How about:
ARNOLD - He will erase your past, to protect your future.
(and my tag line)
NordP
Posted on 08/06/2003 11:31:56 PM PDT by jagrmeister
CALLING ALL Arnold Schwarzenegger Supporters:
I am announcing the creation of ArnoldGovernor.net . I have reserved the domain, but the site is up right now at a temporary URL which can be seen here (www.elephantparty.com). I am a Californian and a conservative - and I can say with certainty that Arnold represents the best chance we have of claiming California's governorship. I am posting this site for your review.
First, the others in the race. Bill Simon and Tom McClintock are both fine men, but they have lost important statewide races in the past. Simon lost a race against Davis last year which should have been a cakewalk given Davis' record. Most political analysts agree that Simon ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory. McClintock is a virtual unknown statewide (let's not get fooled by our own echo chamber). The KEY to remember is that we have
Only 2 months (8 weeks) until Election Day. There is NO time to run someone who Californians have rejected in the past or a virtual unknown. For those who have leaned towards either of them, I'm appealing to your sense of reason to get behind someone with the best shot of winning. Now, why should we elect Arnold?
Arnold is a fiscal conservative but moderate otherwise. His stance on abortion will matter less than you might think- that's a matter for Supreme Court justices which the California governor has no say about. He is pro-business, pro-entrepreneurship, and tough on crime (witness his Proposition 49 which aims to reduce juvenille crime - a major, largely unaddressed component of crime). He is an "American by choice" and is very patriotic. People look at him and think "It's okay to be a Republican". With Schwarzenegger pulling a Total Recall on Grey Davis, Bush may actually find that California is friendly territory in 2004.
I am looking for pro-Arnold supporters to help:
1. Pitching Arnold's candidacy
2. Graphics design- create compelling visuals that are pro-Arnold or anti-Davis
3. Anyone else that wants to be pinged for pro-Arnold events.
4. Coming up with good one liners, spin, updates, opposition research, etc.
Let's team up! Thanks!!
Once I get your suggestions, I will update the site and in a few days, it will be at ArnoldGovernor.net . Thanks all Freepers for your help.
From all reports I've heard, the man is squeaky clean. Unless the opposition wants to doctor a photo of the Scotsman wearing a dress (kilt) with a topless, big-tittied woman sitting atop his shoulders ?
"Are you a California voter and have fund memories of Tennessee or you're just like most of us an interested onlooker?"
Nope, I'm in Tennessee, but as I've repeated ad infinitum, a large chunk of my family is out there, and I'm also more then well-versed on the average Californian on its political history, and other states as well, which is why I'm able to offer some insights others might not know about.
"One gripe I have against my fellow Republicans is the fact that we have a problem with incrementalism. (that's a huge shock going from ultra liberal to loyal conservative in one bite) We know it's the right thing, but does the majority of voters who managed to vote for Davis believe this? The democrats have mastered that ability. They don't go for the whole enchilada, they set their goal and piecemeal it until they have what they've gone after--whether good or bad."
Incremantalism is fine -- if you have the time to do it. Since the concept of a GOP majority in the California legislature in the last 40 years is nearly a pipe dream, the few times we've had the chance, we pretty much would have to shove the whole enchilada through (remember the first days of the 104th Congress in 1995 ?). The 'Rats as of late haven't resorted to incrementalism in Sacramento, but the whole friggin' hog. I'm not sure what they're worried about, it's not as if Ah-nold will stop their radical agenda, be it social or economic.
"You might just be right in thinking that a staunch conservative Republican could win now, but if not, we will have gambled and lost again. I'm of the mind that if Arnold has a snow ball chance of winning, why not take the best and viable candidates and place them in his administration. Working together to accomplish the goal for California. You do have to deal with the issue that Bill Simon was not able to gain the majority when he had the chance and McClintock is probably the best candidate but very little known, from all that I've heard."
It sounds reasonable enough, but there's some flaws here. If by saying that if we run "another Conservative" and they lose, we shouldn't do that again, then what about all of the plethora of liberal RINOs that have been run in the last 2 decades that have lost ? After seeing Ed Zschau, John Seymour, Michael Huffington, Matt Fong (who started out moderate but went completely RINO), and Tom Campbell run one losing campaign after another, why on earth would we want to run one more RINO (as examples of Senate candidates ?). Regarding Ah-nold putting McClintock types in his administration, the question is why would Ah-nold want to or why would McClintock want to join ? Ah-nold's entire agenda is at odds with the Republican Party (the reason why he wants to lure business back to CA is to pay for more subsidies of day care and the black hole known as public ed), so that makes as much sense for McClintock to join that group as for the late Jorge Mas Canosa to have served as Fidel Castro's personal bodyguard. As for Bill Simon not gaining the majority, all he had to do, as with this recall, is win a plurality. Simon never lost because of ideas, but because of a shoddy fall campaign, which has been also repeated ad infinitum. The only people you'll see in an Ah-nold administration are destructive party-killing RINO apostate elitists like Tricky Dick Riordan, Brooks Firestone, and Gerry Parsky, the "Three Stooges" of the Republican Establishment Left.
"Don't knock everybody that has smoked dope in their early years(no I'm not advocating legalizing marijuana). Some tried cigarettes, others tried alcohol or stronger drugs, many of us tried reefer. Despite your moral standards many of us made it through those years without losing our minds. And have become fine, upstanding citizens."
At least some have.
He's got the best chance of winning because that is the assumption. And for the umpteenth time, you win nothing with his election, nothing. The concept of "it's Arnold or somebody with a D after their name" is indistinguishable, since you elect Ah-nold, you're getting a "D" (or an "S" as in Socialist) with an "R" after their name. I don't want a Republican-Socialist as Governor of any state, period.
And if you believe that, you've not only smoked your whole stash, but swallowed all the bong water, too. It'll be a "golden shower" of Socialism raining down, with the nice aromatic hint of digested asparagus.
The media doesn't want to focus on him, because he stands 180 degrees against their extremist agenda. Why give someone like that any coverage ?
"He's a state senator who'd lost on the full statewide stage."
...yet won more of the vote than Bill Simon, was massively outspent by his opponent, and lost because of the presence of a 3rd party Conservative. If this were a liberal 'Rat who did that well in a GOP state with an inept Governor, you'd better believe they'd be considered a viable candidate. McClintock is, and it's that simple.
"He might be good in a normal race, but in a 61 day multiple hundred contestant race he can't seperate himself from the field."
But he should damn well try, and others that would take votes away from him (Bill Simon, Elton Gallegly) ought to get out so he can be the Conservative GOP standard-bearer.
I don't hide the fact, but my expertise extends far beyond the boundaries of my state. Apparently for some, their expertise on their own state politics doesn't extend beyond the boundaries of their closet.
He (Ah-nold) may end up with 25% of the vote. Call that a "landslide" ? It's merely a victory for Socialism, and not for Republicans.
Though it certainly didn't make it right, but I'm not going to turn this into a thread over drugs.
"It's like President Bush. I really don't care that he drank too much alcohol. He grew up, and stopped drinking. That's what I care about."
It wasn't just alcohol, but at least that's a legal substance. His usage of "other" products was of considerable concern to me.
"You don't live in California, so you are not personally worried about your or your spouse's job. You don't have kids in the public school out here. My husband thinks he's going to lose his job by the end of the year. My kids' school has lost it's science program and several very good teachers due to budget cuts."
And you haven't been reading my posts. I have most of my family in CA. My 9-year old (as of tomorrow) nephew and 7-year old niece live there, and I'm EXTREMELY concerned about them. I wouldn't put my children in public school at gunpoint (having survived that horror in my own state). Those are nothing but Marxist indoctrination camps which simulataneously dumb-down the children and fill their heads up with anti-American hate (think John Walker Lindh of Marin County or Rachel Corrie) and other misguided nonsense. But I take from that paragraph, you seem to have no problem pumping more money into that abominable black hole of public ed, empowering groups like the NEA to such epic proportions that we'll never be able to check their march towards impenetrable political power and control over every child of school age in the US. I'm for smashing that monster into a million pieces.
"We need to get someone in fast who can fix up this mess."
And by championing Ah-nold, I guarantee the mess will be anything but fixed, but made utterly permanent. Austrian Ah-nold will make sure his Swedish-style Socialistic notions will convert California into El Mejico Norte.
"Unfortunately, it will not be McClintock. He's a loser in a much easier election."
And, why, again did he lose ? (Hint: I've mentioned it in other posts in this thread). BTW, if you consider getting outspent by your opponent by an obscene margin to be an "easy" election, you've got another thing coming.
"He wasn't running for governor before, and he lost. He is not electable at this time."
Only because naysayers around here continue to harp on that. If all Conservatives vote for him in this election, he'll win, and it's that simple.
"It doesn't mean that I dislike the guy. Heck, I wish a more conservative candidate was electable, but that isn't the case."
Then between Davis and Ah-nold, why are you supporting the bigger Socialist of the two ?
Absolutely. And it's abundently clear from this thread and others that their is considerable ignorance of Ah-nold's stands. A fiscal Socialist and social extremist. You'll note the constant refrain, "he's the only one who can win/he's the only one who can clean up the mess", but of which are falsehoods. California demonstrates why Socialism applied at the state level doesn't work, yet "Conservatives" around here want a "Republican" in Ah-nold to spread an even thicker layer of Socialism to this collapsed roof. Mass hysteria.
"I cannot imagine a bloc of conservatives, IF united, being able to come out on top. But if the conservatives had been united form the start, they might have been able to win with 30 percent."
And 30% in this, even 25%, can win us this race.
Ah-nold is quite definitely RINO by CA standards or any state's standards. There are a lot of (believe it or not) anti-Communist Socialists (despite the oxymoronic nature of that), and that's what Ah-nold is, but his agenda is still rotten Socialist statism to the core.
How about:
ARNOLD - He will erase your past, to protect your future.
(and my tag line)
NordP
Purists = real Republicans.
"you'd rather have a outright socialist like bustamante than a fiscal conservative like arnold who recently said he only believes in welfare for people in wheelchairs?"
The Ah-nold sycophant will repeat the mantra "fiscal conservative" as the Clinton sycophant repeated "it's only about sex", both were, of course bold-faced lies. The funny thing is that, unlike Clinton, Ah-nold's own rhetoric exposes him as an outright Socialist. These types of posts are very easily refuted, and need to be when seen on FR.
Neither. I'd rather see McClintock. This is a special election. Throw the rules out. 25% can win this.
Hardly. But each one of these Ah-nold pornographic threads has to have a truth squad assigned to it, dear sir.
"the man was asking for help in supporting arnold, not for your opinion of the candidate."
He can ask for help, and I'm proud to offer it to any REAL Republican, not Socialist frauds. If someone came here to solicit support for Hillary Clinton, do you think 99% of us would ignore it ? Ah-nold threads are flame fodder on FR.
"also, you've called arnold a socialist at least 50 times, but you still haven't offered any proof that he'd be as bad as bustamante or davis."
The proof would only come AFTER the fact. We already have circumstantial evidence of the damage his agenda would create, and the ends results of this tack in other states. The difference between Ah-nold, Cruzie, and Uncle Joe is that the latter two would keep a united front amongst the GOP to fight a Socialist agenda, while the former would create a massive rift. How many times must that be repeated ?
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.