Soon after becoming Governor Schwarzenegger he tried to work with the private sector and he directly asked “Why are you leaving this state?” What a concept. A state with numerous natural resources, multiple ports, an excellent university system as well as other assets should be where you want to build your company. And for generations it was. Then the liberals took over the legislature and the state, and the rest is an ugly turn downward.
Arnold did take on the unions, try to reform education etc and in an off cycle election(i.e. non presidential election year) he got his ass kicked. Then he moved no the left, embracing more liberal ideology including the religion of man made Climate Change (I think that’s the latest term for it....it changes so often). It was such a remarkable showing of “growth” (that’s the term used by leftist when a Republican/Conservative turns liberal, see Sandra Day O’Connor) that one of the left’s chief propaganda organs put him and the billionaire leftist Mayor of New York on the cover. Why? Because Arnold was wanting to raise taxes and fight Climate Change in the state (Bloomberg, see same).
Now Arnold is writing his memoirs and saying he’s not welcome in the GOP but he’s sticking around. In this article from today’s LA Times he’s asking the GOP to be a welcoming tent. Funny, I don’t see the LA Times concerned about Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller being pushed out of the Democratic Party. I wonder if concern for litmus test is a one way street?
Schwarzenegger: GOP, take down that small tent
California's Republican Party used to work toward solutions. Now it's an exclusive club where members' ideological cards must be checked at the door.
By Arnold Schwarzenegger
It was Richard Nixon who brought me into the Republican fold.
He was running for president, and I had recently arrived in California from Austria, which I'd left because the European socialist mentality wasn't big enough for my dreams. Growing up, I was surrounded by kids whose greatest ambition was to one day collect a pension. I didn't intend to spend my whole life dreaming about floating on a government safety net.
One day, when Nixon was talking on the television, my liberal friend Artie translated bits of what he was saying. As I recall, he spoke about free enterprise, about less government and taxation, about the need for a strong military.
I asked what party Nixon was from. Artie said he was an imbecile Republican. "Then I will be an imbecile Republican," I said.
I've been writing my memoirs recently, and looking back at how I came to my political identity has reminded me that this election cycle marks my 44th year as a Republican. I can't imagine being anything else.
That's why I am so bothered by the party's recent loss of two up-and-coming Republicans: San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher, currently a state assemblyman, and former assemblyman and current Congressional candidate Anthony Adams, both of whom left the party to become independents. On the one hand, I respect their standing up for principle. On the other, I hate to see them go.
I'm sure they would have preferred to remain Republicans, but in the current climate, the extreme right wing of the party is targeting anyone who doesn't meet its strict criteria. Its new and narrow litmus test for party membership doesn't allow compromise.
But Arnold, this "extreme right wing" couldn't stop a milquetoast moderate Republican, a stereotype of the RINO go along to get along crowd from winning the nomination for president. Turning to the two "leaders" you mentioned, how is it the Republican base is driving people with a not defined litmus test? What exactly were the issues that split the two from the California Republican Party? Abortion? Nationalized health care, err Obamacare? Please be a bit more specific.
I bumped up against that rigidity many times as governor. Not surprisingly, the party wasn't always too happy with me. But I had taken an oath to serve the people, not my party. Some advisors whose opinions I respect urged me to consider leaving the party and instead identify myself as a "decline to state" voter. But I'm too stubborn to leave a party I believe in.
Arnold, you bumped into the rigidity when you tried to actually reform things in the state. It was from the left. Did you notice your approval from the people of the state started to not like you when you went to the left?
It's time for the Republicans who are so bent on enforcing conformity to ask themselves a question: What would Ronald Reagan have done? He worked hard to maintain a welcoming, open and diverse Republican Party. He would have been appalled to see Republicans like Fletcher and Adams conclude that they had no other option than to leave the party.
We need to remind the Republicans who want to enforce ideological purity that if they succeed, they will undo Reagan's work to create an inclusive party that could fit many different views.
An inclusive party would welcome the party's most conservative activists right alongside its most liberal activists. There is room for those whose views, I think, make them sound like cavemen. And there is also room for us in the center, with views the traditionalists probably think make us sound like progressive softies. What's important is our shared belief in the broad Republican principles of free enterprise and small government. If we continue to fight one another without being willing to compromise, we will keep losing to big-government advocates.
...As governor, Reagan was never afraid to buck his party. He raised taxes when he saw no other way to get California out of the red, and he created the California Environmental Protection Agency because, as strongly as he believed in eliminating unnecessary government regulation, he also saw wisdom in protecting our natural resources.
As president, Reagan worked very well with Democrats to do big things. It is true that he worked to reduce the size of government and cut federal taxes and he eliminated many regulations, but he also raised taxes when necessary. In 1983, he doubled the gas tax to pay for highway infrastructure improvements.
The same party that has nominated Romney, another weak "leader" in the House (The Speaker) who can't stop anything that Obama wants even though he controls the budget and "leadership" in the Senate that will do nothing to stop the Democrats? Remember when the Democratic were the minority in the Senate, they filibusters judicial nominations for the first time in this country's history. Or the recent President Bush who didn't find a bill to veto till the seventh year of his administration. By the way Arnold, how bipartisan and compromising were the Dems when the slammed Obamacare though the Congress? Or the Stimulus Bill in 09?
Today, that would be enough for some of the ideological enforcers to start looking for a "real" conservative to challenge him in a primary.
Some Republicans today aren't even willing to have conversations about protecting the environment, investing in the infrastructure America needs or improving healthcare. By holding their fingers in their ears when those topics arise, these Republicans aren't just denying themselves a seat at the table; in a state such as California, they also deny a seat to every other Republican.
The GOP's history is filled with leaders who rejected ideology in favor of seeking solutions.
Teddy Roosevelt is still a hero among environmentalists for his conservationist policies. Dwight Eisenhower believed in the value of investing in infrastructure, and we can thank him for our highway system. Nixon, who originally attracted me to the party, nearly passed universal healthcare. He also created the national Environmental Protection Agency, which some modern Republicans want to close down.
Teddy Roosevelt wanted conversation, not environmentalism. The former is wise use of our natural resources. The latter is anti-human religion whose purpose is to destroy the progress of man. Roosevelt would never ban oil drilling, coal mining, dismantle electricity producing damns or come up with a scheme to tax the air (oh, excuse me, Cap and Tax, err Cap and Close, dammit, what did they call it, oh yea, Cap and Trade."
Then General Eisenhower saw the German Autobahns and knew they would be good for American so he made the plans for an Interstete Highway System. To fund it he would use fuel taxes believing rightly the more you drive the more you should pay. The play was the feds would pay for most of the construction and the states would maintain them. Once the system was completed they tax would end. Well what do you think is happening now? The dedicated taxes are used as a transportation such fund with (going by memory here) a third of the money sent to mass transit. If you want mass transit, fine, fund it from the more than adequate resources we give you Washington. Leave the highway money alone. BTY Arnold, the system is pretty much built. Do you really thing the fuel tax will be eliminated or at least cut back?
And yes Nixon gave us the EPA basically under an Executive Order. Nixon also gave us Wage and Price Controls to combat inflation. Worked out pretty good right? And Nixon would never dream the RPA would be used to control people's property as a "wetland" because a stream ran through it for a few days a rear.
Arnold, Reagan also brought in people who didn't normally associate with the Republican brand. The Reagan Democrats as you recall were Blue Collar workers who were Democrats because their daddy was one. The Blue Bloods of the North East were more conformable with big government. The land barons of the West (California, Colorado, Texas) were more of a Libertarian group. But they all supported the Conservative Vision of Reagan. Why? Because he presented to them a vision for a better America, was never ashamed of the country or it's history and offered the people of they country a choice, not a compromise. It's called leadership, something you can't fake no matter that the scrip writer types up. Reagan possessed it in droves. You Arnold to a much lesser extent.
And the American's elected him twice in a landslide (in 1984 he came within 8000 votes of taking all 50 states).
Yes Arnold. we need a leader like a Reagan again. The country is crying for leadership and we need to go forward. God knows the man the Republican leadership (not it's base) just nominated does't fit that bill, and neither do you. The Republican base will keep producing leaders with solutions (Ryan on the budget and Medicare, Scott Walker on union reform, etc) while the Republican Party leadership will just reach across the aisle. Their is a difference. The Republican Base wants solutions. The Democratic Party leadership wants to send this country over the cliff in overdrive. The Republican Party leadership will compromise, cross the aisle and met them half way.
They will drive in first gear.
No comments:
Post a Comment