Tip:

If you want hits to your site based on current events, but definitely don't have the PageRank on Google to warrant a visit, just spell Schwarzenegger as Schwarzenneger - or maybe Schwartzenegger... just one time is all that's needed..

anyway, even though you won't get the hits going to CNN and Fox News, you will get those, from people, who, like yourself, paid little attention to the spelling of people's names.

Referring URL http://www.google.co...r=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Search Engine: google.com
Search Words: schwarzenneger "gay rights"
and
Referring URL http://www.google.co...arzenneger+marijuana
Search Engine: google.com
Search Words: schwarzenneger marijuana

At least this demonstrates that people care about the important stuff in this race.

Or, it might indicate that the people who are fixated on drugs and sex are too busy to pay attention to spelling.

Alright, I have to exercise my blogmuscles so they don't atrophy.

First, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a double-edged sword, no doubt. My instinct is that the good CIRCUMSTANTIALLY outweighs the bad. It is particularly good, in that context, that he can never become president. My thoughts on this come down to only a couple main things. First, he is, of course, not conservative. He's something like Bloomberg or McCain or Powell.

I think the Powell reference is most applicable here, because of what I said about the rumored Powell exit in '05. Essentially, he is a boon to the administration because he implies two things: support for the president from a "Moderate" and a "Moderate" influence in the administration's decisions.

On a different level, Schwarzenegger does the same. In the way that Powell's politics are largely inconsequential, even though his image is not, Arnold will be the same. He cannot radically change social policy to the negative in California - it is already as left wing as states come. Plus, he cannot radically change the fiscal policies of the state, and cannot change fiscal policy nationally at all.

But his image affects everything. He presents the entire nation with that 'big umbrella' image that softens conservatives' generally harsh appearance.

The trouble, though, on the flipside is this. California politics will improve nominally - no single governor, no matter how truly conservative, could possibly change California politics to the better to a very significant degree. And while California politics changes only slightly, it may further influence the Republican party leftward. Here's why: George W. Bush, in an effort to garner that GIGANTIC potential electoral windfall (and this would be what changes the presidential victory to a landslide) will coddle the political leanings of Schwarzenegger. He will encourage enthusiastically the 'ideals' of Schwarzenegger while he is in office. In addition to that, Schwarzenegger may prove a valuable fundraiser, which would mean that other candidates around the country will want to coddle to him and his political bent as well - even though, again, in California he is actually fairly impotent. Last, and most important, NEW candidates who are liberal Republicans will have a stronger and more popular presence with the likes of Schwarzenegger behind him.

But make no mistake, Schwarzenegger will make the Republican party itself more attractive than ever, and the Democrat party will find itself in a gray limbo for decades. But like I said, this absolutely WILL lead to a massive fracture in the Republican party.

So this is why I say that Schwarzenegger is better on balance: The shift of the Republican party to a liberal agenda was begun by Dubya, NOT by the likes of Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger is a fringe Republican - he is welcome in the party, but his policies will only become mainstream if the true leaders of the party allow them to become mainstream. So the person who we need to be concerned with is more Bush. Plus, we do have to work to prevent the election of new liberal Republicans at the polls, just as we always have had to.

Why don't we have to defeat Schwarzenegger - clearly a liberal Republican - as we must defeat others? Because we have to be realistic. Out of a 200-300 person race, someone has to stand out to win. With fewer Democrats running, the person that would stand out most would be a Democrat. The more conservative a Republican running is, the more that Republican would have already had to stand out quite a bit in order to garner votes in such a left wing state. Of course the exception to this is Bill Simon - what is his image? A loser.

Anyway, we have to be realistic and win this election - that's Schwarzenegger. He cannot directly damage the politics of the state from the point it's at now. He can improve or change its politics only nominally anyway. And last, the problems in the Republican party are the fault of its leaders - specifically Bush - and the voters not fighting for conservatives in the rest of the races - they are not problems with the governor of California.

Ok, enough Arney talk.

P.S.

Here's what I was going to say about the subject on the 6th:

DRUDGE today:

SOURCE: Arnold Schwarzenegger will announce he's NOT running this afternoon in Los Angeles. Tonite, on NBC's Leno, Arnold will say why he's not running and THEN call out from behind stage the 'NEXT GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: Dick Riordan!'... Developing...

Ok, I understand that Andy Pressman is the leading talentless hack for years now, but I would really like to lift Arnold to the status of Supreme Talentless Hack, seeing as his movies have always been talent-deficient, and this stupid STUPID ploy to plug Riordan proves he is a poor political HACK.

Now remember, I was never in love with Schwarzenegger's conservativism, but I at least enjoyed the thought of the image of such a popular guy who could hardly be villified (because he wasn't that conservative) at the helm of California politics.

Now I just have to cringe at the blantant stupidity he's portraying by thinking that his own untested political capital could be parlayed into support for a wholly political candidate who his fans don't know or care about. And, he's being awfully crass by blatantly taking advantage of Jay Leno to promote not himself mind you, and not his movie, but to promote another Republican for the eviction of Gray Davis, a liberal governor.

So, in the end, he played us all like a fiddle, is going to win, will make Republicans look good, and will be one more point along the fault line of the Republican party 10 or 15 years down the road.

Lies lies lies yeah..

Disdain for Bush Simmers in Democratic Strongholds:

"One way to measure it is by what generates applause on the campaign trail these days. On a recent steamy night in Fort Dodge, more than 100 Democrats crowded a local state representative's home to cheer on Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, who made a scathing case against the Bush record."

Couple points:

1. 100 people!! woo hoo!! Seriously.. meaningless. The number of absolutely viscerally liberal or conservative people is relatively static, and their main effect is to steer the rudder of a party's platform, and give the initial boost to primary contenders. But ultimately they can be written off - ON BOTH SIDES - because more hatred on the part of those who already hate George W. Bush means nothing at all.
2. Yes, read the story - yes it says that the hatred is the war and the economy. No, it isn't true at all.
   
   This is one of those things no serious commentator can admit to, because it just creates too much of a firestorm of insult and animosity, but...
   
   The reason these people somehow manage to hate Dubya even more than they hated Reagan and Dubya's father, is - his - faith.
   
   "How dare you tell me that I'm supposed to live by your oppressive morality. I am free to do what I want, and you are trying to oppress all of us by forcing your God down our throats."
   
   That's the hatred, folks - it really is. I could go further.. but .. there is just too much that goes down to why it is that liberals are liberals - why they all manage to be Democrats and stick together through thick and thin in the first place.
   
   But that's the crux of it. Get nice old Billy Graham up there in Bush's shoes and they'd manage to hate him more than anyone in the world.

The Powell thing will have more effect than "they hate Bush even more than Reagan!", trust me.

Political clouds

State Dept. Changes Seen if Bush Reelected (washingtonpost.com):

"Armitage recently told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that he and Powell will leave on Jan. 21, 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration, sources familiar with the conversation said. Powell has indicated to associates that a commitment made to his wife, rather than any dismay at the administration's foreign policy, is a key factor in his desire to limit his tenure to one presidential term."

Let me just be the first to admit that this would be bad.

Powell serves a rather vital political role and, as much as I hate the pure political toe-tapping and symbolism, Powell's is important. He stands as a powerful symbol of moderation - balance, if you will - in the Bush administration. He appears this way for two reasons. First, he is clearly a liberal Republican, who finds himself tied to the Republican party due to a few critical principles, but is liberal on most social issues. Because of this, there is an appearance of open-mindedness in Bush's cabinet, and in Bush himself, because he put Powell there.

The second issue is stronger, however, and that is that this balancing force of Powell's is absolutely loyal to George W. Bush. If Powell has the integrity everyone believes he does, and Bush is so extreme-right-wing as everyone claims he is, Powell couldn't truly support him. But he has been a staunch supporter of the president arguing for him, standing beside him literally and symbolically. Since people don't write off Powell's integrity, they are forced to believe that Bush is a reasonable man.

So we have a balancing force in Bush's administration, and that force ends up siding with George W. Bush every time, when the chips are down. That sort of synergy pushes some of those fence-sitters into Bush's camp.

But if Powell leaves just as Bush's second term begins, it absolutely will be a wound in Bush's side, that will take time to heal. This is both because of the obvious - that Powell's integrity will appear to have stopped siding with Bush enough to keep him there - and because of a second important factor. Bush will almost certainly replace him with someone more aggressive about defense and diplomacy. He will do this because it is, and always has been, in his nature to be more aggressive, and in his last term, he needs to have the right people in place to support what will almost certainly be a more conservative agenda, as a lame duck administration.

But doing so will make people feel that Powell no longer supports Bush's 'extremism' and that Bush will no longer have the supposed balance of Powell's level-headedness.

Now, technically, this shouldn't even be a worry, because this wouldn't take place until after the election. However, as bad as it would be (and, obviously I think the Lib's will see it this way), the press and the Liberals in general will try desperately to feed on this story, all of its rabbit-trails, and every possible negative connotation. (Look for all of the possible suggested 'hawks' that will be said to be the strongest replacement candidates, and then look for those people to be villified, and for that villified personality to be implicated to Bush himself.)

Just to reinforce the point - this is a non-story, because there is no way to know what will happen since Powell won't say, and it won't happen until after Bush is reelected. But look for it to be three times the story any reasonable person would expect.

P.S. except... it would be one more step up the ladder for Rice - that's for sure - and that'd be nice.

UPDATE: Obviously this story IS false, which means someone essentially invented it, which means that they wanted this kind of talk in the air, as I suggested. The reason someone might do this, even though it may be exposed, is that they can then talk about the rumor, purporting to want to figure out its legitimacy or source, or whatever, and I imagine the press will do so.

From Drudge:

No Basis for Washington Post Story

Regarding the story in today's Washington Post about Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage, there was no conversation between the Deputy Secretary and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice concerning any plans for "stepping down." There is no basis for the story. As Secretary Powell has always said, he and Deputy Secretary Armitage serve at the pleasure of the President, and will continue to do so.

###

"This is gossip and rumor," said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker when asked about The Washington Post story. "The story purports to describe a conversation that took place. That conversation never took place."

###

Scott McClellan just announced that Secy Powell and Deputy Secy Armitage will be arriving at the Crawford Ranch tomorrow evening for dinner with the President. The two will overnight in Crawford and then will meet again with the President on Wednesday and have lunch before heading back to DC.