Schwarzenegger commutes sentence for son of political ally on last day

mankai on January 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM

In all fairness, I’m not in CA.

I based my evaluation at the time on things he said during the campaign, positions he took during the campaign, people he surrounded himself with, and his connection to Hollywood and the Kennedy clan.

And, in fairness, I wasn’t the only one arguing that.

Most of all, I based it on his very strong positions that were socially liberal. While I am not a strong social conservative, I have found that politicians who claim fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, always move leftward once elected. The only counter-example I can recall ever seeing is Guilianni in NYC.

Monkeytoe on January 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM

tommylotto on January 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Arnold was only strong on claiming he would not raise taxes. he also made some limited noise about spending. On every other issue he campaigned as a squish and on social issues he made it as clear as he could that he was liberal. So he hardly ran as a super strong fiscal conservative.

Even you admit that Guiliani and Christie are prime examples of fiscal cons who are not necessarily social cons who none the less were strong in their fiscal con principles and refused to compromise with entrenched liberalism. Those are pretty darn big exceptions

You miss the part where I talk about my being willing to compromise, while you quite clearly show you are not. You also miss the part where I pointed out that those are the only 2 examples out there. And, frankly, neither really supports your proposition. First, it is way to early on Christie to declare that he “refused to compromise with entrenched liberalism”. Sure, he says good things. He hasn’t really done enough or been around enough to matter yet to this argument. If he sticks to his guns, then we can use him as an example and I would probably vote for him for higher office. Guiliani had very little to do with social issues as mayor of NY, aside from stating his opinion. He stuck to his guns as fiscal conservative, but in a federal position, would he? I don’t know and neither do you. But, if he were the GOP nominee, I would vote for him. But again, despite your saying – offering no evidence – that Guiliani would stick to liberalism, history shows us the opposite. Lindsy Grahm, Susan Collins, Orin Hatch, Bob Bennet, McCain, Charlie Christ, Arnold, Meg Whitman, and the list goes on and on of social libs who sell out fiscal conservatism at every chance. And, for the record, I would have preferred Guiliani over McCain as nominee last time around any day of the week.

You claim to want fealty to the constitution. Well, I hate to break it to you, but Guiliani is more likely to appoint a Sandra Day O’Conner or Souter than a Scalia or Roberts. Please note that only social cons make very good conservative justices. The rest, like politicians, grow in office toward the left.

Moreover, you miss my whole point. My point is not that socially liberal fiscal conservatives can’t exist. My point is that the evidence is that most of the time politicians will run claiming fiscal conservatism (a la Arnold) and will move left on all issues if elected. the difference for social cons is they tend to actually believe in their principals – it is not just somethign they say to get elected. Indeed, it would usually be easier on the politician to claim social liberalism b/c the media and elites won’t go after them so hard.

It’s very easy to claim to be socially liberal / fiscally conservative. Hell, most democrats run claiming to be fiscally conservative. How does that work out. Nelson gave us Obamacare, even though he is allegedly a social liberal / fiscal conservative. When push comes to shove almost every politician describing themselves that ends up voting for socialistic / liberal garbage. For instance, Romney (not counting his claimed conversion to “pro-life” in time for the GOP primary) was a social liberal / fiscal conservative. That gave MA Romneycare.

The other issue is defining “social conservatism”. You obviously have a very media-centered leftists view of what that means. But what is social conservatism? To me it means a) not having the courts find new rights in the constitution; b) having respect for institutions; c) being pro-life or at least anti roe v. wade; and d) anti amnesty / illegal immigration. Where does illegal immigration fall for you? I suppose one could claim it is a “fiscal” issue in that it costs lots of $$. But, just as easily, one could claim it is a social liberal issue b/c amnesty is about social justice for the illegals who are here and “fairness.” So, it is not such a cut and dried issue as you claim. Indeed, many fiscal issues are heavily intertwined with social issues making a complete divorce almost impossible.

Also, many constitutional issues are so intertwined. If my religious beliefs state that homosexuality is a sin, should I be forced to hire / marry / rent to homosexuals? What happened to freedom of religion and freedom of association? Aren’t they in teh constitution?

You hate the idea of “morality” having any bearing on our laws. Yet, all criminal laws, for instance, are about morality to some extent. Indeed, all laws are to a large extent. Who decides that insider trading is bad? Because morally, we feel it is unfair. Why is prostituion illegal? Drugs? All kinds of laws are based on “morality”. Why is discrimination wrong? Absent a moral reason, why can’t i decide who I want to hire, fire, rent to, etc? Claiming that legislation is ever divorced from perceptions of “morality” is naive at best. What is “climate change” legislation but an appeal to morality? Why do we help other nations when they have a disaster?

I would point out that liberals are much more apt to legislate on their morality than conservatives. Look at Bloomberg in NYC legislating what restaurants can serve, for instance. Social cons have not attempted to pass 1/2 as many laws as liberals based on their respective morality. What is Obamacare except liberal morality? Indeed, what is socialism except libearl morality? it is the idea that everyone in society is responsible for paying the way of everyone else. That wealth should be redistributed. Why? Because that is “fair”. So, the argument about social conservatives passing morality legislation is a straw-man at best.

So, you use your method of buying whatever any politican is selling, and I’ll use mine based on experience and past results. My litmus test has never proven me wrong. Arnold was just a good case example that I brought up b/c I remember how nasty and adamant those pushing for an “electable” republican and for re-call were. Anybody pointing out the glaringly obvious, that Arnold, married to a Kennedy, product of Hollywood, admitted social liberal, would move far left was despised by the “moderate” wing of the GOP.

I don’t hate people who vote fiscal conservative / social liberals. I think they are being had at least 80% of the time, but I don’t hate them. I guess that is the difference between us. The hate and condescension dripping from your comments toward social conservatives is quite stunning. Good luck with that.

I never said that if someone had a proven record of being fiscally conservative, for small gov’t and for following the limited powers of the constitution, I would not support him/her. I simply pointed out that in an imperfect world, we rarely know if what someone is saying is what they really believe. And, generally lower office records are not 1:1 to the presidency, so it is difficult to determine based on records exactly how strongly their conservative beliefs are. So we have to come up with ways to try and figure that out. I use the idea of social conservatism b/c it has proven to be a true indicator of whether someone will be a small gov’t, fiscal conservative for the long haul. Social conservatives rarely move far left once elected. The opposite is rarely true. Experience has taught us that social liberals always tend to move leftward and abandon conservatism once elected.

I don’t look for the most socially conservative candidate or anything like that. But if it is a self-professed social liberal, I am skeptical that they are truly principaled conservatives at all in terms of limited gov’t, low taxes, etc. and would need more convincing then someone with a proven social conservative track record.

Monkeytoe on January 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM