Thursday, June 24, 2004
The New York Times: Schwarzenegger, Confident and Ready for Prime Time:: As mentioned here, if California is up for grabs, Kerry is in for a world of hurt. Schwarzenegger will wisely stay a bit of a distance away from Bush. He will rally independents, conservatives, and undecided voters without inflaming the left in his state. This should have a fairly large effect on the swing voters and voter turn out (positive Bush, negative Kerry), both of which are key to winning an election in a nation divided 46-46 Love-Bush, Hate-Bush (the margin of Love-Kerry is below statistical significance :). Best line from the article:
Genius.
Josko has Tyson, I've got Schwarzenegger.
UPDATE::Miguel Drake-McLaughlin replies:
There is little neutral about going to the Republican National Convention and (probably) giving a speech in prime-time. The way he is positioning it, people that like him will like the option of voting Republican more.
Clearly he is interested both in his continued role as governor (reelection) and perhaps as a major player in the Republican party (future president). It is indeed a matter of balance as you described. Let’s just say that you won’t see a similar article about how Schwarzenegger will be going to the DNC and supporting Kerry.
The article linked didn’t say California was in play, it was said here, as I linked above.
As for the reasons to vote for Bush which you might be interested in, there are many.
- The economy is booming, in large part because of his tax cuts and the actions of the Fed.
- The deficit has more to do with spending than the tax cuts. If they were all repealed (including those for lower and middle incomes), the deficit would be reduced only by a third. Who is more likely to increase spending, Kerry or Bush?
- Medical Savings accounts are the most important part about the prescription-drug bill. Read more about them here.
- He is far more likely than Kerry to reform social security, both because Republicans believe in privatization and he won’t have to worry about reelection.
- As for terrorists, he has taken action which directly led to the extermination of thousands of terrorists and two regimes whose basic mission statement was the destruction of the west. He has reformed laws to make it (temporarily) easier to catch terrorists in America. He has closed funding channels to terrorists (including the Taliban & Saddam). He has done something his predecessor failed to do: take the threat seriously as reflected in policy changes.
-As for being a ‘uniter’, which is what he campaigned on in 2000, he hasn't had to veto a single bill. This implies a successful union between congress and the executive branch. I don't see the "Hate-Bush" crowd as evidence of his being a divider. I blame them, and their wildly disproportionate attacks on Bush (and capitalism, technology, along with other things). Read more about it here. After all, how can one complain about max 10,000 civilians killed on accident during the war when Saddam on averaged murdered far more yearly for the past 20 years? How can it be claimed that Iraq distracted from the “real” war-on-terror when top lieutenants in Al Queda claim Iraq is their most important battle yet? It is simply a failure to keep objectivity.
- Except for a small tariff on steel, which was quickly repealed, Bush has made no significant dent in our free market. This would change under Kerry. Kerry’s talk of the evils of outsourcing and ‘Benedict Arnold’ CEOs is frightening for a free-marketer like me.
- Bush’s religious views do not really affect public policy outside his firm moral stance in the war-on-terror. Stem-Cell research will continue, just not funded publicly. Not publicly funding things which would be funded by private means anyway is a big part of small government (though the numbers are trivial either way). Also, the funding for ‘faith-based-initiatives’ is really just a matter of not discriminating on the basis of religion. The active attack on religion in America is hidden in guise of the first Amendment, which says nothing against support, only that the government cannot restrict religion. His faith is used as another tool of exaggeration and disproportionate views. Clinton passed a ban on cloning (I think), Clinton passed the hypocritical “don’t ask, don’t tell” gays policy in the military, and he and Reagan both were deeply religious. It is only because Bush is Bush that his religion is a basis for attack.
I’ll leave the rest for another post.
Asked to describe his governing philosophy seven months after toppling Gray Davis in California's recall election, he said, "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women."
Genius.
Josko has Tyson, I've got Schwarzenegger.
UPDATE::Miguel Drake-McLaughlin replies:
You know, I like Schwarzenegger and Schwarzenegger would like to keep it that way. If you read the article without a perspective of wanting to see Bush do well in the election, it looks like the Governor probably wants a lot of the independents in California to believe that he's President-neutral, and let partisans (including democrats) believe that he likes their candidate. Lots of his constituency is like me: they see small taxes and small government as primary political issues, but don't see that as any reason to vote for Bush.
In addition, they and I believe the President is weirdly religious and makes important decisions based on what we perceive as voodoo and not reason. On top of that, he seems to be rather incompetent in terms of the stated goals of his administration (reduce government, publicly avenge the 9-11 dead, be greeted by revolutionary Iraqis as liberators, raise level of discourse, etc.). So I predict that Schwarzenegger will make it is goal to appear at the convention on behalf of Schwarzenegger and stay far enough away from Bush that independents like myself who favor Bush's removal from office believe that Schwarzenegger feels the same way. Nowhere in the article linked did I see it suggested that California is "in play."
There is little neutral about going to the Republican National Convention and (probably) giving a speech in prime-time. The way he is positioning it, people that like him will like the option of voting Republican more.
Clearly he is interested both in his continued role as governor (reelection) and perhaps as a major player in the Republican party (future president). It is indeed a matter of balance as you described. Let’s just say that you won’t see a similar article about how Schwarzenegger will be going to the DNC and supporting Kerry.
The article linked didn’t say California was in play, it was said here, as I linked above.
As for the reasons to vote for Bush which you might be interested in, there are many.
- The economy is booming, in large part because of his tax cuts and the actions of the Fed.
- The deficit has more to do with spending than the tax cuts. If they were all repealed (including those for lower and middle incomes), the deficit would be reduced only by a third. Who is more likely to increase spending, Kerry or Bush?
- Medical Savings accounts are the most important part about the prescription-drug bill. Read more about them here.
- He is far more likely than Kerry to reform social security, both because Republicans believe in privatization and he won’t have to worry about reelection.
- As for terrorists, he has taken action which directly led to the extermination of thousands of terrorists and two regimes whose basic mission statement was the destruction of the west. He has reformed laws to make it (temporarily) easier to catch terrorists in America. He has closed funding channels to terrorists (including the Taliban & Saddam). He has done something his predecessor failed to do: take the threat seriously as reflected in policy changes.
-As for being a ‘uniter’, which is what he campaigned on in 2000, he hasn't had to veto a single bill. This implies a successful union between congress and the executive branch. I don't see the "Hate-Bush" crowd as evidence of his being a divider. I blame them, and their wildly disproportionate attacks on Bush (and capitalism, technology, along with other things). Read more about it here. After all, how can one complain about max 10,000 civilians killed on accident during the war when Saddam on averaged murdered far more yearly for the past 20 years? How can it be claimed that Iraq distracted from the “real” war-on-terror when top lieutenants in Al Queda claim Iraq is their most important battle yet? It is simply a failure to keep objectivity.
- Except for a small tariff on steel, which was quickly repealed, Bush has made no significant dent in our free market. This would change under Kerry. Kerry’s talk of the evils of outsourcing and ‘Benedict Arnold’ CEOs is frightening for a free-marketer like me.
- Bush’s religious views do not really affect public policy outside his firm moral stance in the war-on-terror. Stem-Cell research will continue, just not funded publicly. Not publicly funding things which would be funded by private means anyway is a big part of small government (though the numbers are trivial either way). Also, the funding for ‘faith-based-initiatives’ is really just a matter of not discriminating on the basis of religion. The active attack on religion in America is hidden in guise of the first Amendment, which says nothing against support, only that the government cannot restrict religion. His faith is used as another tool of exaggeration and disproportionate views. Clinton passed a ban on cloning (I think), Clinton passed the hypocritical “don’t ask, don’t tell” gays policy in the military, and he and Reagan both were deeply religious. It is only because Bush is Bush that his religion is a basis for attack.
I’ll leave the rest for another post.
Comments:
Post a Comment
