Yesterday, I had lunch with a liberal friend. He was concerned about his side losing the California governorship. He asked me, “Do you think the Democrats can uncover something about Schwarzenegger’s family having a Nazi past?”

Schwarzenegger better be ready to fight back. If he’s not, he’ll be skinned alive.

As far as Mr. Schwarzenegger’s father is concerned, who was indeed a member of the Nazi party, I think it would appear much too desperate a tactic to hold that against the son.

His association with Kurt Waldheim has already been a subject of discussion though. Praising a man with a Nazi past accused of participation in atrocities, for which he is banned from entering the U.S., and who lied about it to become U.N. Secretary General — I don’t know what difference it’s going to make to Californians either way.

Mr. Schwarzenneger is certainly credited with having done much to support Holocaust awareness projects, for which he has received praise from Jewish leaders in spite of his relationship with Mr. Waldheim.

Besides, the last I heard of Mr. Waldheim before all this was when he was given a papal knighthood at the Vatican. And although I recall reading a few pieces questioning this, the story seemed to fade away in short order. So who knows?

Somehow, I just don’t think it’s going to matter, even if it should.

The Democrats and the media seem more interested in attacking Schwarzenneger for his support of Prop 187, and now for relying on Pete Wilson advisers. This would be risible, except that mainstream conservatives and Republican operators will probably go all wobbly in his defense on this question.

Actually, it could be even bigger than this. An article in the Washington Post points out that Mr. Schwarzenneger is on the advisory board of U.S. English, which advocates making English our official language. James Lubinskas is a spokesman for this group — and also a contributing editor for American Renaissance.

The writer of this article tries to tie Mr. Schwarzenneger in with Jared Taylor and the Council of Conservative Citizens, even as he piously asserts that he’s not implying guilt by association. This could become very interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53646-2003Aug13.html

This is wild stuff. Arnold joined the U.S. English board shortly before Tanton left. U.S. Engliah after Tanton left became a soft, meaningless organization (not that it was especially hardline before that, but it was serving a meaningful function). And apparently James Lubinskas now works in some capacity for U.S. English, and because he’s also connected with American Renaissance, they’re linking Arnold S. to Jared Taylor!

So, if you’re on the advisory board of an organization, and someone else is associated with that organization, and that person is also associated with some other organization, you have to “answer” for that person’s association with that other organization. How much further can it go? Well, let’s see, did Taylor ever get any funding from the Pioneer Fund? If he did, does Arnold have to “answer” for that? And because Pioneer was interested in eugenics, and because Nazis were also interested in eugenics, and because Arnold’s father was a Nazi … See how it’s all coming together?

We’re even hearing again about the Tanton memo about Mexican immigrants from back in ‘88 that got him in trouble. That now becomes Arnold’s “responsibility” as well.

No, I don’t think Arnold will have trouble because of his Austrian background. The question is: Will he stand firm on Prop 187 and US English? The attacks will come from this direction and Republicans tend to wobble when they do. I wonder if David Horowitz is advising him. See the 8-13 column by Horowitz in Front Page.

What is this South Poverty Law Center that Neal gives such complacent credence to? A quick perusal of its website suggests that by the loose standards of today’s language, we might as well call it a “hate group.” Everyone to the right of Al Gore is tarred with a rotating series of denigrating epithets. It’s comical in is monomania.

He might very well stand firm against illegal immigration. He has the election in the bag right now, so there is little danger politically. And his experience of legal immigration to America might make him somewhat resentful of those people who simply bypass that and jump the border. But we’ll have to wait and see just what sort of person he is.

Mr. Cella’s point is so obvious that it had passed me by as I was reading the Washington Post article. I simply accepted the fact that liberals call certain groups hate groups. Not that I agree with that designation; for example, calling Tanton organizations hate groups is ludicrous. Rather, I accepted, from the point of view of the prevailing liberalism itself, the legitimacy of this reporter using the SPLC’s designations as his authoritative standard. But the SPLC, from a moderately rational, liberal perspective, are fanatics. Why should the Washington Post grant them this unquestioned authority?

The Washington Post is just following the standard leftist media template in its citing of the SPLC’s definitions. Every manistream media outlet in the country does it - so does the FBI (which is part of the reason the DC snipers were able to continue their reign of terror for so long). This is yet another example of how liberalism creeps into the worldview of average Americans as we continue dancing the Hegelian Mambo into the sulfurous lava pit of Utopia.

You won’t find many Republicans with the courage to define Al Sharpton as the mirror image of David Duke or the Nation of Islam as the mirror image of the KKK. The SPLC is quite radical in its leftist goals, but one rarely reads anything - even within conservative articles - describing it thus.