Arnold says the Democrats should have called their convention “True Lies.” Hahaha.
UPDATE: He’s praising Nixon. Is this really a good strategy for the GOP? Is Nixon a good role model? A “breath of fresh air”? Wow.
UPDATE 2: “In America, it doesn’t make any difference where you were born. It doesn’t make any difference who your parents are.” Oh, really? Tell that to the crack baby born to a welfare mom in the ghetto…
UPDATE 3: Now there’s something I can agree with: Disagreeing with Republicans is what’s great about America! :)
UPDATE 4: “If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.”
“If you believe that a person should be treated as an individual, not a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.”
“If you believe that your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.”
“If you believe that our education system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.”
“If you believe that this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican.”
“If you believe that you must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican!”
Of course, none of those are necessarily true, per se, but they’re good sound bites. Way to go, Ahnold.
“DON’T BE ECONOMIC GIRLY-MEN”!!! HAHAHAHAHA.
UPDATE 5: Nice dig at Edwards’s “two Americas” there! Wow, this is some good sh*t.
“Leadership isn’t about polls. It’s about doing what’s right, and then standing behind that decision. That’s why America is safer with George W. Bush as president.”
If a decent number of undecided voters are watching, I think this speech might single-handedly win Bush the election.
“I’ll Be Back”… that’s three movie references and counting. :)
FINAL UPDATE: Foah Moah Yeahs! Foah Moah Yeahs! Foah Moah Yeahs!
Wow, that was brilliant.
|
Categories: Election 2004
|
August 31st, 2004 at 9:15:40 pm
Come on, Brendan. It’s a much better speech than you’re making it out to be. The boy growing up in Austria bit was wonderful. “What party is he?…then I’m a Republican, too.”
August 31st, 2004 at 9:19:32 pm
Just because I’m mocking parts of it, doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s not a good speech. It’s a great speech. In fact, as I just posted in my latest update, I think it’s a good enough speech to win Bush the election, if enough people are watching.
August 31st, 2004 at 10:38:10 pm
I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo proud of my Govenator!
The BEST BEST BEST Speach I have EVER EVER HEARD
God Bless America and God Bless Arnold!
4 MORE YEARS YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
August 31st, 2004 at 11:38:49 pm
Ah-nold wasn’t championing Nixon, he was praising the ideals that Nixon was using for his platform….the platforms of the great Republican party.
This race is over. Put a fork in Kerry.
September 1st, 2004 at 12:12:15 am
You’re right, of course, Justin. It was just odd to hear Nixon’s name brought up in any positive context at a GOP convention. But that’s OK, the rest of the speech was pitch-perfect and even that line wasn’t intrinsically bad… just surprising.
September 1st, 2004 at 12:21:20 am
“If you believe that a person should be treated as an individual, not a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.”
Unless of course you are an arab…
“If you believe that your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.”
Given that the Republican administration has given us a record debt I sure as heck hope my family knows how to spend money better.
“If you believe that our education system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.”
Yep they will hold it accountable but they sure as heck aren’t planning to fund it.
September 1st, 2004 at 1:15:58 am
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you David “I’m not a liberal Democrat” Kreutz!
Don’t worry David, I’m sure there are some people outside of Madison Square Garden who agree with you.
September 1st, 2004 at 4:23:20 pm
Actually believe it or not Andrew I would have voted for both McCain and Arnold if i were given the opportunity.
Then again I notice once again that you consider anyone who disagrees with you to automatically be a liberal.
Simply because I think that the Republicans as a group are bad for the country and certain Republicans in particular are also bad a liberal does not me make. The idea that i’m not a liberal and also not a fan of republicans is not a mutually exclusive one.
September 1st, 2004 at 4:34:23 pm
“Actually believe it or not Andrew I would have voted for both McCain and Arnold if i were given the opportunity.”
That does little to restore my trust in your ability to make wise voting decisions, as both Ahnold and McCain support strong conservative positions on the vast majority of issues and would both prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq with equal fervor to George W. Bush. They are both as Republican as they come and represent the parties’ philosophy well. Really, on what significant issues do they disagree with Bush? You’d still have the Patriot Act, most likely the NCLB Act, both wars, and so on. The best you could probably come up with is the FMA and, in the case of Ahnold, abortion and gun rights. Their personal styles may be more palatable to you, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that personal style is more likely to factor into your voting preferences than substantive issues.
September 1st, 2004 at 5:35:03 pm
Actually its the fact that they are infinitely more reasonable, not as likely to simply toe the party line, etc.
Plus there is the fact that as commander in cheif I think McCain would have been less likely to blindly go to war like Bush did and if he did he would have made sure he had a plan in place that was more effective than Bush’s.
Then again what does it matter if you think i would make wise voting decisions. You’re idea of a wise voting decision is to vote down the party line without considering the character of the candidate in question.
You’re right I do look at them as individuals with personal styles. Thats what makes them different. I don’t necessarilly disagree with the Republicans on some issues, I disagree with the way that the current Republican administration and the current president handle those issues.
I’m sure that Brendan could point out reasons why he thinks Edwards, or Lieberman, or even Gephardt in his mind are better candidates than Kerry. Some of those reasons are going to be based on the character and the style of the candidate. Does that make him an unwise voter? Not in the least.
The fact that two people may have the same core set of beliefs and the way they then handle those beliefs can make a significant difference. One needs look no further than religion to see that. I am against abortion, people who bomb abortion clinics are also against abortion. We hold that same core belief. But what we do with that belief is what makes the difference.
Ok, so John McCain is against terrorism, so is George Bush, so is John Kerry. My guess is they all have different approaches to how they would handle it. Maybe you disagree with the how, and that is why you prefer one candidate over the other, but that doesn’t mean you are unwise.
So while you continue to toe the party line, I will think independently and vote for a candidate not on what group he belongs to but how I feel he will act as an individual. Frankly I think of the two of us, your position is the more unwise.
September 1st, 2004 at 6:25:12 pm
“Actually its the fact that they are infinitely more reasonable, not as likely to simply toe the party line, etc.”
A totally subjective opinion, but let’s break this down. “Infinitely”? Definite hyperbole. “Reasonable”? Based on what evidence? Do you consider a B-grade actor who calls his opponents “girly-men” and practices his Austrian accent in order to keep from losing it to be reasonable? I love Ahnold as much as the next Californian, but please–he’s still somewhat of a joke. McCain certainly is a straight-shooter so perhaps he is more “reasonable”, but let me remind you that he was calling for ground troops in Bosnia and Kosovo before Bill Clinton could locate them on a map. That’s not to say he wasn’t right, just to warn you that “reasonable” must apparently then entail being trigger happy, not to mention his sponsoring of a campaign finance reform bill that has restricted free speech and caused all sorts of havoc this election with uncontrollable 527s.
“Plus there is the fact that as commander in cheif I think McCain would have been less likely to blindly go to war like Bush did…”
Hahahahahaha. No intelligent person seriously believes that McCain is less hawkish than Bush. McCain really is to an extent the modern inheritor of Goldwater’s legacy, especially the hawkishness. See my ground troops comment above. Again, that’s not to disparage McCain–I’m all for hawkishness–but your statement is just plain silly.
“…and if he did he would have made sure he had a plan in place that was more effective than Bush’s.”
You may possibly be right, you may possibly be wrong. There’s no way to tell. What I do know, however, is that McCain has forcibly supported the president every step of the way on Iraq, from the decision to go to war to his handling of the post-war period, so if McCain would have done better, Mr. Straight-Shooter has been surprisingly reticent in offering advice on what he would have done instead.
“Then again what does it matter if you think i would make wise voting decisions.”
It doesn’t, it just bolsters my opinion that you’re, well, forget it.
“You’re idea of a wise voting decision is to vote down the party line without considering the character of the candidate in question.“
More or less I believe it’s better to pick the best of the two parties and effect change from within that party. In the primary, I vote for who I feel is the best candidate; in the general, I vote for the Republican. However, if my Republican choice was indeed really unpalatable, I’d probably vote against him. For instance, if my choice was, say, Nixon versus JFK, and I knew beforehand the positives and negatives of each in history, I’d probably cross over and vote for JFK.
“…I disagree with the way that the current Republican administration and the current president handle those issues.”
Really? Okay then, give me some examples of things you agree with Bush on, but dislike how he’s handled them.
“I’m sure that Brendan could point out reasons why he thinks Edwards, or Lieberman, or even Gephardt in his mind are better candidates than Kerry. Some of those reasons are going to be based on the character and the style of the candidate. Does that make him an unwise voter? Not in the least.”
If we’re talking about who Brendan would most want to vote for, and if I know Brendan at all, the answer is no, he would be choosing on the issues. I’m sure he likes the potential for Edwards to be a powerful speaker and leader for the Democratic Party, or even Barack Obama, but my guess is ultimately Brendan would choose the best man for the job, and of the Democrats mentioned, that’d clearly be Lieberman. To the extent Brendan considers style and character, I’m sure he sees those as secondary considerations that have more to do with political viability than his own personal preference.
“Ok, so John McCain is against terrorism, so is George Bush, so is John Kerry. My guess is they all have different approaches to how they would handle it. Maybe you disagree with the how, and that is why you prefer one candidate over the other, but that doesn’t mean you are unwise.”
By that logic then, since we’re all for better education, you shouldn’t be so down on Bush for supporting NCLB. Look, there are fundamental disagreements of principle between Bush and McCain on the one hand, and John Kerry and the Democrats on the other hand. You can tell me that Kerry would be sufficient in the war on terrorism, but you can’t tell me with a straight face that he shares the same principles as McCain and Bush. Kerry clearly has different priorities and a different perception of how to approach the problem. In my opinion and in McCain’s opinion, Kerry’s approach is the wrong one and Bush’s is better.
“So while you continue to toe the party line, I will think independently and vote for a candidate not on what group he belongs to but how I feel he will act as an individual.”
This contradicts all available evidence. What you’ve said up until now suggests you’re not really an independent thinker because you don’t measure a candidate against your standards of where you think he should be on the issues. Instead, you focus on your perception of his character and style. How that is the exemplary method for choosing a candidate I do not know.
September 1st, 2004 at 7:13:14 pm
“If we’re talking about who Brendan would most want to vote for, and if I know Brendan at all, the answer is no, he would be choosing on the issues. I’m sure he likes the potential for Edwards to be a powerful speaker and leader for the Democratic Party, or even Barack Obama, but my guess is ultimately Brendan would choose the best man for the job, and of the Democrats mentioned, that’d clearly be Lieberman. To the extent Brendan considers style and character, I’m sure he sees those as secondary considerations that have more to do with political viability than his own personal preference.”
My criteria for deciding who to vote for vary depending on the circumstances of the election (e.g., this year I’m being unusually pragmatic because of the imperative of defeating Bush). However, in general I would say that issues are my #1 consideration, with character being, in essence, a tiebreaker. An example of this is the 1996 election, when I thought Bob Dole was a much more admirable man, but supported Clinton because I felt I was more closely aligned with him on the issues and, in particular, I didn’t want the Gingrichites’ power to increase because I disagree so strongly with them on the issues. If I had felt equally aligned with Clinton and Dole on the issues, or if it had been really close between them in my mind, I would have supported Dole. But because it wasn’t close — Clinton was clearly superior to Dole/Gingrich on the issues — the “tiebreaking” role of character was not invoked.
On the other hand, character can wield a veto in the event that someone’s character is so horrific that I feel I can’t vote for them; I can’t think of an example where this has happened, but it could, much like your Nixon example.
So character is important to me, but issues are more important.
“Style” is totally unimportant except as it relates to electability, or “political viability” as you said. Hence my support for Edwards over Kerry, and my recent post about Gephardt.
September 1st, 2004 at 7:33:40 pm
So in other words, I’m basically right. ;-)
September 1st, 2004 at 11:14:25 pm
This contradicts all available evidence. What you’ve said up until now suggests you’re not really an independent thinker because you don’t measure a candidate against your standards of where you think he should be on the issues. Instead, you focus on your perception of his character and style. How that is the exemplary method for choosing a candidate I do not know.
Actually style was YOUR choice of words. I take a look at where a candidate stands on issues and how he handles himself as a person. I am more likely to vote for a candidate that I might disagree with on a few issues who I feel will make a better leader overall than a candidate who supposedly believes the same as me but will be less effective as a leader.
I don’t like where any of the democrats stand on abortion, but I weigh that issue against other issues like gun control, the economy, and of course the war, and I vote for the candidate who in this case I feel is the better choice than Bush. That is what I call wise.
I don’t simply vote for a candidate because of what he says he believes, I vote for a candidate whose actions I feel better represent that.
Bush may say he has Republican ideals that I actually agree with but I don’t think he has followed through on the important ones while in office.
I had the opportunity to hear John McCain speak in person, and I liked what he had to say, I liked his past behavior. I realized that he would hold to certain Republican platform choices but I knew he was also independant enough that he would be willing to do the right thing if it differed with his party. Bush is not the same. Its not about style, its about character. Issues are important but if you can’t trust the person who is talking about those issues then whats the point?
Since you keep forgetting that I’m not a dyed in the wool liberal you forget that I have beliefs which stradle the political spectrum. So yes issues are important to me, but I also realize that neither party is going to match well enough with me on all the issues. In that case I have to have some sort of tie breaker so I then choose the candidate who has the character to handle the job of President in a responsible matter.
So you are not right, you are just seeing things through your elephant colored glasses again, and only reading what you want to read.
September 1st, 2004 at 11:45:16 pm
Hahahahahaha. No intelligent person seriously believes that McCain is less hawkish than Bush. McCain really is to an extent the modern inheritor of Goldwater’s legacy, especially the hawkishness. See my ground troops comment above. Again, that’s not to disparage McCain–I’m all for hawkishness–but your statement is just plain silly.
If you would take a minute to pull your head out of the sand you would know that all along I have never said that using our troops to act against terrorism was in itself the wrong idea. I fully think that going to war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. I also think there were good reasons to intervene in Iraq. I didn’t say McCain was less likely to go to war, I said he was less likely to BLINDLY go to war. There is a significant difference in those two situations. Then again because of your narrow viewpoint you probably think that anyone who dislikes Bush is some anti-war Michael Moor liberal commie pinko. As you have so often demonstrated in the past your binary view point disagrees with the reality that there are a whole combination of views on any given issue.
You may possibly be right, you may possibly be wrong. There’s no way to tell. What I do know, however, is that McCain has forcibly supported the president every step of the way on Iraq, from the decision to go to war to his handling of the post-war period, so if McCain would have done better, Mr. Straight-Shooter has been surprisingly reticent in offering advice on what he would have done instead.
Given McCain’s history it doesn’t surprise me in the least that he isn’t criticizing the Commander in Chief openly. Not to mention that he is at the end of a day still a Republican and as such even if he disagrees with some of how Bush is handling the war, he’s not likely to undermine the President by contradicting him publicly, it’s not his style to act that way. That doesn’t change the fact that I think he is likely to have handled the situation in a much more skilled manner. For that matter I think George H.W. Bush would have handled the situation better, but I don’t think he is likely to come out and criticize his son and current President.
Really? Okay then, give me some examples of things you agree with Bush on, but dislike how he’s handled them.
I said I agreed with some Republican ideals, I don’t think Bush actually is a very good example of some of those. I agree in some ways that smaller less intrusive government is better. I don’t think that Bush has done a good job of implementing those kind of policies.
I agree with Bush and the Republicans that Gay marriage is morally wrong. I disagree with using a constitutional ammendmant to ban it.
I agree with Republicans that using fetal stem cells for research is acceptable. I disagree with banning any kind of government funding for any kind of stem cell research.
I agree with the GOP and Bush that terrorism and people like binLadin and Saddaam must be stopped. I disagree with going to war against Iraq on false pretenses and without better international support.
If we’re talking about who Brendan would most want to vote for, and if I know Brendan at all, the answer is no, he would be choosing on the issues. I’m sure he likes the potential for Edwards to be a powerful speaker and leader for the Democratic Party, or even Barack Obama, but my guess is ultimately Brendan would choose the best man for the job, and of the Democrats mentioned, that’d clearly be Lieberman. To the extent Brendan considers style and character, I’m sure he sees those as secondary considerations that have more to do with political viability than his own personal preference.
My point was not that Brendan would choose style over substance, but that he would agree that some candidates while theoretically holding the same set of beliefs because they belong to the same party, would not actually present those ideals and handle those issues the same.
It seems pretty clear that the Democratic party holds that gay rights should be expanded, but the way that Kerry and Dean approach that are very different. Ergo it would be more wise for a person to consider their approach to the problem rather than simply the underlying belief.
In fact I know many people who while they agree with the idea of expanded gay rights, are choosing NOT to vote for Kerry at all (they are also not voting for Bush) because they don’t feel right supporting a candidate whose official position they feel places gays as second-class citizens.
Similarly I think that while Bush and McCain might both have felt that we needed to go to war at some point against terrorism because of a shared set of core beliefs that they would have handled the situation very differently, and that even if both approaches eventually led to a war in Iraq that the circumstances surrounding that war and the execution of that war would be significantly different enough to make it reasonable to consider McCain to be worth voting for and Bush worth voting against.
If you imagine the political spectrum I see McCain as more towards the center than Bush, therefore as someone who is also more towards the center I find it fits within my acceptable political boundries to vote for McCain and not for Bush. For me Kerry is closer to where I stand than Bush, and so is McCain. For you thats not true, because you are further to the right. For Dane who is further to the left neither Bush nor McCain is pallatable in his political spectrum. If you would stop looking at it in a black vs white binary fashion you would realize that people span the political spectrum and that NOT REPUBLICAN is not the same as DEMOCRAT. The two are not mutually exclusive as I have pointed out before.
By that logic then, since we’re all for better education, you shouldn’t be so down on Bush for supporting NCLB. Look, there are fundamental disagreements of principle between Bush and McCain on the one hand, and John Kerry and the Democrats on the other hand. You can tell me that Kerry would be sufficient in the war on terrorism, but you can’t tell me with a straight face that he shares the same principles as McCain and Bush. Kerry clearly has different priorities and a different perception of how to approach the problem. In my opinion and in McCain’s opinion, Kerry’s approach is the wrong one and Bush’s is better.
Sorry thats a non-sequitor. You said its not wise to choose a candidate based on their approach, that you should choose based on their fundemental belief on the issue. My point was that the approach is just as significant as the belief and therefore not an unwise way to make decisions. I never said that the approach itself would be a wise one or one that can’t be criticized.
Of course I can be down on bush for supporting the NCLB because I think that particualar approach is unwise. What i said was that judging on approaches to issues in general is not an unwise way to decide. You then tried to extend that to criticism of the specific approach to a specific issue. Does not follow logically.