Posted on 08/07/2003 9:22:55 PM PDT by ambrose
Here's a question that I'd like to hear put to prominent Republicans who are backing Arnold S. for governor. This is not intended as a "gotcha" question or an attempt to provoke a slap-fight or anything. I promise you, I'm genuinely interested in hearing a civil, honest answer to this...
We have here a candidate who describes himself as "very liberal" on social issues. He favors gay adoption and certain other gay rights. He favors legalized abortion and some forms of gun control. He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and said he was "ashamed of his party" for its actions in that regard.
He's not only used marijuana, he smoked it on-screen in the documentary, Pumping Iron. There are more than a few reports of him using illegal steroids and of committing sexual harrassment against women, even after he got married. He has also obviously been a leading force in the creation of violent movies in recent years and there are full frontal nude photos of him around. (They're probably being scanned and uploaded even as we speak.) Now, I am absolutely not condemning him for all or most of this. I don't know about some of the morals charges and I'm with him on most of the political positions...
...but I'd like to see his Republican backers asked, "If he were exactly the same candidate but a Democrat, would you even think of backing him?"
It seems to me that some of the above facts are not only things that Republicans abhor in a politician but that they cite as indicative of serious moral and character defects. When Clinton was running, we were told that pot-smoking, even way in the past, and messing around on your wife made you such a bad person that you should be disqualified from public office. Often, from people who will probably vote for Arnold, we hear that to not be "pro-life" makes you a baby-killer.
Is it that these things never really mattered? Or that they don't matter if the Republicans have a chance to win the governor's chair? Or that they matter a lot and you're going to vote for Bill Simon, even though he won't win? Or what?
This intrigues me because I think reflex partisanship -- especially along the Democrat/Republican divide -- is one of the more pernicious elements of our public discourse. Today on MSNBC, I saw Republican Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, who seems to be Arnold's political opposite, enthusiastically endorse the guy as just the kind of man we need in office. (And Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, came out against the Republican. In both cases, they acted like it meant something that they had come to these views of Mr. Schwarzenegger. How often do politicians not endorse and support along party lines? The candidate in question has to be either going to prison or a former Ku Klux Klan leader.)
So that's my question to devout Republicans who intend to vote for Arnold or would if they lived in California: Would you even think of supporting him if he had a "D" after his name? If anyone wants to answer this question to be posted here (serious answers, only) send your replies to arnoldvoter@povonline.com. I'll post the most interesting ones when I get around to it.
No sh!t - but thats why I have been told I shouldn't run for office, & I'm a way better person than most of these damn politicians - the worst I've ever done was get a bit "under the weather" & get amorous with a barmaid (in my younger days)
2006
2) How does redictricting work in CA - does the governor have an important role?
The legislature passes the redistricting bill, the governor signs or vetoes it. If vetoed, the state Supreme Court draws the districts.
3) How badly gerrymandered towards the Dems are CA's house seats right now?
Horribly so. The Rats have nearly 2/3rds control of both houses. There are few competitive districts. THE REPUBLICANS WENT ALONG WITH THIS PLAN, BY THE WAY.
Why don't you read what you just said and then consider whether YOU HAVE LOST YOUR FRICKING MIND!!!!!!! Of course we [conservatives] know full well that thus far, the Terminator's record is squishy. So what? Compared to GAY Davis, [bath house commando extraordinaire] you can ask such a question with a straight face????? Terminator at his most squishy would represent a huge leg up, i.e., [inroad for those of you in Rio Linda], over the National Socialists who have had a death grip on Kalifornistan since Governor Reagan left office. Have you considered the thousand ways in which the Terminator might engage the good offices of Dubya in crushing the National Socialists who infest the legislature of the great state of Kalifornistan? The scenarios are endless.
There is no crime known as "sexual harrassment". So your word "committing" is inappropriate.
So, your going to let what someone told you prevent you from running for office if you want to? You wanna run, run, the people will decide and thats that. If you got the $3500 and 65 signatures as I understand the requirements to be, throw your hat in.
There seems to be a gap in your memory. Ever hear of George Deukmejian or Pete Wilson? Wilson was a moderate, but The Duke was rock solid conservative.
If he is indeed a fiscal conservative and believes in a strong and independent America, he would not be a Democrat.
There are Republicans with liberal social positions as well as Democrats with conservative social positions.
This election, I would not vote for Schwarzenegger, a proven fiscal liberal, because he lacks the experience or plans to fix our state's problems. That decision has little to do with his socially liberal ideas and checkered past, although those certainly don't help me like him! His party label caused me to examine him more than if he called himself a democrat, and I am less averse to him because he associates with Republicans. If he polls well, Gray Davis will certainly try to exploit that background, regardless of party affiliation.
If I were from out-of-state, I might see things differently. Were Rudy Giuliani a candidate for something in New York, possibly challenging Hillary Clinton for her Senate seat, I'd be all for it because he's a charismatic Republican with name recognition and a great chance of winning. Never mind that I'd have no idea of the other Republican candidates in NY or if New Yorkers find Rudy too socially liberal or whatever. I wouldn't take the time to check out the candidates, since it would be so easy to say, "hey, I recognize that name" about Rudy. Also, there's a bandwagon effect whereby whoever polls the highest may get many of the undecided/uninformed votes, too. For the same reasons, it's easy for most people to say they support Schwarzenegger without knowing anything about him or how he differs from the other candidates and Davis. Same for Riordan 1.5 years ago.
Schwarzenegger likes to say that he's an outsider who isn't indebted to special interests. First, that's not completely true. But, more importantly, since he has no experience, either he will need to rely on the expertise of others who may have special interests we don't know, or he may cause all sorts of problems with poor decisions or indecision. AS knows how to earn vast amounts of money but hasn't proven that he has any idea of how to budget spending given a limited budget and lots of "important programs."
Governing CA isn't a job for someone with no experience, and that glaring problem of Schwarzenegger's speaks far more against his candidacy than his other indescretions do.
Do you believe, as I, that she is forcing Ah-nuld to hire kennedy/schriver/skakel MOLES to join/run/spy on/sabotage the likely Schwarzenneger Administration? If that is the case, what is the point?
but if it can pave te way for a Bush victory in kalifornia, I am reluctantly supportive for "Ah-nuld vor guvvehner."
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.