CMG ISSUES 10 QUESTIONS THAT MAKE SCHWARZENEGGER HIDE

Californians For Moral Government-email | August 11, 2003 | James Lafferty

[FRgal4u]

here we go again..

the womb obsessive crowd will abort themselves well before they ever get elected..

what good will it do if one is not in power to influence?

would this same crowd vote for ronnie in 1966? that's the real question.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Guess what.. I don't think this should turn into a RELIGIOUS battle. That is a HUGE mistake to make.

IF Sheldon asks McClintock at the same time he is asking Schwarzenegger that's one thing, but no ambushing. I'm sick of this kind of hypocritical ambushing by holier than thou judgemental repubs.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

BRAVO to your post #2!!

What you just read was the sound of repubs eating their OWN. Just like they did when Davis WON in the LAST election. Only this time lets hope most of us are smarter than that.

Schwarzenegger has a great team assembled, is up to handling Bill and Hitlery when they come in, and has a record of being successful in every endeavor he has tackled. He has a degree in Economics, and if repubs don't eat their own, he'll win. He has Newt Gingrich's endorsement, Issa's, and quite a few other prominent Repubs.

We have LESS than two months to get a Republican elected.

We need name recognition, and no one knows who the heck McClintock is, and NO ONE WANTS SIMON again.

If we split up on this one, we will see the DAVIS TEAM REMAIN IN OFFICE BY WAY OF THE LT. GOVERNOR!! Bustamante!!!

UN believable.. but who would have believed that DAVIS would win the LAST election??

But I guess if the RIGHT Rev. Sheldon says so.. (yeah right!!)

[byteback]

The fine Reverand should ask the same of the churches first.

1. Why do you support gays in the high prtiesthood?

2. Why do you elect known gays to be Protestant Bishops?

This is like NAMBLA calling the kettle black.

Is it any wonder that Catholics vote Democratic?

[kingu]

I almost posted this letter when it appeared in my inbox. Generally, whenever I see anything that Rev Lou Sheldon disapproves of, I re-examine the issue or person to see how I can like them.

I'm not sure if Rev Sheldon's missive on Schwarzenegger being no Reagan is somewhere on FR, but I think his comments there indicate how far in the dark he is... Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said today Arnold Schwarzenegger would create a "moral vacuum" in Sacramento if he became California's governor.

As if there wasn't already a moral vaccum there...

[kingu]

Something that always amused me... The pro-lifers should take a page from the pro-choice crowd and use only women to talk about the issue.

[EternalVigilance]

I for one would like the answers to these questions, and a number of others.

There is plenty of reason to believe that Schwarzenegger holds Christians, conservatives and traditional values in derision.

I don't see a single legitimate reason for anyone who cares about that to vote for the man.

The fact he has chosen to put an 'R' behind his name doesn't suffice.

[ThinkFreedom]

I want to start off by saying that - I agree with you (to a degree) - it would be great to see a conservative, Christian Republican elected as California governor. But, as Conservatives, I think we should "wait and see" how the campaign turns out over the next few weeks before we start throwing stones at Arnie.

Listen, what California needs - and you can check my message archive because I've said it before - is a fiscal conservative. It needs a leadership that can balance the books and undo some of the damage that the Rats have done to the local economy. Without a strong Republican leadership, California's on the highway to bankruptcy. And - I doubt anyone here would disagree - the last thing CA needs is the Rats returned to power.

Arnie may be a RINO, but he's also a RINO who can steal votes from the Rats, and a RINO who is (somewhat) fiscally Conservative. Having him elected would be infinately better than having a Rat in power.

That said, California Democrats are notorious for playing dirty. If the electorate turns its back on Arnie, then by all means attack Arnie and support the more conservative candidates. *BUT*, if it turns out that, in a few weeks, Arnie is still on top and well ahead of Conservative opponents, and stands a good chance of winning, then we should aim to get a Republican in, in California.

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you for your well-reasoned response. There has been precious little of that coming from too many around here on this.

But let me explain to you why Schwarzenegger presents such a dilemma for me personally.

Let me start with the visceral level.

As I said in my previous post, all the signs are there that he despises conservatives and Christians; the very people that I consider to be the salt of the earth--the best people in America--the only real hope for our republic.

I have this gut reaction against AS for the same reasons I had that reaction to Clinton. Clinton went to church, carried a big oversized Bible, misquoted scripture, while being the head of a party of people who would do anything to destroy the very principles represented by those things. In short he was a hypocrite. AS doesn't do that. But he is doing exactly the same thing in the political realm. He is taking on the trappings of a Republican, while representing none of the principles that party label is supposed to stand for, and hating those who do. In fact, most of his stances seem to be identical to the political positions of a Democrat. In short, I have an emotional reaction to politicians who pretend to be one thing, when in actuality they are something else. They are hypocrites.

But, putting aside that emotional response on my part, on a purely intellectual level, my experience tells me that a Schwarzenegger governorship presents great dangers to the conservative movement, and to the future shape of the GOP both in CA and nationally.

He will strengthen liberals in the party--those whose strength is already far beyond their numbers.

He will muddy the waters in the political debates that determine the course of policy in this country; thereby slowing progress towards restoring our institutions.

Contrary to what some of my detractors around here would think or claim, I can be quite pragmatic. Politics is the art of the possible to a great degree. A mark of sanity is being able to live in the world according to how it exists, not the way we want it to be.

But there are lines that cannot be crossed; compromises that should not be made; ideals that, if abandoned, represent utter failure and defeat. The support for any pro-Abortion, anti-Second Amendment candidate anywhere at any time falls into that category.

Just my opinion.

[The Old Hoosier]

I'm no fan of Sheldon--the man is bought and paid for--but I wonder: Did either of you support Dick Riordan against Bill Simon last year? Arnold's politics are identical to Riordan's.

[Graewoulf]

They missed a couple of moral questions.

For example, "Is it moral to NOT downsize the State Government when there is a spending deficit?"

"Is it moral to ask the voters to pay higher taxes to fund programs that increase the deficit, and thus require future higher taxes?"

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

No. In the primary we voted for Jones. We had hoped because of his stature (He was WELL KNOWN, vs. Simon being an UN KNOWN) and the "Three Strikes Law" he sponsored that he would have enough NATIONAL attention to garner votes, but it seems because he backed McCain, he didn't get President Bush's endorsement, and thus didn't get the Republican endorsement.

As we know, that was a fatal error. We ended up with Simon and LOST.

In hindsight, we would have been better off with Riordon if we couldn't back Jones!!

[The Old Hoosier]

In hindsight, we would have been better off with Riordon if we couldn't back Jones!!

The only difference between Riordan and Davis is that Davis supports the death penalty. And you would support him in hindsight...why?

And Arnold, who is just a muscular version of Riordan?

[The Old Hoosier]

BTW, Jones would have been a better candidate, I agree with that.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Jones over Riordon,..and Riordon over Davis!! In that order. If I had to. Note.. If I "had" to.

FRegards, Vets

[The Old Hoosier]

Again, you don't have to vote for Arnold, either. We're still free enough in this country to be able to do what's right.

[Aggie1]

We all know Arnold is not a social conservative but he has not proven himself to be a fiscal conservative either. Example-he pushed and helped to win a big bond issue in the last election cycle for after school programs, and has said he wants to expand it. After he announced his candidacy he started running on a platform for better schools, for better eductation for our children, etc (code words for more money). The last thing we needed was another big bond issue with the economy going downhill while our cost of borrowing was going up! Can you name any fiscal conservatives that supported this?

It's a trap to think that because someone is running or has a business they are a fiscal conservative when it comes to government. Many liberal democrats have successful businesses. Now, AS just might turn out to be fiscally conservative, however, I have seen no evidence of it. In the end, if we get a Republican in there that does not get the job done it will be worse than not having a recall. It will kill us in the next general election. It would be better to have Gray-out at the helm when it sinks.

[Commander8]

"The fact he has chosen to put an 'R' behind his name doesn't suffice."

HEAR HEAR!!!

[Commander8]

"Arnold's politics are identical to Riordan's."

Arnie will read whatever script Dickie will put in his hands.