Help me rebutt this anti-Bush/Arnold Lib ! ( Vanity )

This was posted in the venting section of a forum I frequent . What would you informed guys and gals say to rebutt this guy ?

Keep Our Republic Free

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER
and say THANKS to Jim Robinson!
IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR
THANKS!

First of all, Democrats conrolled EVERYTHING in Cali, Republicans in national politics could hardly be accused of being in that position...JFK

Sounded like it came from a liberal who is angry with Bush?

The arguement equating Davis with Bush II is flawed, because being governor of California is not the same as being President of the United States of America.

Bush II has the responsibility to defend America against the 9/11/01 attackers. Bush II has the credit rating of the US Government if the US borrows money. Bush II is not bound by law to balance the US budget.

Arnold has none of these.

I'm particularly interested in your thoughts re : his comparison of Arnold to Clinton .

Hard to refute the facts, but don't worry, soon enough the DemocRATs will implode and we can all rest well as the "Compassionate ModeRATs" will be in charge.

If Arnold does well, he'll do Republicans as a whole well.
Bush has nothing to do with California. They're seperate issues.
Bush inherited a recession. He told the country a recession was comming while campaining. It's not his. It's Clintons.
Arnold inherited the same from Gray.
Both are stuck with Democrat clean ups. I'm sure they're doing the best they can. It's a mess! Two seperate issues, two seperate messess to clean up.

The answer, in my mind at least is simple. The Republican party is a big tent in which many diverse views are welcomed. Please remember Rudy Guliani is pro all of the things Arnold espouses and, in addition, supports partial birth abortion. Governor Pataki is also a liberal. Arlen Spetor is liberal. It is the Democrat party who refused to allow the ex governor of Pennsylvania (I believe his name was Wolford and he died several years ago after a heart/lung transplant) to speak at the Democrat convention because he was pro life. Therefore, I would say we are a party of inclusion, not exclusion and all are welcome.

Here is a link to an outstanding editorial by Daniel Henninger in today's WSJ.

LINK

It explains the Arnold phenomenon vs. the Democrats perfectly.

What would you informed guys and gals say to rebutt this guy ?

California state politics are not US federal politics. Anger at California politicicians dos not equal anger at the Bush administration. Nice try, to connect them, but they are not connected.

An overarching concern at the federal level is international terrorism. California politics are not relevant in that sphere. Bush is doing a swell job at national security, and Mr. Schwarzenegger deserves the benefit of the doubt at fixing California's fiscal issues.

I'm particularly interested in your thoughts re : his comparison of Arnold to Clinton

You may need to ping the Arnold people

Bush is a bad president and solely responsible for taking America's biggest surplus to the biggest deficit in history...

It was easy for Clinton to balance the budget. He didn't have to pay for the Cold War, and he did little IMHO to stop Bin Laden. Bush II has to pay for that failure.

Pro-gun control, pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, fiscal moderate, accused of innapropriate sexual advances, Governor of Arkansas = Satan Incarnate. Use any means necessary (i.e. impeachment) to remove from office.

He left out "perjury" and "obstruction of justice", which, after all, were the actual impeachment charges.

Pro-gun control, pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, fiscal conservative, accused of innapropriate sexual advances, who actually proclaimed his embarrasment and shame of the Republican party for carrying forward with Clinton impeachment, Governor of California = Republican Salvation. Receive endorsements from Orrin Hatch and defacto endorsement from Bush. Use any means necessary to elect (i.e. recall) to office.

Again, call me if/when Arnold commits perjury and/or obstruction of justice. (Let's leave aside the fact that "Republican Salvation" is a bit much....)

Can someone help me reconcile those concepts?

Uh, to reiterate: one committed perjury and obstruction of justice (these are things called "crimes"), the other hasn't as far as I know.

he can be a catalyst to drag that party out of their 1950's vision of America

I don't know what this person means by the Republican supposed "1950's vision of America". Drive-in burger joints? Sock hops? Sounds cool to me.

Second, I'm not sure that his victory actually portends well for the Bush Administration.

Me neither. Who said it did?

Californians were pissed off -- and they yanked the guy at the top right out of office. If Davis was a bad governor and solely responsible for taking California's surplus to a deficit, being an uninspiring leader, and double speak -- then Bush is a bad president and solely responsible for taking America's biggest surplus to the biggest deficit in history, being an uninspiring leader and double speak. You can't have it both ways,

Yes you can. There is no "recall" provision for the U.S. President. If this person wants to think these things are horrible and blame Bush for these things, that is his right, and next year he can vote for someone else. If enough people do so, Bush will be gone; otherwise he stays. So the point is moot. Bush can only be compared to Gray if people get "pissed off" in 2004 at Bush like they did last week at Gray, and we're just going to have to wait and see if that happens.

and you can't rightly or wrongly hang responibility on one leader, and at the same time absolve another from any blame.

Just for the record, I don't "hang responsibility on" Gray Davis for all the bad things which have happened to California, nor do I absolve Bush of "any" blame for whatever bad things have supposedly happened to the U.S. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. People were pissed at Gray, there's no way of knowing if there's anything like the same groundswell against Bush (my guess: no), and we're just going to have to wait and see what happens. This part of the guy's post mostly boils down to wishful thinking, i.e. "I hope people start hating Bush as much as they did Gray". He may be right, or not, but there's no use discussing or arguing the point.

If Davis is solely responsible for the mess in California, then Bush is solely responsible for the mess in the US as a whole.

But that's just it, nobody ever said "Davis is solely responsible for the mess in California" to begin with. For example I don't believe that to be the case at all.

Throw in Iraq on top of the pile and I think there is vulnearbility.

I don't know what this means. He seems to be assuming the reader thinks that Iraq is some kind of quagmire or something. I don't. I'm sure Bush is quite "vulnear-ble" with people who already hate Bush, for what it's worth.

I think California was not a showdown about (R) vs. (D). If it was, either McKlintock or Bustimante would have won

Eek. You'd think this guy would take the trouble to learn all these peoples' names, before trying to make commentary on the subject.

I think California was not a showdown about (R) vs. (D). If it was, either McKlintock or Bustimante would have won (and McKlintock was a way distant third -- much too far right, and another career politician).

Heh. He seems to have lost his train of thought. Did McClintock finish third because the election was "not a showdown about (R) vs. (D)"? or because he's "much too far right"? Which is it? Maybe it *was* about (R) vs. (D), the (R) being Schwarzenegger, and McClintock being "too far right" to be considered a mainstream (R) by most. That would fit all the facts, although this person doesn't like that interpretation, because (I'm guessing) he likes (D)s and prefers to put a pro-(D) spin on things as much as possible. (i.e., hates the thought that people might not like (D)s so much.)

If California is a harbinger for the nation, then I think a Clark-Dean "outsider ticket" has a puncher's chance.

I don't know about "harbingers", but certainly it is not a physical impossibility for Clark-Dean or Dean-Clark or whoever the (D) nominee to beat Bush in 2004. We'll see. Was that it? That's all he wanted to say? He wrote this up just to spin the Schwarzy victory as a way to convince himself that it's theoretically possible for Clark-Dean to win in 2004? Sounds pretty desperate and pessimistic if it takes that much effort to convince himself.

There is not much to compare between Arnold and Clinton.

Arnold has been accused of groping several women and other sorts of boorish behavior, many years ago.

Clinton has been PROVEN to have had a sexually inappropriate relationship with an intern WHILE IN ELECTED OFFICE.

When Arnold was publically accused by a Leftwing media outlet, he promptly appoligised, asked for forgivness, said it would not happen again, and promised to be a champion for women.

Clinton lied his a** off. He publically stated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". When Juanita Broderick claimed that Clinton had raped her before he was elected (rape, not a grope), almost every media outlet on America refused to cover the story. When Kathleen Willey said Clinton had approached her crudely IN THE WHITE HOUSE her character was atacked by the Leftist media even though she was a long time Democrat.

If it was not for a certain blue dress, Clinton would still be lying about what had happened. Arnold has already gotten past that point.

I think California was not a showdown about (R) vs. (D). If it was, either McKlintock or Bustimante would have won (and McKlintock was a way distant third -- much too far right, and another career politician). This was about citizens being p*ssed off, wanting a change, and to see if an outsider could be a catalyst.

I'm here in Texas so take my analysis as you would that from any armchair quarterback.

The support for Arnold did not come from one specific mind set of voter:

Republicans opposed Bustemante because of his positions on the issues. Bustemante still represented the current administration in California and some Democrats and unaffiliated voters wanted to toss Davis out WHILE rebuking the rest of the administration. No support for Bustemante from these people.

McKlintock may been the conservative choice, a number of Republican voters were observant enough to know that Arnold would be receiving cross-over support (enough to possibly take away from McKlintock's win and maybe not enough to take away from a strong showing for Bustemante).

Rebuking Davis (and Bustimante) was the primary goal. This does reflect on the Democrats, especially since they opposed the recall of Gray Davis AND supported the election of Bustemante.

Neither Democrat goal was acheived.

If it was just about an outsider, why didn't a match get lit under a non-partied candidate? Arnold may be a RINO/CINO but he wouldn't have gotten the Republican support if he didn't at least appeal to some misguided voters as a "Republican".

The voters responded to Arnold because they are tired of the same old BS.

The Liberals offer no solutions to our problems. They can only attack those who do.

The Democrats had total control of California, and lost it because of their incompetance. They refused to address the issue of corruption. Arnold is bringing in outside auditors to find a solution. That is what the corrupt Democrats refused to do.

Re: sued by Paula Jones -- Swarzenegger proves that most Americans by in large don't really give a snot . .

This is where you are missing the big picture.. Much of America knows todays democrat party for 2 things, defending the indefencible in the late 90s for clinton, and Al Gores delusion of grandure in Florida, leading to a huge embarrassment on the world stage.

In both situations, the democrat party, knowingly, willingly, collectively, intentionaly put their own raw lust for power in front of the good of the nation, instead of doing the right thing. NOTE:the "right thing" for Terry Mc-Laugh-off as the head of the DNC was to walk int to bill clintons office in the late 90s and pronounce that "we will not defend the indefencible", like Bush Sr. said to Nixon in the 70s, and the "right thing" for Gore to do was not contest a certified election when he had no case.

The missing parameter in your metric is STATESMANSHIP

(the ability, willingness, and tendancy to put the needs of country above your own party).

Bush has it, he knows it, and he works it well.

Arnold has it, he knows it, and he works it very well.

clinton never had it, Grey Davis never had, they still don't know it, and they fail to realise that they need it.

The post is not even a clever "sleight-of-hand" politicking manuever. Obviously written by a novice.

The US was attacked by terrorists. The US responded. It cost money to defend the US, and to root out those who were determined to assassinate even more US citizens.

The Democrats in California have been incrementally seizing Californian's by the throat, and through their pocketbooks. The Recall was in response to a hostile, anti-constitutional, anti-fiscal-responsible legislature headed by Gray Davis.

Gray Davis, Vasconcellos, Sheila Kuehl, ad nauseum -- were so pushy and big on selective attention to only preferred citizens (by their own definition) that even their usual constituent base was feeling financially squeezed as they saw tax dollars being used to pump Personal Agenda of Democrats, and to line pockets, investments, and power base.

It's as simple as that.

Defending the US from assaultors and terrorists is clearly in the US interests - no matter what US state. Going after terrorists and stopping them in their tracks -- it is here -- where one might possibly do a comparison: Democrats run up $38 billion in debt with another $11-20 billion more to come. The Citizens of CA -- stopped these irresponsible carpetbagging psuedo "reps" of the people of CA -- in their tracks.

In my opinion, clinton wasn't hated because of his stance on the issues - one might expect the same stance from any dim. He was hated because he was incomprehensibly corrupt, and defended himself by making his whole administration into one huge smear campaign against anyone who dared point out the obvious truth. The innumerable scandals, the attack-dog responses from carville, begalla, et al.; treating the American people like knuckle-dragging morons who might believe his inane responses, vast right-wing conspiracy and all.

And so, I would say that your libertarian friend is setting up a straw man argument, saying that clinton was hated because of his stance on issues. Also, Schwarzenegger is a state governor, while clinton was president of the whole country. Any good libertarian will tell you that states may run their own business any way they like, but the federal gov't is prohibited from doing many of the same things by the Constitution.