We all loathe and deride Zellout for not switching parties even though he no longer espouses any democratic values. And we laugh out loud about the republican governator who supports gay rights, abortion rights, and universal healthcare (at least he used to.)
Of course, we all recognize that having this DINO and RINO on at the RNC is part of the Rethuglican effort to appear moderate to swing voters accustomed to the likes Hastert, Delay, and Santorum. Actually it's not quite that simple...
When we carefully examine the positions of the speakers vis-a-vis the demographics of the swing voters to which they are trying to appeal, the tactic appears far more cynical (in a Rovian way) and may be much more effective than one might assume.
First, look at Zell. He espouses "family" values, like hating gays and outlawing abortion. He fully supports the invasion of Iraq. He voted for the irresponsible tax cuts for which our grandchildren will pay. He even has spoken out against the seperation of church and state. Seriously, can anyone name a single democratic principal that this guy still supports? For all intents and purposes, this guy is a republican, hence therm DINO.
So who is his target audience? More than likely, they are what I would call the "unenlightended" (some may say moderate) registered democrat. For example, some are very uncomfortable with the concept of gay marriage, though they might not be outright homophobic. Others may support the idea of invading Iraq (revenge phenom), but not the way the Chimp-in-chief has bungled the entire operation. Still others with deep religious convictions may oppose abortion, though agree with the social responsiblity stand of liberals.
Zell's message to these people is that moderate democrats should support Bush because the democratic alternative is way too liberal. The same message coming from a republican has little or no effect because these folks are democrats and need to relate to a democrat to cross over. What I haven't figured out is whether his acceptance of a speaking slot at the RNC is out of true belief in the Preznit, or out of spite to democrats that he feels have drifted too far to the left. [Any theories or conclusions on this?]
The governator's situation is the exact opposite. Everyone knows he supports gay rights (though not necessarily marriage), the right of women to choose abortion, gun control laws (last I checked), social responsibility (including welfare and universal healthcare) and religious freedom - principles which most acknowledge to be democratic core values.
Aahnold's target audience are moderate republicans. (Ironically, they are far more liberal than Zell's.) They may have democratic values, but admire the celebrity status of the man. They may also approve of his hardball approach dealing with the CA legislature which they perceived to be ineffective. Still others may admire his climb from immigrant bodybuilder to famous actor to successful politician.
The governator's message to these folks is that these democratic values can also be republican values (even though we all know that they are not.) His appearance offers moderate republicans reassurance that the party is a "big tent", even though they will find little evidence of acceptance of liberal idealism elsewhere within the party.
So we have Zell to appeal to the moderate (ignorant?) dems, and Aahnold to appeal to the moderate (gullible?) republicans. I'm guessing Zell-out's message will play better in the south, while the governator's will work in more progressive-leaning western states. Between the two demographs, there could amount to a significant response. I am certain that's what Rove and the rest of the BushCo team are counting on.
Here's to hoping they are wrong...