[DrMartinVonNostrand]

I am very disappointed by what I am seeing from some of you.

The Republican party is the party of Ronald Reagan, not the party of Pat Robertson!

This is NOT what it means to be "conservative". It is what it means to be "right-wing fundamentalist". So if you want to preach, go right ahead, but don't do it under the guise of conservativism or the banner of mainstream Rupublicans!

And I will say this loud and clear: You cannot legislate morality.
That isn't a liberal ideal, it is a libertarian one.

Now lets get on with the TRUE CONSERVATIVE issues - like market capitalism, limited government, foreign policy, and national defense.

[Maelstrom]

Market capitalism - unsupported by Arnold.
Limited government - opposed by Arnold.

Evidence: "..Da shildrens shoult weceive faust caw on da Trweswry..."

Foreign policy and national defense are less state issues than national ones, however, let's keep watching.

The biggest one...Gun control...is supported by Arnold.

And we can go on...but *you* can't continue on with conservative issues...the candidates you support don't favor them, and oppose many of them.

You're hosed.

[EternalVigilance]

And I will say this loud and clear: You cannot legislate morality.

To call you an idiot would be a gross injustice to the mentally impaired.

[Carry_Okie]

I am very disappointed by what I am seeing from some of you.

Why, because we don't buy your ineffective and unsupported arguments?

The Republican party is the party of Ronald Reagan, not the party of Pat Robertson!

You will recall that Reagan ran against Nixon and enjoyed blanket support from the Christian right. We heard all the same arguments from your ilk back then.

This is NOT what it means to be "conservative". It is what it means to be "right-wing fundamentalist". So if you want to preach, go right ahead, but don't do it under the guise of conservativism or the banner of mainstream Rupublicans!

Please cite a political position that I have taken on any issue that alienates swing voters. No one has been talking about morality here in a manner which is not supported by the vast majority of California voters. In fact, Ahnold's support of "gay rights" directly denotes that the process of pro-glbt sexual indoctrination of children against the wishes of their parents in public schools will continue. How would you call that libertarian?

No, conservative principles, including those advocated by the Christian right, are the best way to produce a productive and profitable society at the lowest possible civic cost, simply because moral people don't need much from government. Thus, if a candidate panders to the moral issues of the left, the long term prognosis for California's economy is to face massive structural costs. Such is Ahnold and that's why your call for long term thinking is so laughable.

It's no accident that the political backstabbing exhibited by Rove/Parsky/Schwartznegger et al. is exactly of such a capricious vein. There's no way they would EVER willingly let a conservative govern in this state.