Posted on 09/02/2003 10:05:05 PM PDT by HadEnough
The Oui Republican Print Friendly Format E-Mail this to a Friend By George Neumayr Published 9/3/2003 12:04:00 AM
Arnold Schwarzenegger, not yet ready to play a Republican on television, planned to duck Wednesday's gubernatorial debate. Here we have the four-corners pampered celebrity offense. Schwarzenegger will only appear at one debate, a mid-September event that gives the candidates the questions in advance. Schwarzenegger can learn his lines for that one.
Schwarzenegger must chuckle at the ease with which he has manipulated this race. He only had to toss a few bones toward Republicans to get them to jump up on his lap. He made vague anti-tax sounds at one press conference and he is suddenly a Republican we can all trust. How many times will the Jim Jeffordses have to burn Republicans before they realize that liberal Republicans always govern like Democrats?
Schwarzenegger's statement that he wouldn't raise taxes unless there is an emergency is hardly reassuring. The state is in an emergency! Does that justify a tax hike? We'll see.
Unless a Republican is explicitly and philosophically opposed to new taxes he will eventually raise them. It is not hard to imagine a Governor Schwarzenegger raising taxes "for the children." His automatic dismissal of cuts to education spending -- he won't even consider them, despite the California educational system's reputation as a bloated bureaucracy and gravy train for hack teachers -- is telling.
It is clear that he has no concept of limited government. True, he says the state shouldn't spend money it doesn't have. But this just implies that it is okay to kick-start the spending once tax revenues roll in. That the state should only perform the few functions the people can't perform for themselves is not an idea in his head, as is clear from his remark that the "children" get first crack at the state treasury. Statists talk about "before-school and after-school programs"; conservatives talk about before-school and after-school parents.
Downplaying his adviser Warren Buffett's pro-tax positions, Schwarzenegger says that both the left and the right are represented in his campaign. Actually, it is only the left and the center. Wilsonites are not the right. Pete Wilson engineered the largest tax hike in California state history. Richard Riordan, another influence on Schwarzenegger, is also an avowed tax-hiker, once saying that "We must be willing to increase the tax dollars for schools. Pulling up the ladders will not be enough to protect us from the crime and the ultimate need for more tax dollars to take care of increasing social problems."
Like Riordan, Schwarzenegger has said that he is "very liberal" about social programs. How will he pay for these very liberal social programs? Social liberals never end up fiscal conservatives, because statism depends upon the financing of fiscal liberalism.
Unless Schwarzenegger grasps that government should only do what the people can't do for themselves, there is no reason to believe that he will govern as a fiscal conservative. Moreover, the social problems he wants government to solve were created in large part by the liberal morality he espouses. The irresponsible ethos he casually discussed in his comically obscene, exhumed Oui interview -- and which he still at some level accepts, as evident from his Howard Stern appearances -- has contributed to the pathologies that drive the expansion of government. Schwarzenegger is a "children's activist" who supports the sexual-revolution morality that hurts children.
If a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual adoption Democrat with a history of group sex were in the race, Republicans would consider that candidate a danger to the commonweal. So why does all of this become acceptable when the candidate has an "R" after his name? What does it profit a party to win and lose its soul? Now we even hear the same Republicans who lamented the Clintonization of politics rejoice that it will spare their candidate further scrutiny.
The race is now down to three candidates -- a liberal Democrat, a Republican with Democratic views, and a real Republican, Tom McClintock. He is a Republican rarity in the state, a politician with a functioning intellect and backbone. So clearly he is not electable. It never occurs to Republicans that this fatalism about conservatives like McClintock guarantees that they will never win. The fatalism fulfills itself. Yes, a half of a loaf is better than none. But if Schwarzenegger wins conservatives will be lucky to even get crumbs.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Political Action Committee is endorsing Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. We hope that taxpayers will support our choice. We believe he will be an outstanding governor for taxpayers and that he has the best chance to keep the state out of the hands of the enemies of Proposition 13.GO TOMMIE GO..............In addition to endorsing him, we are strongly recommending that Schwarzenegger find a prominent place for the wise counsel of both McClintock and Ueberroth in his administration.
Naa, every single moderate and liberal I work with is saying "anybody but (R)nold" and talking about how much they don't trust him. Its really funny since this is his "base", I don't think he's really electable whatsoever.
I have a question for you, as a voter for him, can you tell me whether (R)nold will raise taxes in California?
Thanks. Tell me, I'm having just so much trouble getting an answer to a very direct question, you are so helpful perhaps you can weigh in;
Will (R)nold raise taxes in my state if elected?
Bwahahahahaha. Yeah, absolutely! That's why Bob Mulhulland and every other demoncrap is panicing, much like you are. Man, them dumbocraps luv you! Bwahahahahaha!
Maybe. However, bustamecha certainly will.
Go Arnold
I think they love (R)nold a whole lot more, and all the "bwhahas" are directed right at you, but that is for another time. Lets try to focus. I know this is your first day back on the board after your banning, so I don't want to get into too many topics...
Will (R)nold raise taxes in my debt ridden state of California if elected?
You can't accept maybe? You'd prefer Bush the senior's promise 'no new taxes'?
Bwhahahahahhahahaha, how much is bustamecha paying you? Bwhahahahahaha - you're ridiculously funny. You think when bustamecha is elected you can turn this around to blame us? Bwahahahahahahaha!
Of course not, what's really funny is that you can't say yes or no. What do you think will happen? I mean you have been clamoring to be allowed back on FR after you banning, you obviously follow the recall very closely, you must have an opinion.
Can you answer a simply yes or no question-Will (R)nold raise taxes in California. I've asked this of about 5 Stormtroopers so far, some of the most obnoxious on FR, and you know something-not one of them has been able to give me a simple straight answer, kind of like their candidate. Now THAT is funny.
If you want a yes or no to your question you are indeed very simply minded.
He's makin a list,
checkin' it twice,
gonna find out whose naughty or nice,
Santa Claus is coming to town.
Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho hooo.
Would you stop trying to put words in my mouth for one single post? LOL, I swear. So is the deficit an emergency? I mean, I am looking for an answer here, so vague extenuating circumstance are a political trick to not answering the question.
It was? I didn't know that. I think I may have used a naughty word in my overzealous mood. If so, I apologize to my fellow FReepers.
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.