And sure, lots of liberals describe themselves as "fiscally conservative," really just meaning "responsible; not a reckless spender." But he says he defintely preferred Romeny over Obama, which makes him sound like he really does tilt to the right.
Also, I'm not sure I'd want to vote for someone who says "it’s something that I would do on a part-time basis." I can sympathize with preferring candidates who have had non-political careers to candidates who have been career politicians--put once someone is in Congress or in another major elected official, it should be a full-time job. Congress already gets little enough done without members starting to take pride in being part-timers.
I used to think it was preposterous, and as a Democrat I'm not encouraged by the Reagan example. And no one should be encouraged by the Schwarzenegger example. But I've gotten more impressed with the intelligence and understanding it usually takes to be a really good actor (which doesn't necessarily include Reagan or Schwarzenegger). If an actor has also been an activist or in some other way proven knowledgeable and capable when it comes to policy and politics, then I don't think his or her career in the arts has to be a disqualifier. Even Reagan was president of a union (the Screen Actors Guild) before he was Governor of California, so while I didn't like his policies or "know nothing" demeanor, I didn't think his career path was as ridiculous as it has sometimes been considered.Originally Posted by Dupin