Republicans First or Conservatives First?

Media Research Center ^ | August 19, 2003 | Brent Bozell

[TBP]

The Arnold Schwarzenegger candidacy may become a classic contest for activists to decide whether they are Republicans or conservatives first. Republicans are urging everyone to jump on the bandwagon, to "wake up and smell the Arnie," to take the pragmatic step that will guarantee the ouster of incompetent Gov. Gray Davis.

But what do conservatives gain for this leap of faith? This movie star’s campaign still is not presenting any concrete positions, conservative or liberal. He would like to be seen as a fiscal conservative, but Schwarzenegger has signed no anti-tax pledge nor offered any spending cuts or bureaucratic reforms. Instead, he has touted advisers like Warren Buffett, last hailed by Ted Koppel as "the sage of Omaha" for opposing the Bush tax cuts. Buffett’s also been a financial booster of Senators Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On social issues, conservatives gain nothing by elevating a Gov. Schwarzenegger. He told Cosmopolitan magazine "I have no sexual standards in my head that say this is good or this is bad." It also doesn’t help that adviser Buffett has been a massive funder of Planned Parenthood, the Vatican-bashing front group calling itself "Catholics for a Free Choice," and a bevy of other radical abortion proponents.

Some suggest Schwarzenegger’s leftist social views are irrelevant because this race is based on economics. But does anyone doubt that the 2004 Republican convention in New York would be dominated by media heavies tripping over themselves to get the governor of the nation’s most populous state to denounce the GOP platform on social issues as "out of the mainstream"? He would probably become the keynote speaker, or be at least as prominent on the podium as Christopher Reeve was for the Democrats the last time around, dominating one of the convention nights.

Conservatives should already notice what is happening in California coverage. The press is using Arnold to marginalize the right. On CNN, reporter Dan Lothian observed that "while Schwarzenegger has been connected to some conservative themes, like eliminating the car tax and voting for the anti-illegal immigrant measure Prop 187, his support of gay rights, abortion rights, and some gun control, [is] turning off the far right."

Lothian kept pounding: "For now, many conservatives are embracing Bill Simon who had impressive numbers but lost to Gray Davis last year, and state Senator Tom McClintock....The big question: Does Schwarzenegger even need the far right to win?" Lothian turned to USC professor Martin Kaplan, who added: "To the degree that Arnold Schwarzenegger tries to appeal to that far right vote, he will alienate the very moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats that he needs to put together a coalition."

The brain trust at CNN would relgate the philosophy of Ronald Reagan, that same philosophy that triggered two landslide election victories, to the "far right."And they wonder why their network is tanking.

CNN doesn’t care that Lothian’s utterly conventional labeling is at odds with its own network polls, that shows that it is Schwarzenegger’s "if it feels good do it" liberal positions on abortion and homosexuality that are out of the majority, out of the mainstream, and therefore better defined as "far left" than conservatives are defined as "far right." Why do these liberal media outlets always locate "the center" of our political spectrum somewhere in Massachusetts?

Lothian even hinted at marginalizing that massive and very real majority of Californians, the 59 percent who voted for the "anti-illegal immigrant" Proposition 187 back in 1994. You will never see Democrats described on CNN as "pro-illegal immigrant." Other reporters have used the appellation "anti-immigration" for that vote. Too many reporters leave out the nuance that you can be for Prop. 187 and for legal immigration. You can love your immigrant neighbors, and still think it’s a bad idea to provide a five-star menu of taxpayer-funded social services to people who have no respect for our legal system.

If desiring a legal, measured system of immigration that doesn’t encourage law-breaking puts you on the "far right," then where on the ideological spectrum do we place the judges and radical advocates who got this majority vote crushed? Once again, the media have described a political battle as between the "far right" and the "public interest," as propagandistic as that sounds.

The politics of Schwarzenegger may remain a mystery, but the politics of the "objective" press never really change. Conservatives have much to lose from creating a Frankenstein monster they can’t control, not to mention how the definition of "Republican" or "conservative" might be warped beyond recognition. Californians should just say no to the Schwarzeneggernaut.

[TheAngryClam]

Care to respond to post #28, then?

[Protagoras]

"I'm for gun control. I'm a peace-loving guy." --Arnold Schwarzenegger

So I guess he believes in gun registration. Do you?

[floriduh voter]

The Field Poll is from left field. Check out http://www.ourcampaigns.com/ if you want national compiled data that is balanced. That's how I knew that Jeb Bush was going to be re-elected Florida's Goveror. (Plus, McBride was a really bad candidate, even with McAwful's & Algor's help).

[TheAngryClam]

I have just two words: hell no.

[TheAngryClam]

Exactly my point- when even the field poll has the conservatives at double the junk PPIC poll that Arnold-loving RINOs are touting, there's a real problem.

[A CA Guy]

I am a conservative and would be right of Reagan in my views.
I also was blessed with logic and good common sense.

You can't always get everything you want "To quote the Stones" so you have to achieve your goals in STEPS!

McC and Simon are unelectable in this race at this time, so logic tells me that even though Arnold isn't everything I've ever hoped and dreamed of, he is by for the best choice between Cruz Bustamonte and Arnold.

Some claim an issue with their high principles involving this race. This is a problem and not a virtue when it in effect gets Democrats/liberals elected.

There is no common sense or logic in empowering Democrats. By only backing the perfect philosophical candidate, conservatives are throwing away their vote to the benefit of Democrats.
In this case it is KNOWN that McC and Simon are unelectable unless there is a miracle and the rest of the field drops dead before election day.

Arnold might be conservative lite, but he is a member of the team and it is moronic to stay on a legless horse in a race and to also try and sabotage the only winnable horse on the same team.

Some applications of principles can be totally stupid!

STEPS, our goals in this state can ONLY be achieved in STEPS.
There is a voting advantage favoring the Democrats and they vote in numbers because many have their employment attached to some form of government. The only way to win California back is to gather a bunch of smaller victories into eventual bigger ones. Conservatives are not in a position to make large strides all at once here in CA.

This is heavily tilted enemy territory that has to be reclaimed back for conservatives little STEPS at a time.

Califonians need to quit shooting themselves in the foot over their valued principles. That is foolish and self defeating.

[The Old Hoosier]

At least the GOP in the legislature will resist Cruz's tax hike.

[Roscoe]

With the exception of Libertarianism, there are few agendas as ill-concieved as "gun control".

And for Republicans to the actor's right politically, the moderate Schwarzenegger could be a target for his social views. He has described himself as "very liberal" on social issues," noting that he favors legalized abortion, gay adoptions and "sensible gun controls," including a ban on assault weapons.

By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer
August 7, 2003

[A CA Guy]

Why empower Democrats? That is a foolish choice IMO!

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

Ask Bob Dornan. Cruz wants to do want Loretta Sanchez did. You have no idea how often the hispanic community (legal and illegal) votes. The voter fraud in Dornan's district was terrible.
McClintock's senate district is not representatative of the entire state of California. I would vote for him if I thought he stood a chance. Sadly, he doesn't. Simon lost and cannot win either.
Arnold has a very good chance of winning and I'll take half a loaf over none. Cruz is worse than none.

[A CA Guy]

In this race the guy you wish to win has no chance.
It is self defeating to go down with your perfect choice when you in effect are helping to elect Democrats.

This is the mentality that has given them power to begin with in CA and will keep them there for decades longer unless conservatives get smart and get with the situation.

[South40]

Declaring someone unelectable and refusing to support him for that reason is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

No, it's called being a realist. The man has only 5% support in the polls...and there's a good reason why. This state is about as liberal as one gets. And even though liberals seem to want davis out they're not about to replace him with a conservative. If you think otherwise you're dreaming. That's not self-fulfilling prophecy, it's just fact.

If everyone who agreed with the conservative candidates voted for tehm instead of the "pragmatic" Kennedy Republican, they would have enough to build a plurality and win this race.

You're wrong again. There's just far too many Californians who agree with the conservative candidates to get them elected. Californians, though not necessarily conservatives, elected dianne feinstein. And polls show they would elect her governor had she run. And you think we outnumber those die hard liberals who only have one real choice on the ballot? If so, you're dreaming.

But too many of you would rather waste your vote on a liberal because he is a movie star with an R after his name.

You have absolutely no idea who I'll vote for and you're certainly way off as to my motive(s). I merely stated the obvious...a die-hard conservative is unelectable in the liberal state of California. Set aside your emotions for just one minute and you might see that.

[diotima]

Thanks! We do the best we can here in California.

[TheAngryClam]

So tell me, what's the half of a loaf Arnold gives you?

Gun bans? Abortions? Wasteful "for the kids" social spending? Gay adoption? Tax increases?

[hobbes1]

You can Never Say Never. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes.




The Pledge is a symbol, and I leave symbols for the symbol-minded.

[ex-snook]

Arnold: "Ich bin ein Berliner RINO."

Repub-lickcans "We are all RINOs now. "

[TheAngryClam]

The PPIC poll is highly flawed. I already pointed that out up above.

The Field Poll, which leans left itself, had the combined Simon/McClintock support at 17%, not too shy of Cruz's 22% and Arnold's 25% (or so for the other two- I only remember the conservative ones).

[South40]

How is McClintock unelectable?

He's at about 5% in the polls. You call that electable? lol!

[A CA Guy]

"Are drowning California Conservatives SMART enough to grab the lifeline within their reach?"

That is the whole issue in a nutshell.
The method of using small STEPS to get what we want is also needed to be learned.
This all or nothing mentality has proven in California to be the Democrats best friend.

[hobbes1]

I agree 1000%