Arnold Schwarzenegger: Team Player
By Neil Stevens Posted in 2010 | Arnold Schwarzenegger | Barbara Boxer | California | Elections | senate — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A recent Field Poll shows Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger virtually tied with Senator Barbara Boxer 44-43, were he to run against her in 2010. But the good Governor is a team player, oh yes. He will not run against her, according to a Sacramento Bee report:
Despite a Field Poll this week showing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a virtual tie with Sen. Barbara Boxer if he were to run for her seat in 2010, the Republican governor said Friday he has "no interest in that at all" during an appearance at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Schwarzenegger joked that he was fine with the growing speculation about what he would do after he is forced to leave the Governor's Office in January 2011, implying that the rumors have been fueled by a desire by Boxer to raise money.
"This way she can raise more money when she says, 'That Schwarzenschnitzel, he's after me, he's after me, oh my god, we've got to raise a lot of money!'" Schwarzenegger said. "That's what this is all about. So, no, I have really no interest in that at all."
Boxer is a terrible Senator, she being the one who even bought into the Diebold conspiracy theories, and challenged Ohio's electoral votes after the 2004 election. And yet the team playing Schwarzenegger will not challenge her.
Oh, did you think I meant he was playing for the Republican team? Oh my, no. That's not his team at all, and here we see yet more proof of that.
He won't challenge a vulnerable Democrat, but he's sure interested in trying to bring "health care reform" to California, calling the legislature into a special session to try to force the Democrats to pass such a bill. He even wants the Democrat-controlled body's approval ratings to go up. What a team player indeed!
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Team Player 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I like Arnold, but given his actual record of acting more like a conservative democrat than a real Republican, I don't know if I want him in the senate to give votes to the democrats at inopportune times. I think it might be safer for us this way, and we can get a true Republican with a good hard-line conservative record in there to challenge Boxer's weak position.
But why in the world would he announce intentions to run against Boxer three years before the election? Arnold is exactly right when he says that Boxer is currently spinning "Arnold Fear" now so as to help raise money. Arnold did the right thing by dispelling this theory as soon as possible - thus nipping her fundraising in the bud and more importantly staving off the leftist backlash as a result.
Arnold can't run a three year campaign - not in California - he needs to lay low until he is forced into the race. That's the only way he'll maintain favorable approval ratings and remain viable for the Senate seat.
Frankly, it should be noted that Arnold's personality is so valuable politically that when he says he's not interested in a seat -- people actually believe him. Pretty impressive.
No reason to help Boxer out.
Let her come up with a new boogeyman
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If that was the plan I would not come out and say that "I have no interest at all" in the position. That's when you say "Right now I'm just focused on screwing over the people of California with new taxes and massive government programs." Saying "I have no interested at all" could come back to haunt him, especially if he says it often enough.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
As one commenter pointed out above, what does he gain by saying that he would run against her.
Secondly, some people aren't interested in moving to Washington.
Not to mention the fact that maybe he's ready to make some money again.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
I'm all for Arnold becoming a US senator, and I've wanted it for so long that I haven't felt any need to think about who he runs against to get it. I don't favor changing the Constitution to make him eligible to run for president but I would like to see him become an elder statesman by virtue of the Senate.
Now that I think about it, I wouldn't count too much on how he comments on the subject this year, as he has a term as governor to finish in the meantime. Naturally, he'll be careful with what he says about both of California's currently serving senators as he fulfills his duties as governor, but if he feels compelled to act in the future, I think he'll do so without much trepidation.
It would be so much better to have a reliable conservative as Governor of CA. Except for one thing: he wouldn't be governor, not in a state where over 50% of voters are self-identified Democrats.
Principles are good, but ideological purity is the path to permanent minority status.
I'd much rather have a "conservative democrat" running the state as a Republican, than an actual liberal Democrat running the state while a "true Republican" sits on the sidelines and carps.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
I like Arnold enormously. But I don't see him wanting to be a Senator. The man has industrious and executive written all over him. Senators are the laziest and most worthless creatures in the American political system.
But if he wants to run, he will blow Boxer out of the water.
California is blue, but it is not THAT blue that Barbara Boxer can be said to represent the entire state. She is one of the luckiest politicians around. Her prior GOP opponents were fatally flawed. Surely at some point in time the rest of the state of California will decide that perhaps they need a US Senator from outside San Francisco. Arnold would be ideally situated to be that GOP candidate.
I am very curious. Who are the 14% of Republicans who would/could support Barbara Boxer? I mean there are issues that Republicans disagree amongst themselves on, their are some "conservative" Democrats who are arguably better than someone "liberal/moderate" Republicans. But what person would describe themselves as a Republican and support Barbara Boxer? Unlike frauds like Evan Bayh, Boxer is an unabashed far-left wing Senator. How could one be so confused as to consider themselves a Republican and support Boxer?
Andy Sullivan live in CA?
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Who can't or won't check the right box on forms.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Your attack doesn't make sense. On one hand, Arnold isn't worthy to be Senator because he's not a team player, on the other hand, he's not a team player because he don't want to run for Senate. Seems circular.
Anyhow, I never actually thought he'd run, and even if he did, I'm not sure I'd want him to. As Gov. of California he's alright because the D's are so crazy in that state that all he has to do is block some of their crap to make him worthwhile. But someone with his high profile in the Senate bucking his party on every other issue could be a major problem.
I mean, don't get me wrong, if he changes his mind, I'd support him, because it's always better to win rather then lose and sort out the bodies later, but I'm not 100% sure that's a good thing.
Jindal/Palin '16
He wouldn't be any worse than a lot of the people we already have there. The amount of damage any one Senator can do is pretty limited compared to what an executive can do. And since he is coming from the state of CA, replacing the Box of Rocks, he would be a great improvement over the current situation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I understand that, and I said I'd support him if he ran, but there are still risks.
The difference between Arnold and, say, Arlen Specter, is that Specter isn't famous nationwide. If he bucks the party, he's some nameless Republican. Oh sure, it gives a fig leaf of biparisanship where little or none exists sometimes, but he's with us at least as often as he's not, and he's not a nationwide figure.
With Arnold, however, he's known worldwide. If he took on President Giuliani/McCain/Thompson/etc. it would be nationwide news every time he did it. There would be banners stretched across every news network, saying "Sen. Schwartzenegger opposes President of the same party!" and people would notice.
So I'm not saying it's not worth it, what I'm saying is that it's a bit of a risk that could cause problems, so the fact that he isn't running, (apparently) doesn't really bother me.
That said, it WOULD be smooth to see Barbra Boxer out of a job. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing Boxer out of a job even if her replacement were someone like Biden or Salazar!
Jindal/Palin '16
I never said he wasn't worthy of being a Senator. I'm just pointing out yet another instance where he's not at all interested in building the party.
I think in the long run Schwarzenegger will have no more impact on the politics of this state than Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Winning alone does nothing to further the party and its interests, if the wrong guy wins.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Anyone politician capable of making California or Massachusettes more red is a remarkable and rare politician indeed.
Absent such a hero, isn't it better that those states were run by Arnold and Mitt for 8 years than by some "progressive," who would have spent that time further advancing socialism in those jurisdictions?
Regardless of what purists may think, having successful Republican governors in big blue states has been a great positive for the party. Hate on him all you want, but Schwarzenegger certainly doesn't hurt the national image of the GOP.
The man wants to raise taxes, raise spending, go deeper into debt, raise the deficit, enact California HillaryCare, welcome illegal aliens (witness his illegal diplomatic meeting with the President of Mexico), and join legislative Democrats in attacking conservative Republican legislators.
How does it help our image when we elect a man who refers to conservatives as 'right-wing crazies?'
The man is a disgrace, and the party eladership who endorsed him in the recall election sold out their principles. It's maddening.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
... then why is he being called out for not running for Senate (yet)? Isn't that what this blog is about? If Arnold is such a disgrace, why not shout three cheers that he isn't running, instead of lamenting that he is not a team player?
With Arnold out, we'll be treated to a true conservative like Tom McClintock losing to Boxer by 18 points. Great.
The "how does it help our image..." sentence is essentially "how does it help our image when Arnold does [x bad thing that most GOPers hate]" Answer is it doesn't, of course. You can make a nice, long list of things Arnold has said or done that weren't particularly helpful. But at the end of the day, does that make him a net negative? No way. Because without him, a left-winger would be governor of California and there would be one less national figure whom we can point to and say to the general electorate "see, there are plenty of competent, successful Republican leaders."
The general electorate doesn't know his policies. All they know is that he's a big-time governor, a Republican, apparently successful, and they like him. IMHO, that makes him a net plus for us. I'd like to see him at the podium in the 2008 convention, spouting the party line to the extent he can be coaxed to do so -- even though I disagree with much of what he's done as governor -- because I think that it plays well nationally. Let's just say that in 2008, we desperately need to emphasize that Republicans come in all shapes and sizes, and are not limited to the caricatures that the media constantly subjects us to. Come better days, perhaps we can be more picky.
I don't like his policies any more than you do. I think the only difference between me and his detractors is that they seem to think we can expect better from a governor (or senator) of California. I don't. If, someday, we can get a Senator from that state who will vote for a GOP leader, I'd take it in a second and not look back, no matter how centrist he or she is. But then again, as a conservative and I tend to temper my expectations.
Is that there is a huge difference between a legislator and an executive. Arnold could do a lot of good in the Senate. I can't say he's done a lot of good for the people of California, though. Especially during the past couple years, when he has been particularly pathetic.
Arnold isn't unique here. I'd vote for any of the obnoxious Specter, McCain, Snowe, Collins, and Hagel crowd (I probably missed a few) for the Senate. As annoying as they are, they are very useful in the Senate, if for nothing else than the organizational votes at the start of the term. But I wouldn't want any of them to be my governor.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm calling him out to prove a point about why winning isn't everything. His continuing failure to act like a Republican should be instructive, so every time something new comes up to prove it, I'm highlighting it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Do you really think Arnold is the worst possible outcome ?
Even excluding joke candidates like the stripper, Do you think he is a worse outcome than the former governor ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
which was to put unemployed people at the top of jury lists. These juries wouldn't have been any dumber than the one that acquitted O.J. Simpson.
probably unconstitutional or certainly in violation of the idea you should be tried by a jury of your peers. It would however provide a field day for civil rights attorneys arguing appeals.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Both men were big spenders, but at least Davis didn't undercut Assembly and Senate Republicans.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That he wasn't as much of a big idea guy as Arnold was. Being a big idea guy is not a good thing when all your ideas suck.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Eh, Arnold hasn't been that bad. He repealed the car tax, has done some good things for Workman's comp, and at least has slowed down spending.
The Public Employees Unions still hate his guts. That alone is enough for me to think he hasn't been that bad.
Jindal/Palin '16
I don't have more recent years available, but this is how things stood at the re-election campaign.
And I really don't care what the unions think, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Maybe we need to focus on recruiting people like Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante to run as Republicans.
Absent such a hero, isn't it better that those states were run by Arnold and Mitt for 8 years than by some "progressive," who would have spent that time further advancing socialism in those jurisdictions?
Arnold is a "progressive" who spends his time advancing socialism. Unfortunately he is doing it under the Republican banner.
Hate on him all you want, but Schwarzenegger certainly doesn't hurt the national image of the GOP.
Sure he does. He feeds into the "there's no difference between the two parties" crowd. And for good reason, too, because I fail to see a difference between Arnold (post initiative loss flip-out) and any Democrat.
We are just lucky that he was born outside the US, so we don't have to worry about him running for President.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
that he could snap Lincoln Chafee's neck with one thumb and forefinger, I'm not sure I see much difference between the two. that said, I was always ambivalent about the effort to oust Chafee, and even another Chafee's 100% better than Boxer (which of course doesn't say much).
and 2010's still a long way away. probably too long.