Text of Schwarzenegger's Speech at RNC
Associated Press
The text of a speech by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as prepared for delivery Tuesday at the Republican National Convention:
Thank you.
What a greeting!
This is like winning an Oscar! ...As if I would know! Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." It's what the Democrats should have called their convention.
My fellow Americans, this is an amazing moment for me. To think that a once scrawny boy from Austria could grow up to become Governor of California and stand in Madison Square Garden to speak on behalf of the President of the United States that is an immigrant's dream. It is the American dream.
I was born in Europe ...and I've traveled all over the world. I can tell you that there is no place, no country, more compassionate more generous more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.
As long as I live, I will never forget that day 21 years ago when I raised my hand and took the oath of citizenship.
Do you know how proud I was? I was so proud that I walked around with an American flag around my shoulders all day long.
Tonight, I want to talk about why I'm even more proud to be an American - why I'm proud to be a Republican and why I believe this country is in good hands.
When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector. Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the soldiers in the eye. Look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him off to the Soviet Union as slave labor.
My family didn't have a car - but one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to a Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy, I wasn't an action hero back then, and I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car and I'd never see him again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union and it is because of the United States of America!
As a kid I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. I love Austria and I love the Austrian people - but I always knew America was the place for me. In school, when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would sit for hours watching American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne. Everything about America seemed so big to me so open, so possible.
I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.
I said to my friend, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican!" And I've been a Republican ever since! And trust me, in my wife's family, that's no small achievement! I'm proud to belong to the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan and the party of George W. Bush.
To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your future. One thing I learned about America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.
Everything I have my career my success my family I owe to America. In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born. It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if, like me, you couldn't even speak English until you were in your twenties.
America gave me opportunities and my immigrant dreams came true. I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party and that's why I believe in this President.
Now, many of you out there tonight are "Republican" like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the Philippines. Maybe Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New Mexico. And maybe just maybe you don't agree with this party on every single issue. I say to you tonight I believe that's not only okay, that's what's great about this country. Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic still be American and still be good Republicans.
My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? I'll tell you how.
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 a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!
There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people ... and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: "Don't be economic girlie men!"
The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of 20 years ago when the critics said Japan and Germany were overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous!
Now they say India and China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it! We may hit a few bumps - but America always moves ahead! That's what Americans do!
We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead. We move people ahead. Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland.
Now, the other party says there are two Americas. Don't believe that either. I've visited our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train before they go overseas. And I've visited our military hospitals. And I can tell you this: Our young men and women in uniform do not believe there are two Americas!
They believe we are one America and they are fighting for it! We are one America - and President Bush is defending it with all his heart and soul!
That's what I admire most about the President. He's a man of perseverance.
He's a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, doesn't waiver, does not back down. My fellow Americans, make no mistake about it terrorism is more insidious than communism, because it yearns to destroy not just the individual, but the entire international order. The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite. But leadership isn't about polls. It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions. That's why America is safer with George W. Bush as President.
He knows you don't reason with terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. They hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. They hate the liberating breeze of democracy. But ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's decency.
We're the America that sends out Peace Corps volunteers to teach village children. We're the America that sends out missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor and the sick. We're the America that gives more than any other country, to fight aids in Africa and the developing world. And we're the America that fights not for imperialism but for human rights and democracy.
You know, when the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall, America's determination helped wield the sledgehammers. When that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America's hopes stood with him. And when Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too.
We are still the lamp lighting the world especially for those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp, they slave no matter in what injustice they're trapped - they hear our call ... they see our light ... and they feel the pull of our freedom. They come here as I did because they believe. They believe in us.
They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can get to America." Someone once wrote - "There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream." They are right. It's the American dream.
No matter the nationality, no matter the religion, no matter the ethnic background, America brings out the best in people. And as Governor of the great state of California - I see the best in Americans every day ... our police, our firefighters our nurses, doctors and teachers, our parents.
And what about the extraordinary men and women who have volunteered to fight for the United States of America! I have such great respect for them and their heroic families.
Let me tell you about the sacrifice and commitment I've seen firsthand. In one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg had a hole in his stomach ... his shoulder had been shot through.
I could tell there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks." And do you know what he said to me then? He said he was going to get a new leg ... and get some therapy ... and then he was going back to Iraq to serve alongside his buddies! He grinned at me and said, "Arnold ... I'll be back!"
Ladies and gentlemen, America is back! Back from the attack on our homeland - back from the attack on our economy, back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush.
My fellow Americans ...I want you to know that I believe with all my heart that America remains "the great idea" that inspires the world. It's a privilege to be born here. It's an honor to become a citizen here. It's a gift to raise your family here to vote here and to live here.
Our president, George W. Bush, has worked hard to protect and preserve the American dream for all of us. That's why I say ... send him back to Washington for four more years!
Thank you, America - and God bless you all!
|  |
brucewillis.com/fans:
Question: What do you think about Schwarzy's speech?
Answers: Sherry Sunshine, Member # 1163, posted 09-01-2004 02:50
PM: His speech was great! I really liked the jokes he cracked too.
He's a good guy and I like him. Sherry
SpongeBabe, Member # 745, posted 09-01-2004 03:00 PM: I'm already
a fan of Arnold, so it's probably hard to be objective, but I thought
he was just great!! He adeptly hit on just about every topic so
that everyone in that center at some point felt he was addressing
them. He kept the "Ahnold" references to a minimum, but threw in
just enuf to keep it amusing. I think he ably demonstrated why he's
an entertainment "superstar". He "pumped the crowd up", which I
would guess was one of the reasons he was there.
snubby, Member # 1667, posted 09-01-2004 03:08 PM: Were it not for
the rule that bars people not born in America from running for President,
I would fully expect Arnold to be nominated for the job in 2008
and he would probably win by a landslide. (which frightens the crap
out of me) Don't be surprised in the months and years ahead to see
the Republicans try to constituitionally amend their way out of
that one to make it happen - they know what they have in Arnold
and they know the general public is ready to lap up every ounce
of it.
kid, Member # 510, posted 09-01-2004 04:07 PM: I respect Arnold
for what he has accomplished. He is obviously not a dope, but President,
ooooh, I'm not so sure. Look, the guys speech, was carefully crafted
and showed that sometimes it takes someone who has truly seen oppression
to appreciate our great land and the freedoms it offers. Our forefather
were wise, they crafted a document which has stood the test of time
with very little real change. I think the constitution should be
strictly construed and I also think Government is too dog gone big,
but that's niether here nor there. Back to Arnie, like him, love
his movies, not president though !
CHILD+DEFENDER. Member # 4108, posted 09-01-2004 07:29 PM: Heck,
I wanted to vote for Arnold not Bush after that speech.
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn: Evelyn D. Eash, posted 2004-09-02
23:30: Mr. Schwarzenegger saw the Russian tanks in the streets?
The war was over 1945, Schwarzenegger was born in 1947! Austria
was occupied by the armies of the US, UK, France and Russia until
1955. Arnold was living in the sector occupied by the UK. Arnold
saw the socialist country Austria became after the Russians left
in 1955? Until 1970 Austria had either a conservative government
or a coalition between the christian democrats and the socialist
party. Until 1970 The country was led by conservative chancellors(=Prime
Minister) The country was led by the conservative politician Leopold
Figl and afterwards by the conservative politician Julius Raab both
Christian democrats. Arnold left Austria in 1968. Sop what did he
see?
http://www.alwayson-network.com/ R. Fresquez, POSTED: 09.13.04
@08:02: Didnt realize AO's job was to play the role of Monica Lewinski
for the Republican Party. Did the Republicans supply the cigars
or did you have to buy them?
Ed "Redwood" Ring, POSTED: 09.07.04 @08:52: If you don't think there
are shades of grey, Mr. Inoutech, how will you ever see colors?
www.inoutech.com | POSTED: 09.06.04 @18:22: I don't
understand these leftist socialist repudiations. Arnold is very
leftist for a Republican and I am sorry there are no shades of gray.
Right is right and wrong is wrong and usually left is wrong. The
economy and many other issues are the left-overs from the democracts
who have been running this country for the past 30 years. Anyone
who knows anything about economics knows how little Clinton did
and how he rode the coat-tails of Reganomics. Clinton should have
been in prison for lieing. You don't change presidents during times
of war. Are you people out of your democratic minds?????? The war
on terrorism is for a good cause. We could be like Clinton and stick
our heads in the sand and let others die in this country and elsewhere
in the world. And I don't even like Bush!
[jch] | POSTED: 09.06.04 @02:09, Hey! What's with all the girlie-man
talk here? [chuckles]; has the rarified art of tongue-in-cheeck
been lost?
MariaBizDev | POSTED, 09.03.04 @15:03: Good for you, Tony! Shawn
and I are having a similar 'discussion' of "content, not insults"
elsewhere on AO.
Ed "Redwood" Ring | POSTED, 09.03.04 @13:09:
Everyone should remember that it is normal for news organizations
to have a political leaning. If AO has a bias, that's their right.
Personally I am amazed and perhaps envious of all of those of you
who have such certainty on these issues. My greatest passion is
in defense of the shades of grey, and against the hypocrisy of those
who claim to have the answers for us all.
direwolff, POSTED: 09.03.04
@11:23: Tony, in reading Shawn's posts, he certainly added to the
discussion w/facts and reference links which none of the Bush/GOP
supporters did (why didn't they? isn't that a good way to debate
issues, w/facts).
I'm sure these more conservative folks amongst us read and can point
AO readers to some written comments, even if fm solidly conservative
sources that can educate us, or substantiate or negate Shawn's claims
and sources or their own claims. Why call things conspiracy theories
when there are facts to support these, and not counter them w/facts
that support the opposite conclusions. You should probably add to
the AO Blogger Bushido that political discussion is also not appropriate
since it does not further the entrepreneurial cause here. There
are plenty of other sites that dwell on politics and can support
this type of discussion more productively (though these are tough
to find given how strongly people feel on these issues).
This should also go for some of the gov't policy articles that AO
posts that are specifically pro-Bush or anti-Kerry, since I've yet
to see any that are pro-Kerry or anti-Bush. Either keep it balanced
or do away w/it. As for other media sites not allowing for comments,
there's probably a reason for that given the type of vile that I've
seen on those sites that do. It's kind of funny to see the attacks
that come fm both sides when people are free to post their opinions.
Again, in the areas that raise the public consciousness for issues
around tech, biz and entrepreneurialism we should foster this type
of debate, in the areas of politics, AO is not necessarily the most
relevant place to hold these.
Shawn, POSTED: 09.03.04 @09:06: Tony, you singled out Valerie and
I in this. You edited my post in which I didn't even mention the
@&%head (i.e. "Shrub") by name. Yet you leave this in "Cut back
on the X and the acid, OK, because delusional projections are what
you talk about to your therapist, not the Always-On Network." In
this case I am attacked by another member of AO, personally, because
of my opinion about a subject. This one was just ooozing with "respect
and civility". Yet, in this case you are okay with it... because
this is a Bush supporter, or is it just because he was subtle and
didn't outright call me an *%@hole??? I don't have a problem with
your rules Tony, I guess I just don't "comprehend" well. I will
try to do better.
Tony Perkins, POSTED: 09.02.04 @22:10: Shawn: Thanks for the links.
The content was about what I expected, augmented with tempting advertisements
such as Noam Chomsky's book "America's quest for global dominance."
Required reading for the hate-America crowd I am sure. And to your
point - "But in March the local US attorney, Strom Thurmond junior,
suddenly brought federal charges against Mr Bursey under a little-known
law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the
president is visiting." So, is protecting the president of the United
States somehow a surprising law to you? Amazing. Well, reading is
one thing, but interpreting is another. Beware those websites that
cater to the low threshhold of objectivity in you.
If that is your trump card in laying the case for Kerry, I wouldn't
feel compelled to rush off to the ballot box. The bigger point here
is that proven leaders like Arnold, Guiliani, and Miller are voting
on character in this election, not necessarily along party lines.
The wheels are coming off the Kerry campaign right now because of
two reasons: a) no strong character references and b) no strong
Senate record of accomplishment.
bmorris, POSTED: 09.02.04 @21:05:
I agree Ed. Arnie is doing some very good things for California.
I would hope he does inject some balance into the Republican party,
move more to the center and away from the hard right. Well said.
Shawn, POSTED: 09.02.04 @14:11: I like Arnold Schwarzenegger. It
is unrealistic to expect anyone who takes over the California governorship
to fix everything that needs fixing. Schwarzenegger hasn't begun
to reform the bloated California state employee pension benefit;
his reforms to workman's comp and taxing indian gaming were incremental,
not decisive. But Schwarzenegger has done something against all
odds as California's governer - he survived - he's popular - he
has a future in national politics. I am glad Schwarzenegger got
up there and said "within our party we can respectfully disagree."
It wasn't much, but it served notice on the Republicans that their
social moderate wing is not going to go away. I'm also glad he again
taunted the politically correct crowd with his "girlie men" phrase.
At the least it's time for Schwarzenegger's detractors to admit
he is an effective politician, maybe even a brilliant one, time
will tell. That he is a pragmatist may disappoint those who thought
he might actually fix everything overnight, but he is a bright new
star on the political scene and personally I can't wait to see what
he does next.
Ed "Redwood" Ring, POSTED: 09.02.04 @14:06: Joe: There
is no "due respect" here.
There used to be, but no more. Anyone who utters anything negative
about Bush is labeled a "liberal" (in the new bad sense), a druggie
(your label), or now, a move-on lackey. And if that isn't totally
over the top, X-files for dessert. How is anything you are stating
"substantive"? Also the links I've included below are not conspiracy
theory, they are facts. What "facts" did you provide? They were
your "opinions" highlighting the RNC, yes? Yet when countered, you
name call. I guess in the schoolyard sense, this is a good strategy.
Honestly, my 12 year old figured that wasn't the right way to go
in kindergarten. Here's a fact for you, the government is investigating
Halliburton for BREAKING THE LAW while Cheney was CEO.
Your quote, "Spoken like someone who has been a CEO in the private
sector." I guess the fact that he is managing the country in the
same fashion is lost on you? I'm sure you will now say I'm making
this up! Time to see the shrink, yes? You are insulting and entirely
belittling, as is Tony. Any "opinion" that does not fit within your
worldview seems to give you the right to start throwing eggs. If
you don't want "opinions" then kill the discussion boards and call
it what it is "propoganda". I am a person with my own opinions not
beholden to any group of nitwits, while you appear to be nothing
more than a shill for the RNC.
http://www.peaktalk.com/ Pieter Dorsman,
POSTED 09.01.04,12:01 AM If it had been given a bit more depth I
think Schwarzenegger’s speech would have been the nominee’s speech,
extremely powerful and hitting the right notes from the fear of
the “Soviet boot” to the rationale for going to war in Iraq, and
mixing in immigrant values. Billing Richard Nixon as a small government
conservative however was pushing it quite a bit, but the reintroduction
of Dick on a GOP convention was probably in the same vein as the
Democrats re-embracing Vietnam. There’s a lot you can achieve with
rewriting history, reinterpretation of the past is an extremely
valuable tool when used with discretion. The impressive core of
Arnold’s speech however was an incredibly passionate plea saying
that you didn’t have to agree with everything that Bush stands for,
but that you could still vote for him. While packaging all Republican
core values in this speech Arnold set the door open for those who
can only agree with a portion of it. That is a speech worthy of
a presidential candidate.
http://polysigh.blogspot.com StevenTeles,
08.31.04, 11:20 PM I was surpised by one thing in Arnold's speech,
although perhaps I shouldn't have been. That was his willingness
to define the Republican party and explain why he's in it. A lot
of people expected him to continue to be a party of one, but he
tied himself pretty firmly to the Republican party. Arnold is a
Republican, albeit a rather libertarian one. And the truth be told,
this does NOT put him out on a limb--there is a very large, very
organized libertarian wing of the party, whose leaders and cadres
are a major part of the party coalition. And these folks are staying
in the party because they believe that, their disagreements with
the party on social issues not withstanding, that the Democrats
are still their most important enemy. They care about abortion and
gay right, but not that much--and they believe, again not without
reason, that on the social issues the social conservatives are not
likely to get any traction any time soon. So there's no reason to
beat their breasts and try to start big platform fights on abortion,
since they're willing to spot their fellow party-members those issues,
and focus on where they agree. Big question--did anyone at the Democratic
party use their speech to state as clearly as Arnold did, what the
basic reasons were why the public ought to support their party?
Not that I remember. Why is this? I think it is because the Democratic
message is stale, and the party lacks the big, positive issues that
make party leaders WANT to go out and sell the public on the party
message. As a Democrat, I find this incredibly depressing. Tuesday,
August 31, 2004 Arnold's Speech I was surpised by one thing in Arnold's
speech, although perhaps I shouldn't have been. That was his willingness
to define the Republican party and explain why he's in it. A lot
of people expected him to continue to be a party of one, but he
tied himself pretty firmly to the Republican party. Arnold is a
Republican, albeit a rather libertarian one. And the truth be told,
this does NOT put him out on a limb--there is a very large, very
organized libertarian wing of the party, whose leaders and cadres
are a major part of the party coalition. And these folks are staying
in the party because they believe that, their disagreements with
the party on social issues not withstanding, that the Democrats
are still their most important enemy. They care about abortion and
gay right, but not that much--and they believe, again not without
reason, that on the social issues the social conservatives are not
likely to get any traction any time soon. So there's no reason to
beat their breasts and try to start big platform fights on abortion,
since they're willing to spot their fellow party-members those issues,
and focus on where they agree. Big question--did anyone at the Democratic
party use their speech to state as clearly as Arnold did, what the
basic reasons were why the public ought to support their party?
Not that I remember. Why is this? I think it is because the Democratic
message is stale, and the party lacks the big, positive issues that
make party leaders WANT to go out and sell the public on the party
message. As a Democrat, I find this incredibly depressing.
Karl,
Posted 08.01.04, 12:28 AM Didn't see the speech but I vote Libertarian
because the religious conservatives have taken over the party and
the fiscal conservatives aren't conservative at all. Anonymous,
Posted 08.01.04, 9:08 AM How quickly we forget? Bill Clinton and
Barack Obama both layed out the fundemental beliefs of the Democratic
party in speechs that didn't need to reference any films about cyborgs.
Or call unemployed Americans "girlie-men" if they happen to be pessimistic
about the economy.
Carla, Posted 08.01.04, 12:15 PM My favorite
part about Arnold's speech was when he said Richard Nixon inspired
him to be a Republican. So the young Austrian came to the US and
did porn videos, drugs, groped women, made some of the most violent
films in history and was inspired by a completely disgraced and
corrupt Administration to join their Party. You can't make this
stuff up.
Marketa, Posted 08.01.04, 8:18 PM Adding to the comparison…There
was another area in which Arnold Schwarzenegger did a better service
to his party than his Democratic so-to-speak-counterpart, Madeleine
Albright, another Central European-born American who has become
a top-ranking U.S. official. In their speeches, both of them mentioned
their childhood experiences with totalitarianism (Nazism and Communism
during the 1940s and 1950s). These stories had a potential to become
more than mere anecdotes highlighting what a great place America
is. At a time when totalitarianism number three, Jihadism, is rapidly
advancing, Arnold’s and Madeleine’s sharing of these memories should
have led to a more serious message to the American public. Two questions
that both of them should have been expected to answer were a) how
their respective parties have dealt with totalitarian regimes in
the past and b) how they will oppose totalitarianism in the upcoming
four years. While none of them answered the two points fully, Arnold
did a better job than Madeleine. He used an example of the Soviet
occupation of Austria to explain not only his personal inclination
to the Republican Party’s ideals but more importantly, to emphasize
his party’s victory over one of the totalitarianisms (Communism).
On the other hand, Madeleine missed her chance to lay out the Democratic
Party’s record in this area and instead used the paragraph about
her “immigrant origins” to merely glorify general American ideals.
In addition to missing an opportunity to make an important statement,
she discounted the sophistication of the Jihadist ideology by claiming
that “our adversaries have nothing to offer their followers except
hatred, destruction, and death.” She, more than anyone else, should
know that totalitarian ideologies and regimes, especially in their
formative stages, have MUCH to offer their followers. The two delegates,
Arnold and Madeleine, were in a unique position to place the current
war on terrorism in the proper context which is to say that Jihadism
stands in line with Nazism and Communism and no measures short of
those that have been used to defeat the latter two will suffice.
In fact, there are reasons to believe that Jihadism as an ideology
and practice (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan) poses a far greater
threat than any of the two previous totalitarianisms: it is ideologically
enriched by the extra religious layer it has, its proponents are
better technologically equipped, and the movement has had all this
time to pick up additional tips about successful strategies and
tactics from the Nazi and Communist experiences. Arnold should get
credit for at least mentioning some of the tenets of Jihadism further
down in his speech, suggesting that there is actually an elaborate
ideology out there that his party needs to counter. Madeleine took
the route of downplaying the gravity of the danger by singling out
terrorism as a “new evil” carried out by small, isolated, and misguided
groups qualitatively different from traditional dictatorships. For
someone who has lived through Nazism and Communism, not to recognize
and publicly acknowledge Jihadism’s totalitarian character, is a
double failure.
TNB, Posted 08.01.04, 3:09 PM Libertarian Republicans
are kidding themselves - how much influence do they really have?
The base of the Republican Party is anything but libertarian. Only
the principled resistance of the Democrats is keeping the Republicans
from having any traction on issues like abortion and gay rights.
It's not libertarian Republicans fighting Bush's extremist federal
court appointments. It's not libertarian Republicans raising their
voices nationwide against the Patriot Act. The Democratic message
is definitely not stale. Environmental protection - clean air and
water, making polluters pay to clean up the messes they made - is
not stale. Fiscal responsibility - not dumping trillions of dollars
of debt on generations yet to come - is not stale. A foreign policy
that does not create more enemies than it eliminates is not stale.
An economy that creates jobs, that does not ignore millions of Americans
slipping into poverty or losing their health insurance, is not stale.
Kerry is out there making his case - the press is, as usual, ignoring
him in favor of right wing lies (where are "libertarian Republicans"
on the whole Swift Boat filth? If they had any principles, they'd
disdain winning by lying).
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an intelligent man, but he basically believes
that people, once they climb the ladder, have a moral obligation
to pull it up after them so as to keep anyone else from climbing
it. Democrats believe in lowering a rope. That's a message all of
us Democrats can be proud of.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net
Liberty, Posted 09.01.04, 5:46 AM Arnolds speech was good, he
instilled pride in being an American. He reminded us of some of
the great things we've done as Americans. I bristled when Arnold
told of how we stood with the young man who stood in front of the
tank at Tiannaman Square. We didn't stand with him. We turned our
backs, and cowered. The young man went to jail, Nepal was invaded,
and Walmart made billionss. And we critisize Taiwan for making too
many waves.
http://www.gnxp.com Godless, Posted 09.01.04,
06:03 AM You know, stirring rhetoric like that makes me really wish
that I could rally to Arnold's banner and believe that Bush really
was all those things: a fiscal conservative, a strong leader against
terror, a man looking out for the safety of the US beset on all
sides by leftist malcontents and terrorist apologists. I really
do wish that Bush was Reagan, that the attacks on him were baseless,
and that he was being attacked for putting up too strong and determined
a fight against the genuine enemies of America.
But on the two biggest issues of the day - immigration and Iraq
- Bush has made calamitously wrong decisions. On a host of smaller
issues (tariffs, non-defense spending increases, No Child Left Behind,
racial preference endorsements) he's been MIA or actively leftist.
Stem cell research is one of the few issues he's been genuinely
right-wing on...and unfortunately, that's another call I disagree
with. So what is a genuine rightist to do? As I emailed some of
my friends the other day, I think this David Brooks article is the
ideal outcome: Should Bush lose, it will be like a pack of wolves
that suddenly turns on itself. The civil war over the future of
the party will be ruthless and bloody. The foreign-policy realists
will battle the democracy-promoting Reaganites. The immigrant-bashing
nativists will battle the free marketeers. The tax-cutting growth
wing will battle the fiscally prudent deficit hawks. The social
conservatives will war with the social moderates, the biotech skeptics
with the biotech enthusiasts, the K Street corporatists with the
tariff-loving populists, the civil libertarians with the security-minded
Ashcroftians. In short, the Republican Party is unstable."
Brooks of course frames the debate in such a way as to be excessively
favorable to his own side. I doubt that Reagan would have endorsed
the invasion of Iraq; there is a big difference between verbal commitments
to democracy and even CIA-sponsored clandestine wetworks vs. US
invasions for the sole purpose of spreading democracy (given the
lack of WMD). But the main event is not Iraq, but immigration, Brooksian
slurs against "bashers" aside. Iraq will likely kill 1000 or so
Americans per year for the foreseeable future, cost the US hundreds
of billions of dollars, and distract our attention from hunting
down bin Laden. But merit-blind, mass unskilled/illegal immigration
promises to increase ethnic balkanization, reduce academic performance,
increase crime, and generally increase the number of net tax recipients.
It will cost us far more than a hundred billion and will kill more
than one thousand per year.
We must move to a revenue-positive or merit-based scheme as soon
as possible to prevent the tripling of the underclass (it has already
doubled) - and this will only be possible if Bushism is thoroughly
repudiated. The party must look within to find out why it lost this
election, and the answer must come back from the base loud and clear:
Bush's proposed amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens cost him the
election. A Republican civil war is the only hope for a fiscally
rightist party that stops illegal immigration, faces the diversity
cult down in favor of individualism, and defenestrates the neocons.
|
