It seems for a while now there has been a certain amount of very prescriptive thought policing from self-proclaimed 'conservatives' in the US. Apparently, celebs are not qualified to voice a political opinion (see websites such as celiberal.com, for example), drugs and sexual misconduct are very, very terrible and disqualify people from holding high office (impeachment of Clinton, for example), and foreigners are just out and out bad (French, Arabs, for example).
So can anyone tell me why, on several 'conservative' websites, they are deeelighted to see one Mr. A. Schwarzenegger running for governer of California? I admit I'm not American, and this may be where the confusion arises, but is he not foreign? One of those celebrities who become traitors when discussing political matters? Has he not made very offputting statements about women, and is there not the taint of allegations of sexual misconduct on him? Has he not admitted to using steroids? Is he not a friend of the very unsavoury Kurt Waldheim?
Why do none of these standards apply to a republican candidate, and why is George Bush apparently considering endorsing his candidacy?
Can anyone help me understand the logic here?

I can't speak for all conservatives, but in my opinion the reason why the terminator is getting a thumbs up from conservatives is because if there is even a remote chance a republican(no matter how liberal he is) can get an office in California(arguably the most liberal state in the US), they're all for it.

A hardcore conservative has absolutely no chance in hades in getting an office in California.

So the point of being a republican is power or winning then, rather than any particular belief? Or perhaps that is the belief? I can live with that.

Well, I didn't want to pick apart your post, but I think I need to clear a few things up.



The impeachment had no direct relation to drugs or sexual misconduct , it was for lying under oath about his misconduct.



I assume you're referring to Michael Moore and possibly Barbara(Babs) Streisand. The only people calling them traitors were ranters such as Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. I don't know of any pubicly held official ever call any of the celebrities traitors.



Although I don't think any one party favors women more than men in general, I would think that statement would make liberals more upset than conservatives.



This certaintly is not going to win him any votes on either side of the political spectrum. I don't think either the dems or reps are gung ho for adultery.



I don't even think this is an issue, it was very common for all body-builders to use steroids when he was doing it.



I think you'd be surprised of how few people here in the US that has ever even heard of him.

Arnold isn't quite what you'd call your typical republican, but as far as conservatives are concerned, he's gotta be better than a democrat. It's not as much to do with winning as it is getting people in office that hold your beliefs even if in this case it's not all the beliefs.

'It's not as much to do with winning as it is getting people in office that hold your beliefs even if in this case it's not all the beliefs. '

But he doesn't even have a mandate, so what's he supposed to be doing apart from being conservative?

The logic is blanket statements pigeon-holeing anyone tend to backfire. Your steroetypes of republicans are just that, stereotypes. It's not unusual for any party to back a candidate they feel has a good chance of winning. It's simply politics. I'm not sure what you're really trying to get at here by asking us these questions.

California, particularly California under Gray Davis, is a very corrupt state. The governor has been pushing measures which he knows he has no way of paying for.

Arnold's main contention is that he will clean house in Sacramento (the capital of California). He continually states how business is fleeing from California (mainly due to the high taxes there) and that this is hurting the people of California.

Arnold bring a breath of fresh air, because he is an immigrant who came to this country with nothing (except his physique and work ethic). He rose to the top, overcoming all obstacles, including his accent (which, suprisingly, he never "un-learned").

Arnold is in no way your typical Republican. He has stated that the main problem he has with businesses leaving California is that they take their tax money with them, which could be used to give people "all the programs that they need." He is pro-choice (of course, so is most of the State).

Here is a link that discusses some of his stances on issues: Total Recall

I feel that any "outsider" would be 10 times better than Gray Davis. Republican or Democrat.

Since we already have a two California Governor Recall threads going, let's try and keep the focus of this on the supposed hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to endorsements of celebrity-candidates (of course, using Arnold is a fine example, but I think you all get what I mean...right? )

While California has its ultra liberal element, this statement is patently untrue. The biggest problem for conservatives in California is that recent candidates have been ignoring the state during their election runs. While GWB had little chance of winning the state, his abandonment of the state in the election (and his subsequent sellout of the state by allowing the price gouging to continue in the energy market) made it very difficult for republicans to win a state wide office.

There have been five republican presidents since 1960. Two of them were from California. One of them is conseidered the greatest hero of the neo-con movement.




A very unfair blanket dismissal of one of the greatest states in this country. WHere is your information for California as a comparatively corrupt state? If you disagree with Davis and but why single California out as a corrupt state?


Finally, I guess it is okay again to have a Hollywood activist get involved in politics now that it is a conservative actor. Every time an actor speaks out for a liberal cause I rain of fire comes down about the wacky, out of touch, Hollywood - ites and their pie in the sky ideas.

Arnold would increase the ranks of Republican office holders from tinsel town. (Gopher, Cooter, Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Charlton Heston) Just to make me feel better would someone who chimed in on the earlier anti-Hollywood thread please lambast this candidate as inappropriate?)

'I'm not sure what you're really trying to get at here by asking us these questions.'

I'm not too sure myself, but some very striking (some might say hypocritical, but I'm not that kind of girl) aspects of his idea to run and the reaction to it struck me as interesting. Now I'm fully aware that I'm looking as an outsider, so really I wanted to know how the circle of criticisms that I have been reading of liberals and celebrities would be squared to make this candidate valid by conservatives self-proclaimed standards.

Oh, the logic is perfect. If politics is show business for ugly people, then getting a real pro who looks good in there is a coup!

The irony that this might be the second actor in high office within my lifetime has not escaped me.

The side irony is that, if this occurs, the support will be from a minority of CA cititzens. That's pretty rich.

And once in, Arnold will be easily manipulated by the GOP machine.
Unfortunately for the GOP, he can't run for President. Or maybe that can be worked too?

Anyway, politics is all about power. To think otherwise is to be playing without a whole deck of cards.

Arnold may become the Jesse Ventura of California. I'm looking forward to some great jokes about this. Meanwhile, CA is heading toward bankruptcy. I think it'll become our first Third World state.

Why does the GOP want to be associated with that? Here's where the logic falls apart. What do they know that we don't?

Of course there is no chance that anyone would actually want to FIX the problems there. It won't be a quick or easy fix, but something needs to be done.

One of the reasons that Arnold is a good choice is that he really doesn't need to remain in politics forever. He has a real job (well, sort of... ).

If the mess is too great to fix, he will be out in 3 years. If he turns it around, he may stay, or he might endorse a "successor" to reap the benefits in the future.

The difference here between Arnold and certain other celebs (who will remain nameless) is that now Arnold is putting himself (and his wallet) on the line. Those others spouted "We should do this, we shouldn't do that..." but did they run for office? Did they do anything more than criticize? Criticism has its place, but criticism, of itself, does not solve any problems.

You are mistaken. The conservative position is that being a celebrity itself does not make your political opinion any more valid than anybody elses. It does, however, make you more responsible for the stupidity of what you might say. With great power, comes great responsibility. Celebrities have a great deal of power to get their opinions heard.

sigh.... such blanket stereotypes. Conservatives don't think foreigners are "just out and out bad", we think that cheese eating surrender monkeys and Islamofacists are bad. We're pretty partial to the Brits, Aussies, Poles, and others who have the cojones to stand tall.

Well, first off, there's a lot of heavy-duty conservatives who are not quite so delighted. Rush Limbaugh for one. On the flip side, from where I sit, Arnold is pretty much a lock for the victory, which means that while he may not be a conservative Republican, Gray Davis is on his way out and another looney Left Democrat won't be taking his place.

First, steroid use itself is not illegal. It has been banned over the course of the last couple decades for competitive athletes, but I don't believe it had been banned in bodybuilding at the time Arnold was competing. (I could be wrong on this though.) Second, and more importantly, steroids are neither mind-altering (in the sense that marijuana, cocaine, opiates, meth, etc) are, nor are they taken solely as recreational drugs. As a result, the MORAL perspective on steroids is far more relaxed. Third, he has admitted to using them, rather than trotting forth something silly such as "I didn't inhale."

Kurt Waldheim, two time UN Secretary General, that Kurt Waldheim? oohhh, don't forget to mention, Arnold's father was a member of the Nazi Party.

GWB would be considering endorsing his candidacy because a moderate Republican Governor of California is better for the Republican chances to win in California in 2004 than a Left Loon Democrat, at least theoretically. Furthermore, if Arnold does win subsequent a GWB endorsement, and manages to improve things in California, then he'd owe GWB, and that could be a very valuable marker for the President.

Limbaugh believes that just being a Republican is not enough. "Selling out" to gain votes in not a valid strategy in his eyes.

Of course, Arnold was never a staunch conservative.
Hear Me Now and Believe Me Later

Republicans ignore California because it would take weeks worth of campaigning and would produce very little results. Every political analyst I've been listening to has said this every single election. So, I think you're getting the casue and effect mixed up here. I still stand by my statement that no hardcore, pro-life, pro-gun, pro(add your conservative viewpoint here) republican has any chance of being elected governor in California. The party line voters alone are darn near enough to make sure of that.

With Arnold, he's basically a democrat(possibly a libertarian) running on a republican ticket, so he's got a shot.

I don't necessarily agree with you there on two points. Celebrities really don't have very much political power - or power of any kind. They have a certain amount of money, but it's not the same thing and really, very large corporations leave them in the ha'penny place, so if power is the issue then should they be allowed political preference? Secondly, however we might interpret the wisdom of celebrities, surely they have as much of a right to say stupid things as anyone? Citizenship is not compromised by occupation, so they really don't have to monitor their utterances unless everyone else does, too. They might get their opinions heard, but they also expose themselves to ridicule in so doing.



So you like celebrities and foreigners who agree with you, basically.



I notice you slipped over the whole question of his alleged behaviour towards women and alleged infidelity. Surely they are not moral? Also, as far as I'm aware, the drugs issue does not stop at steroids. Is marijuana more moral when used by a republican?



You might think that funny or clever, but perhaps it's actually worth considering. I imagine that a left wing candidate with any kind of communist connections would not be treated so lightly. What would be the difference?

Actually, as far as Democrats with "Nazi Connections", Joe Kennedy was recalled as Ambassador to the UK during the pre-WW II era because he was pro-Nazi.

So, Ted Kennedy's father was a Nazi sympathizer and I have never heard anything ever made of that.

I meant communist rather than nazi but I take your point. Why would no issue be made of such hideous stains from the left or right?