Posted on 09/08/2006 11:40:12 PM PDT by goldstategop
Just over one week after signing a sweeping pro-homosexual bill into law, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger showed textbook duplicity by vetoing a bill designed to outlaw public school materials from "reflecting adversely" upon persons because of their sexual orientation. Sidestepping the core moral questions raised by the legislation, Schwarzenegger rejected SB1437 for attempting "to offer vague protection when current law already provides clear protection against discrimination in our schools based on sexual orientation."
Perhaps mystified by Schwarzenegger's apparent reticence to sign this bill into law, state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, herself a lesbian and the primary sponsor of the bill, expressed disappointment in a press release, chiding the governor for responding "to a small, shrill group of right-wing extremists rather than a fair-minded majority of Californians who support this reasonable measure."
The veto might have had something to do with the massive influx of calls the Governor's office has recently received in response to Schwarzenegger's approval of SB1441 Aug. 28. That measure, also sponsored by Kuehl, discriminates against any entity receiving public funding for speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle. This includes religious organizations that firmly believe in the sanctity of marriage and traditional views of sexuality.
On Sept. 5, the California-based Campaign for Children and Families conducted a rally attended by hundreds of citizens. According to a CCF press release, "the surging crowd signed petitions and called the Governor's office on their cell phones, demanding he veto all three bills that sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren."
Could it be that by signing one bill one week and then vetoing another bill the next, Arnold is feeling the pressure of morality-loving Americans? Or is he simply straddling the political fence in an attempt to have it both ways on such hot-button social issues as homosexual rights?
My answer: Neither.
No honest observer can claim that Schwarzenegger's move this week reflects any appreciable pro-family sympathy. Many conservative organizations are understandably grateful for this token veto that appears to hint at a traditional understanding of morality on the part of the Governor. The sad truth, however, is that it does not.
Don't get me wrong. Conservatives should always be grateful for small favors, especially when they relate to protecting young minds from instruction in sexual depravity. But in this particular case, the devil is in the details. Just look at Schwarzenegger's specific rationale for vetoing the bill. The action was not done out of respect for religious freedom or a desire to protect the minds of impressionable young children. Rather, it was based on a technicality, glossing over the central issue of so-called homosexual rights versus the free speech and religious freedom rights of Americans inherent in the Constitution.
In the Governor's own words, the bill was rejected "because the vagueness of the term 'reflects adversely' would not strengthen this important area of legal protection from bias based on sexual orientation." For the pro-family community, that motivation is hardly something worth celebrating.
No one denies that Schwarzenegger is anything but a social conservative. What many don't realize is that he is the exact opposite. For evidence, take the issue of same-sex marriage. Even though polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, the California Governor has been reticent to clearly articulate his support for this cornerstone institution. Even after vetoing a dangerous bill in 2005 that would have legalized same-sex unions statewide, the California Governor side-stepped taking a firm stand on the issue by arguing that the definition of marriage should be decided by California's courts or voters and not the Legislature.
Such rationale is far from traditional, conservative belief. In fact, it flirts dangerously with outright liberalism.
So, what does this mean for conservatism in California? Oddly enough, it could be a good thing. Immediately following Schwarzenegger's election, many conservatives unwisely hailed the victory as an indication of a swing toward conservative principles in California. Yet throughout the Governor's term, he has consistently displayed antipathy toward conservative beliefs on a variety of social issues. He has shown the voting population that liberalism sometimes comes under the guise of conservatism.
How is that a good thing? While the poll numbers of moderates like Schwarzenegger continue to plummet, true conservatives will have a unique opportunity to make a positive dent in the California political scene. Traditional values will never win in California unless candidates become faithful to the core morality they espouse. Any other strategy put forth with the goal of restoring conservative principles in the Golden State is nothing more than California dreamin'.
Thank you for your kind words. Maybe I will email the moderator and see if they will allow a name change. I have read several biographies of Coolidge.
As I noted in an earlier post, the only problem is that a true conservative can not win in California. While I admire your idealism, it's political suicide. Arnold for all his admitted flaws is on our side at least half the time.
Message to Death Wish Republicans: You Can't Win By Losing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698407/posts
Ummm... No, he hasn't.
"Let me tell you what being a conservative means to me. I'm a conservative because I believe communism is evil and free enterprise is good. I'm a conservative because Milton Friedman is right and Karl Marx is wrong. I'm a conservative because I believe government serves the people, the people don't serve the government. I'm a conservative because I believe in a balanced budget, not budget deficits. I'm a conservative because I believe money that people earn is their money and not the government's money. And when you look at the drivers' license outrage, I am a conservative because I believe in the rules of the law, not political pandering."
It doesn't matter.
Ahnold is the lesser of 2 evils. And he hopefully will bring Tom along to provide fiscal acument and to keep Villareconquista out later.
"We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."
— Ronald Reagan, 1965 (Source)
IMO, he has done more than any individual in politics to totally destroy the CA GOP and everything it stood for by completely abandoning the platform and the principles that united the party members.
he adds a positive, even hip or glamorous image to the party (in California)
I'll take solvency over glamor any day.
He is on the side of conservatism less than half of the time. Bigger spending, unconstitutional borrowing, land grabs, envirowackoism, taxpayer subsidies to a host of special interests, homosexual agenda, etc. I give him about 20% "on our side" and it has nothing to do with conservatism but all to do with various business interests.
Yep. As well as Jeffrey Katzenberg. Susan is downright giddy about Arnold.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Golden Boy
Reagan's record as president was as successful as it was in part because he was willing to take a half a loaf and work on getting the rest later.
Whats the weather like on your planet? Its damned hot here.
We can attempt to subdue this ultimate, action figure, European liberal through embarrassment at the ballot box or ...
Undermine his credibility, taking a big chance that he might reinvent himself again, reemerging as a registered Democrat to become King of California.
The choice is ours. Either way we face four more years of a liberal executive.
Oh how I wish that forced repatriation was in our arsenal. The first bus would indeed be headed to the Mexican border but would make a stop along the way to transfer its pampered passenger to an international flight bound for Braz.
Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)
An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960104/posts
"Vote for Ed Noonan, the American Independent Party Candidate for Governor"
===
Please stop campaigning for Angelides!!!!
This is exactly what Angelides is counting on, to eke out a victory.
The choice is Arnold or Angelides. Any conservative vote not cast for Arnold, IS A VOTE CAST FOR ANGELIDES.
=====
"Angelides ... must win 80% of the Dems and a solid majority of the DTS (declined to state) registrants, TO ACCOMPANY THE 15% REPUBLICANS WHO DON'T VOTE FOR THEIR PARTY'S TICKET"
ANGELIDES IS COUNTING ON THEM.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/07/new_poll_result.html
=====
If the majority of Californians support Sen. Sheila Kuehl, herself a lesbian, then the state is in worse condition than I thought. I don't have a problem with a person's sexual orientation but why must it be foisted on everyone else?
Sheesh.
Arnold vs. Phil
Don't be dumb.
I think the author meant conservative when using the collective us. From that perspective there is no Schwarzenegger v Angelides. It's simply the same liberal morass of the evil of two lessors.
The author also appears to have a more realistic appraisal of the degree of danger each of these liberals represents than does the typical partisan that appears in our midst during the silly season.
One of these liberals can advance his cause more effectively than the other. That liberal has the power of the CAGOP, campaign purse strings to coerce Republican legislators.
No thanks to fantasy perspectives. They tend to be losers.
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.