his principles.

[counterpunch]

Conservatives want political unity within the GOP in order to secure victory.

Then you are no conservative, by your own definition.
If you were, then you would be promoting unity within the party, which means unity behind elected Republicans such as Schwarzenegger.

Instead you only offer the divisive ideology of slash and burn diatribe.

[NittanyLion]

Right you are. The idiocy posted to this thread should become legendary. I'm just astounded.

[counterpunch]

Right you are. The idiocy posted to this thread should become legendary. I'm just astounded.

Oh what bittersweet irony.

[NittanyLion]

Stick to Photoshop and let the adults discuss serious issues, kiddo.

[counterpunch]

Stick to Photoshop and let the adults discuss serious issues, kiddo.

I'd tell you to stick to what you're good at, likewise, except I'm not sure what that is, if anything.

I've yet to see you put forth a serious argument other than claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you on every issue is a leftwing liberal RINO who doesn't deserve a place under the Republican tent.

A serious minded adult understands when to work together on common goals, and when to respect differences of opinion.
They also understand that there is a time and place for timely debate and civilized disagreement, and a time and place to put differences aside and come together.

It is way past that time, and yet you and your kind still prattle on after the clock has long since stopped, making unwelcome, diagreeable noises to the annoyance of every clear thinking Republican who has their eye on the bigger picture.

I will continue to chastise you and anyone else who instigates bellicose and divisive rhetoric towards GOP leadership. As long as you work against GOP victory, you are on my list.

Watch out, or you just might be the target of the next piece in the CouNTeRPuNcH Collection.

[NittanyLion]

Oh no! Not a parody on some nameless internet site no one outside FR has ever heard about!

Knock yourself out, kiddo.

[counterpunch]

You'd be surprised by how many hits I've gotten.
It's getting around beyond FR.
Much thanks to many people here who have helped out with that.

[NittanyLion]

Present argument aside, I'm sure you do get a lot of hits. It's good work. No doubt it takes you a lot of time to finish it all.

[counterpunch]

Thanks.
Actually most of them don't take that much time. The "Liberal Hearts" one did because it took 7 different photos to make. The most time consuming aspect is searching the internet for appropriate source images. On that one, the top of Kerry's head was cropped off so I had to find another photo of the same angle that had his whole head in it, match the size, color, and exposure, then combine the two.

It was also quite difficult to find a picture of fat girl in a party dress. They're surprisingly shy.

[b9]

We're fortunate to elect Randy Duke Cunningham, David Dreir, Dana Rohrbacker, Christopher Cox, Darrel Isham and Mary Bono.

And Duncan Hunter?

[b9]

The "out-of-staters" have ALWAYS misread CA politics.

Except the ones with family here, like Tamsey.

[Tamzee]

Yikes! Is this thread still lumbering along? LOL

Counterpunch is utterly brilliant. His ability to keep his temper dealing with the venomous crowd astounds me...