« The End of Power For Iowa and New Hampshire? | Home | No Evidence of Election Tampering in Ohio »
Arnold Says Republicans Should “Move To The Left.”
By Matt Margolis | December 19, 2004
Arnold Schwarzenegger has told a German newspaper that he thinks the Republican Party should move “a little to the left.”
In an interview with Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily, Schwarzenegger said that “the Republican Party currently covers only the spectrum from the right wing to the middle, and the Democratic Party covers the spectrum from the left to the middle.”
“I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center,” he was quoted as saying. “This would immediately give the party 5% more votes without it losing anything elsewhere.”
Of course, the article also mentioned the debate over a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to run for President — which would pave the way for an Arnold candidacy. However, this “move a little to left” line virtually terminates his chances of getting the Republican Party nomination. With Democrats likely to move further to the left, the last thing we want to do is follow them in that direction.
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
December 20th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
the fact he’s a foreign grade-b actor should mean he’s not even considered for President. But who knows?
December 21st, 2004 at 1:38 am
Todd, I’ve heard he’s doing a pretty good job after inheriting a real fiscal mess in California. I’ll bet he gets re-elected if he runs - Jesse Ventura did a similar gig in Minnesota. Who would have thought that he would have multiple terms. But he did a good job.
That being said - I, as a conservative Republican don’t give a damn about what he says about moving left. We won, let the Democrats move right. He is what the Democrats should be. Similar to Republicans in New England (not you Matt). He is also very rich - a typical situation for a Democratic liberal.
December 21st, 2004 at 9:15 am
Arnold is a Democratic cyborg who recently acquired the skin of a Republican.
I say terminate him…
December 21st, 2004 at 9:18 am
I agree. You should keep moving to the right.
December 21st, 2004 at 10:49 am
There is absolutely no reason for the party to move to the left - - he can keep his personal agenda to himself and give up any hopes of running for the White House - - He is a Kennedy Dem wrapped in a Republican suit.
December 21st, 2004 at 11:19 am
Yah, he is about as Republican as you can expect from the left coast these days. Conservative only in comparison to the lefty wackos in San Francisco and L.A.
December 21st, 2004 at 11:32 pm
Kahn where did you get “He is also very rich - a typical situation for a Democratic liberal.”
Individuals making over 200,000 went 63% to 35% for Bush.
Hell even if your statement had been true it just would have meant liberal Democrats are the hardest working and most deserving individuals would it have not? So before I ammended your ignorance you were a vicious class warrior.
Liberal elite babble pisses me off because there is no such thing. Lawyers, professors, union organizers, and minorities account for something but not an elite by any means. Even if you slap celebrities in there they are dwarfed by the conservative elite of business owners who have many times more money but unfortunately are not watched as closely by the media companies they own.
December 22nd, 2004 at 11:26 am
Miles,
Good rant. I meant liberal Democrat politicians. Kennedy, Kerry, Heinz - all inherited wealth. The list goes on. Soros, Rich, Streisand and all the celebs worked for it (to some extent). Thugh most of the celebs are wildlty uneducated and paid outragous salaries for “acting”. Truth is, the largest Dem doners have been the trial lawyers and the Unions - NOT the people in the unions - the Unions.
But actually, whatever you want to think is fine. Keep ranting. Keep deluding yourself. Me - I’m hoping you put Dean in charge of the party and run Rangel for president next time. And since WE won, you might take our advice before we take yours.
December 22nd, 2004 at 9:43 pm
Yeah lawyers and unions have been the largest donors to the Democrats. However now with the Campaign Finance Reform law unions cannot donate as much money to the Democrats. Union due money used for donations is soft money and that has been outlawed so most union efforts have been directed in the form of 527s.
Contrast that with the GOP’s most reliable donors: Tobacco, Oil, Pharmaceuticals, Business Associations, Fast Food, Chemicals, Automotive, Wall Street Investment Banks etc. Mostly large corporations who often see the United States as one market among many and our laws to protect people just another hassle. They matter a thousand times more than the celebrities you whine about and blame for so much crap, yes they suck but they are an annoyance not a threat. They won’t give me lung cancer, an exploding car, a higher risk of heart diease, or pollute the land so it is unusable and threatens the lives of people. Smaller businesses can offer their services in a competitive market rather than an oligopoly. Unions have bettered the lives of people I know, they make workers human beings when they might just have been a commodity, like in China or some other Third World dictatorship.
December 23rd, 2004 at 12:49 am
Miles - I don’t agree with you list of GOP doners - I think that is scripted crap. The 527’s have greatly confused things. Which candidate called for rejecting them? Oh yah - Bush did.
Here is a question to think about. Is the NRA a civil Rights organization?
December 23rd, 2004 at 4:50 pm
Here is the 10 most partisan Republican industry donors. Not doners.
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/partisans.asp?Cycle=2002&party=R
Here are the President’s largest contributers in 2004:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00008072&cycle=2004
You’ll see that the industries I mentioned are indeed big supporters of the Republican party.
I don’t know what your question has to do with anything I mentioned, but to be technical about it, no, I do not consider the NRA a CIVIL rights organization. A civil right by definition is a right that government gives you, like a right to housing, the right to vote, or rights gained from anti discrimination laws. The right to bear arms is a negative right, meaning it is something that is innate which government cannot give to you but only take away, other examples would be the right to live, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. So the NRA is wrong to call itself a civil rights organization, but it is nonetheless a rights organization of some sort.
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:06 pm
Well - thanks for being my blog spell-checker. The list of industry donors and largest donors is an interesting statistic. Do you remember what Mark Twain said about them?
And - wow on the civil rights. Well said.