You have permission to speak, but don't expect your harangues to go unrebutted. You will, however, be given a pass for every post of one or fewer exclamation points, because there is goodness in my heart.
Posted on 08/12/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by DrMartinVonNostrand
I have slowly come to the conclusion that California needs Arnold. Republicans need Arnold, and above all, California Republicans need Arnold.
I had been leaning towards McClintock, and I must admit, I made that decision before Arnold threw his hat into the ring. I welcomed the move when he did, but I still had reservations. I had gotten pretty excited over McClintock's vision, particularly his desire to void the Davis energy contracts and his general desire to stick it to the Democrats. I was also justifiably concerned at first about Arnold's talk of handing the treasury over to "the children".
But one has to be able to discern politics from policy. Everyone who wants to win elective office has to pay lipservice to "the children". It is the national passtime of politicians. I think when Arnold says "the children should have the first call of state Treasury" it is followed by an unspoken qualifier of "before illegal immigrants, welfare recipients, and special interests." He is simply putting forth his priorities, and they lay in stark contrast to Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante's. He is quite savvy, so he isn't going to come out and say it in those words. He knows highlighting what is his priorities gets much better press than highlighting what isn't. He wants to reassure the soccer moms who have been frightened by Davis' threats of cutting funding to schools that he will be looking elsewhere to cut.
Arnold is very mindful of the hurdles he faces by running as a Republican in such a liberal state, so he will take extra measures to make traditional Democratic voters feel comfortable voting for him. It is what he has to do right now if he wants to win, and it seems to be working brilliantly.
Some conservatives will argue against Schwarzenegger because he opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. But Arnold understood the articles of impeachment that were brought were a pretty weak justification. Right or wrong, they were too easily construed as a right-wing lynching. He recognized it as too divisive and knew it could only further poison the political atmosphere and ultimately damage the Republican party.
Perhaps if Ken Starr had the convictions to pursue the serious matters of Whitewater, Chinagate, Filegate, or the murder of Vincent Foster, then Arnold would have seen it differently, just as the rest of America would have. But clearly Starr had no will to do so. It's hard to understand why, but perhaps he didn't want to expose that level of corruption in the highest office out of the long-term best interest of the American political system. Exposing Clinton's ties to the Dixieland mafia and Red China could have brought the entire government to its knees. It would have been a short-term victory for Republicans, but just as Nixon understood when he covered for Kennedy and Johnson over the Pentagon Papers, the long-term damage to the nation as a whole would have been far too great. Anyways, had Clinton actually been removed from office as a lame duck on those flimsy charges, we would have a President Gore in office right now. Arnold knew, just as everyone else did, that this was not going to happen considering it required a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Surely he understood that impeachment was a lose-lose proposition for Republicans so it was a mistake to go down that road. It was important for him to remain above it all for the sake of his own political future.
Some will argue that what we need right now is someone sort of financial wizard to fix the budget, and Arnold just doesn't qualify. But the truth is we really only need someone who can admit that Gray Davis has made some huge mistakes. Anyone but Gray Davis will do.
I hate to admit it, but the whole budget crisis is being about as overplayed for political reasons as the federal deficit in the '90s was (and is again). When it comes down to brass tacks, I think even the Democrats will bite the bullet and fix it. Yes, I know you're cringing, I am too, but it's the truth. The issue here isn't that the Democrats are incapable or even unwilling to fixing the budget. It's merely about how they want to fix it: the usual liberal approach of skyrocketing taxes. Either way, California isn't going to drop into the ocean or become a third world nation.
As far as Arnold not being a "social conservative", neither am I, and neither is California. A social conservative is not going to win a statewide election here for a long time to come. I fit in more along the lines of a fiscal conservative, just as Arnold is, and a "Constitutional conservative" with libertarian tendencies. Piety is not a prerequisite for my support, and too much of it may even lose it. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs, but I do belive strongly in Jefferson's "wall of seperation between church and state". I also believe in strict interpritation of the First Ammendment, and that freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion. I realize those of you in the religious-right do not agree because this doesn't reinforce your personal religious beliefs, but not everything should be about our own personal whims and narrow agendas. Defending our own freedom as individuals must always be a higher objective. Otherwise it may be you they come for next. The Constitution protects everyone, or it protects no one. I think there are a lot of people on both extremes who forget that sometimes.
Even though some will say for these various reasons that Schwarzenegger is not the ideal conservative candidate, it is important for everyone to be pragmatic and pick their battles wisely. Right now we should be looking at long-term goals. An expedient victory in the recall of a conservative candidate by a 20 percent plurality is going to be counterproductive in the long-term. What are you going to do when Bill Simon is elected and the drive to recall him begins October 8th and qualifies three weeks later?
Electing Arnold, who can come to office with a true mandate and bring California together, will pay off big in the perception wars. Conservatives will never get their agenda anywhere in California as long as it is taboo to even vote for Republicans here. The longer Democrats have a complete lock on the state, the further left we will drift. Even if Arnold can't change the course right away, he can at least slow the momentum.
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.
You can't walk a mile until you take the first step. For right now we all need to be concentrating on the jouney one step at a time or we will never reach the final destination. You have to at least open the door, which is now closed and locked here. It seems like a lot of right-wingers around here would rather rant and rave and pound on the door in futility than grab it by the handle.
I think I've finally figured that one out. For the death-before-electibility crowd, it's not about advancing their cause on earth, it's about earning a place in heaven.
As for the rest of us, we have to make a decision: do we want a small victory, or a huge defeat?
I agree, that is the liberals' intent now.
But that was not the founders' intent at all. You have to beat the hell out of that sentence to come up with "Congress shall not respect religion" as its meaning.
You have permission to speak, but don't expect your harangues to go unrebutted. You will, however, be given a pass for every post of one or fewer exclamation points, because there is goodness in my heart.
....and then utter some catchy phrase written by his latest scriptwriter, such as "I'll be back" or "Hasta la vista, baby." This stuff is going to get old very soon!
I generally agree, but there are issues around the edges, like parental notification, state abortion funding, etc., that remain state issues, and require consideration.
Look to the aftermath of the LA riots. It didn't happen. They served not only for self defense but as a dterrent.
Now ask yourself this. What would have happened if they didn't have them?
That is a strawman argument. I never said a thing about "involuntary" invocation in the "public square".
Here I thought we were discussing Governmental endorsement of a narrow religious set, as on Government buildings, on federal currency, and as shoved into the Pledge by Congress in 1954.
No it's not. It's destroying babies by the millions. Because of pro life activists nut jobs like me the country has become more pro life. The abortion issue is not a negative for Republicans, it is a net positive because on issues like parental notice, late term abortion and cloning the country is firmly on the pro life side of the divide.
In the first place, it is not a state issue anymore, it is federal, therefore it won't matter what the governor thinks about it as far as the laws are concerned.
No, parental rights are a state issue.
The A word needs to stop being a political issue because it is used against us to the detriment of the entire party.
See above.
I am pro life, but to me this is an issue of the heart and soul, and it won't go away until hearts are changed.
They are being changed but it hard work and hiding it in the attic with Uncle Festus doesn't change any hearts or minds.
We can't get judges or anything because of this, so it needs to be taken off the table until we can get people in place that can do something about it. Hope this makes sense, not sure how to explain what I mean!
The anti life bigots on the judiciary committee are a reason to take the abortion issue off the table? Doesn't make sense to me.
No it's not. It's destroying babies by the millions. Because of pro life activists nut jobs like me the country has become more pro life. The abortion issue is not a negative for Republicans, it is a net positive because on issues like parental notice, late term abortion and cloning the country is firmly on the pro life side of the divide.
In the first place, it is not a state issue anymore, it is federal, therefore it won't matter what the governor thinks about it as far as the laws are concerned.
No, parental rights are a state issue.
The A word needs to stop being a political issue because it is used against us to the detriment of the entire party.
See above.
I am pro life, but to me this is an issue of the heart and soul, and it won't go away until hearts are changed.
They are being changed but it hard work and hiding it in the attic with Uncle Festus doesn't change any hearts or minds.
We can't get judges or anything because of this, so it needs to be taken off the table until we can get people in place that can do something about it. Hope this makes sense, not sure how to explain what I mean!
The anti life bigots on the judiciary committee are a reason to take the abortion issue off the table? Doesn't make sense to me.
To DrMartinVonNostrand: Please turn your head and cough.
That is a strawman argument. I never said a thing about "involuntary" invocation in the "public square".
Here I thought we were discussing Governmental endorsement of a narrow religious set, as on Government buildings, on federal currency, and as shoved into the Pledge by Congress in 1954.
While we do have a few folks here that would qualify as polar opposites of MoveOn members, our entire Free Republic site is more balanced than that. There is constant friction here between the camps, though, as the hard-core conservatives are pulling the Republican Party as far right as possible and less hard-core conservatives don't appreciate being viciously insulted for not cooperating. It seems that there is a particular topic this tug-of-war takes place on every week and you've just had a bit of bad luck to stumble directly upon the current one.
You're welcome PKM. :-}
I might add that in several gated communites surrounding the area, several citizens manned barricades with the same weapons which dissuaded the bad guys from entering their community without a shot being fired.
That is completely beside the point, since the phrase "shall not respect/disprespect" does not appear in the first amendment.
It is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In this sentence "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to the law, not the Congress. A law can do many things, but it cannot respect in the sense that you meant it. It can only respect as in pertain to, as regards, concern, etc.
Basically, Congress----->no law----->establishment of religion. It's so easy when you stick with the original meaning and not try to make it mean something else two centuries later.
Well let's start with the Pledge. Since 1948, the coerced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance has been Constitutionally forbidden.
Therefore, any recitation of the Pledge is voluntary.
Do you support the Ninth Circuits recent ruling, since withdrawn, ordering public schools to cease and desist from the recitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" included?
That is a strawman argument. I never said a thing about "voluntary" invocation in the "public square".
Here I thought we were discussing Governmental endorsement of a narrow religious set, as on Government buildings, on federal currency, and as shoved into the Pledge by Congress in 1954. ---------------------------------------
This is a repost since I mistakenly wrote "involuntary" on the original.
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.