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...

[onyx]

Yep, Duncan Hunter too.

[b9]

We really liked him at the veteran's rally last Saturday.

It was good hearing them reiterate out loud the Kerry lies
that keep getting spun in the news.

I had to leave for several hours today.
This thread is absorbing.
(Exactly what it's absorbing, well, that all Depends)

Makes me more grateful than ever that
Arnold even WANTS to speak at the convention!

[Iberian]

If Republicans carry California, it will be a bigger landslide than I thought. Hope you are right :)

[b9]

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

Yes...reminiscent of two great "acting" CA governors!

[onyx]

If you're up late tonight,
try to watch Nightline...
reportedly Kerry's medals
are the subject.

[Tamzee]

Yes indeed :-)

[onyx]

Ditto your opinion of counterpunch.
Perfect screen name, huh?

[b9]

Oooo thanks.
Haven't watched Nightline in ages.
We'll know in the first 2 minutes if they give him a pass!

[Tamzee]

Yes, a perfect moniker. "Rocky Marciano" would work, too, just a constant series of heavyweight wins ;-)

[jmc813]

Arnold gives conservatives 80% of what they want

This figure is floated by several of you moderates and, quite frankly, is bull. Heck, my favorite politician out there right now is Ron Paul and I don't even agree with HIM 80% of the time. I think a more accurate figure for Arnold would be about 35%.

[jmc813]

This neoliberlism sounds a lot like libertarianism. Frankly, you sound like a libertarian. Maybe you're a member of the RLC?

No way in hell are Arnold supporters RLC types. If you recall, during the recall debates, the libertarian FReepers were fighting right along side of the social conservatives for McClintock. Tom actually had some quite libertarian leanings himself. I can dig up an old article on it if you're interested.

[jmc813]

Libertarianism also opposes the social and cultural conservatism preached by Ronald Reagan.

Also, you should be aware that Reagan considered libertarianism to be the heart of conservatism.

[Reagan Man]

>>>No way in hell are Arnold supporters RLC types.

Just trying to pin him down. Thanks for the clarification. This guys politics is a smorgasbord of "neoliberalism", "neoconservatism" and "Libertarianism". That's "Libertarianism" is a capital "L"! If I'm not mistaken, the RLC is the social conservative wing of the libertarian ideology. McClintock is a small govt conservative and that fits right in with the RLC agenda.

Btw, I thought you were being too generous with how GovRino's agenda appeals to conservative Republiacns. 35% is too high. 25% at best.

[jmc813]

You lash out at me and people like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani because you know that I'm right, and you fear the new brand of Republicanism that is coming just over the horizon, where authoritarianism

Giuliani is the perfect example of authoritarian liberalism. Also, I have a very hard time figuring out how someone who claims to have a libertarian philosiphy could be a supporter of the gun-grabbing Arnold and Rudy. If the 2nd Amendment is not a litmus test of libertarianism, I don't know what is.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Also, you should be aware that Reagan considered libertarianism to be the heart of conservatism.

Here we go again. Haven't been here for a long while. I debated with many libertarians and Libertarians over this interview.

Here's the interview you're refering to. Inside Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview, July 1975

This was one interview in a 30 year political career were Ronald Reagan ever mentioned the term "libertarian". Reason magazine is a libertarian publication and in all his interviews, Reagan was always the gentleman and the consummate politician. He understood the need to make appeals across the political spectrum. But Ronald Reagan was no libertarian. He was a conservative Republican. He never surrendered his conservative principles. Reagan was a law and order conservative, a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. I think the following line form that interview is very telling.

"... there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy."

Libertarian's are strong fiscal conservatives. Milton Friedman is a libertarian and along with conservatives like George Shultz, Alan Greenspan, Arther Laffer and Arthur Burns, was one of many economic advisors to Reagan during his Presidency.

[jmc813]

But Ronald Reagan was no libertarian. He was a conservative Republican. He never surrendered his conservative principles.

I agree. That interview is handy, however, for countering the arguments of the feminized statists here on FR who claim that libertarianism is the antithesis of conservatism, and is, in fact, more dangerous than liberalism. I think the last line of the interview wraps it up well; conservatism and libertarianism are distinctly different, but are on the same path.

[counterpunch]

I have a very hard time figuring out how someone who claims to have a libertarian philosiphy could be a supporter of the gun-grabbing Arnold and Rudy.

I've already dealt with these issues 7 ways to sunday.
I didn't claim to be a libertarian. The only philosophy I claimed to have was a neoclassical one. Don't tell me what my priorities are.

The only "gun-grabbing" I've ever seen Arnold do has been in the movies, right before he blows some dude's head off.

As for Giuliani, I'm not an expecrt on all of his policies as mayor of NYC. But it's NYC for crissakes. Not much legitimate huntin' there. I know that Rudi cut crime down by more than half.

If the 2nd Amendment is not a litmus test of libertarianism, I don't know what is.

If you're talking about broad interpritation of the 2nd Amendment by extremely loose constructionists who want to use it as justification for owning any type of weapon imaginable in any environment, then no, I don't think that is the litmus test for libertarians. That is the litmus test for gun nuts who don't understand or respect constitutional law.

[jmc813]

But it's NYC for crissakes. Not much legitimate huntin' there.

Read up on the Federalist Papers. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with "huntin".

[counterpunch]

Read up on the Federalist Papers. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with "huntin".

I've read the Federalist Papers. I'll remind you, however, that the Bill of Rights was the work of Jeffersonian Republicans, not the Federalists.

Gun rights advocates use sport hunting as their argument for assault weapons. Only to most extremist fringe nutjob would premise their case on violence against the government.

You aren't advocating terrorism now, are you?

[jmc813]

Gun rights advocates use sport hunting as their argument for assault weapons. Only to most extremist fringe nutjob would premise their case on violence against the government. You aren't advocating terrorism now, are you?

Of course not. I'm advocating Second Amendment rights as a very last resort against a government gone bad. A last resort that we will hopefuly never come to. Are you going to honestly tell me with a straight face that Jefferson favored gun ownership for hunting purposes?