Skip to comments.
Why I Am Now Behind Arnold
me
Posted on 08/12/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by DrMartinVonNostrand
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 761-779 next last
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
Yes, Arnold is the only Republican that can win and not do harm to the party.Schwarzenegger could do the most harm of anybody to the party. If he comes in a raises taxes, ends Prop 13, bans guns, increases spending, how is that going to be a good thing? And if he come in and endorses Barbara Boxer in 2004 and endorses Dems in other races in 2004, how will that help the GOP? Already, some of his friends have suggested he may switch parties after elected.
To: Sabertooth
Yes, I read the piece by David Horowitz and that was one of the things that contributed to my mindset. It reinforced to some extent what I had been thinking about for the past couple of days now.
To: nickcarraway
That is ridiculous. Arnold has been a Republican for as long as he's been in America. He is not about to switch parties. If he were going to, it would have been back when he exchanged wedding vows.
Don't forget, one of George Bush's most closely trusted advisers is Mary Matalin, and she is married to the most dispicable James Carville.
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
They will be recalled. Immediately. That's ridiculous. It's very hard to recall a governor. Californians aren't going to turn around and have another recall. Cite a shred of evidence in support of that.
And how do you think the largely Democratic voters in California will respond to such a "right-wing coup" in the state?
If it's a coup, it's a coup, even if Schwarzenegger wins.
Arnold is the only Republican - the only candidate at all, even - who can win and be accepted by the people as legitimate.
Do you have any evidence of this? No.
Do you think having an "illigitimate" Republican Governor who "stole the election" would be good for Bush here in 2004?
It is said that you have such disrepect for the Constitution. The recall is a full legal process. How come you are not concerned with the November 2002 election being illegitimate, since there were more illegal votes cast than the difference between the two candidates. It's interesting that you have less respect for a fully legal recall, than you do of voter fraud. Why is voter fraud not important to you?
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
What's ridiculous is out-of-staters telling us how to vote.
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
That is ridiculous. Arnold has been a Republican for as long as he's been in America. He is not about to switch parties.Why do his freinds say he may? And what about the other questions? Raising taxes, endorsing Dems, etc.
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
Welcome, friend!
Your analysis is appreciated, and it is well-reasoned.
I agree with your conclusions, but even if I didn't, your contribution adds positively to the discussion.
Since I've met Arnold, I can assure you that your impressions of his persona and his impact on the Republican party will make all Warrior FReepers - the kind who understand how to win and hold power - very proud to call him friend.
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
Personally, my goal is the destruction of the Democratic party and the liberal agenda far more than it is advancing any conservative single-issue. I have far more hate for left-wing Democrats than I have love for right-wing Republicans. I would be happy simply with a return to sanity at this point. Very well stated! Absolutely GREAT Post!
128
posted on
08/12/2003 1:45:13 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(VOTE FOR ARNOLD -- GOP's Best Chance to Tank Hillary for 2004 and beyond!)
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
Nice post, and great screen-name.
Arnold is the best reasonable alternative out there. And about him switching parties....If he was going to do that, why not announce it before the election since he's running in a state that is predominantly Democrat?
To: Sabertooth
A real political leader wouldn't turn away a Republican who is a passionate patriot and loves America, and has the enthusiastic support of the people of the state that brought us San Fran, Berkeley, Hollywood, and the likes of Pelosi, Davis, Boxer and Feinstein.
Ergo, you are no leader.
Being a Warrior FReeper is not only about talking tough and being idealogical.
As Reagan said, someone who agrees with you 80% is NOT your enemy.
Let's be smart enough to win and hold power.
To: Tooters
Same conclusion that i have arrived at..I also will vote
for the big guy...Jake
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
The Constitution protects everyone, or it protects no one. Like those 40 million or so little Americans who didn't have the good fortune to have escaped the birth canal before their loving parents and their 'Doktors' sucked them to pieces?
No, I know--you and Ah-nuld didn't mean them...
Actually, you and Mr. Schwarzenegger are in all likelihood a very good fit for one another.
To: JustAnAmerican
>>
"One thing I'd like to point out to people is simply this: having a Republican, even a RINO, in office in California will get the populace used to voting Republican again.
Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that he pulls a Jeffords when he gets elected? Seems like a big possibility given his cozyness with the Kennedys. <<
Hell, he doesn't even need to pull a Jeffords. George Ryan (RINO-IL) is STILL a "lifelong Republican", even though his best friend are Fidel Castro, Richie Daley, and the kooky green party guys who whine about the "racist" death penalty. Having Lyin' Ryan in office really "inspired" Illinoisians to vote Republican, didn't it?
Following the logic of Arinold supporters, NJ, NY, MA, TN, AZ, etc. should all be fertile grounds for Republicans now as well....yet they all went solid 'RAT after getting "leadershp" from a corrupt RINO adminstration. Hmmm.
133
posted on
08/12/2003 1:55:46 PM PDT
by
BillyBoy
(George Ryan deserves a long term....without parole.)
To: kkindt
I don't think doctors should be performing abortions (unless it is to save the life of the mother). I believe that is in conflict with their Hippocratic Oath.
The second part of your question is rather broad and quite vague as to who exactly you are referring to, and with whom they are engaging in said act with. But without getting too sexually explicit, I can only say anyone who hasn't committed some sort of act that qualifies as "sodomy" surely hasn't fully lived.
To: DrMartinVonNostrand
The one who makes some advancement, or the one who loses ground? In this case, the question is not one of whom can make advancement, but in what direction.
How can you talk about 'advancement' with a straight face when the guy's agenda is so obviously to the left of the Clinton's?
Well, you probably don't have a straight face--you are probably laughing your *ss off that anyone will buy your sophistry.
To: Stallone
You are wasting your time -- that Freeper loves nothing better than to go on another site and trash all of us.
Personally I think the word RINO is being applied to the wrong group. The Republican Party has always been moderate to conservative with few liberals -- we always voted. It is the religious right and/or the far right conservatives that come up with the litmus test for Republican candidates -- it is 100% of what they want or they threaten to stay home. To me those people that threaten candidates with not voting are the RINOs -- Republicans in Name Only!
"Real" Republicans go vote and nothing will stop them -- they also vote/work for the candidates that will WIN because losing ia not an option going into a campaign. Religious conservatives will not win in some states and that is fact! I agree with the Reagan philosophy of 80% of agreement with a Republican is better than any DemocRAT. If there is an "R" behind the name, this Bush Republican votes for them! Simple as that!
136
posted on
08/12/2003 1:58:16 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(VOTE FOR ARNOLD -- GOP's Best Chance to Tank Hillary for 2004 and beyond!)
To: Political Junkie Too
![](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/maps/ca.gov.jpg)
You know looking and the map.....one good earthquake... and we own this state
To: nickcarraway
{California pays over $100 million in tax dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers per year}
Imagine just how much money California would save, if it stopped funding Planned Parenthood.
138
posted on
08/12/2003 2:04:15 PM PDT
by
Kuksool
(There are no guarantees in the Gray Recall)
To: Kuksool
Imagine just how much money California would save, if it stopped funding Planned Parenthood. Well, the gubernator will fix that in no time!
/sarcasm
To: Stallone; DrMartinVonNostrand
"DrMartinVonNostrand, I agree with your conclusions, but even if I didn't, your contribution adds positively to the discussion....."
I second that opinion, Stallone.
Great post, Dr.M, and well thought out reponses.
(Good job, Newbie! Hang in there. This is what the FR forum is about- the honest exchange of ideas. Welcome, or welcome back, to FR!)
140
posted on
08/12/2003 2:09:05 PM PDT
by
MaryFromMichigan
(God made us Freepers, Prozac made us friends.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 761-779 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson