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'.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Now you've gone and done it. Here come the lists...
"Did you think a Democrat would have done this?"
When you haven't anything to offer, you start talkin down the other side.
Tell me what Arnold will do, not what others will or won't. Schwarzenegger had time to prove what he could do. No thanks.
WND?
Arnold Schwarzenegger has always been described by himself and others as moderate to liberal.
(I get extra points for actually using his last name in my post)
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Yes, you do. Five, to be exact. ";^)
* * * * *
"I would rather get half of something than all of nothing."
-Ronald Reagan
I do agree that we should always pressure him to the right as long as we don't get him or other republicans defeated.
Something I do like very much about Arnold is that he helps keep the republican party alive among the vast California electorate.
He gives the average voter the illusion that we still exist here, and he adds a positive, even hip or glamorous image to the party (in California)
I think that while republicans are in a deep hole in California politics, that in this dark period, he gives us a positive image and keeps our future chances alive while the grass roots can do some party rebuilding, outside of the public view.
One cold reality is that as a republican Governor in California, his only power is celebrity, the state media would simply ignore any other Republican governor.
Good points all.
It is a heck of a name, thanks for the points.
Arnolds party is Arnold. Arnolds politics are defined by what it takes to win. Just like his career. He learned from mistakes and did what he had to do to win. Be it in body building, box office or ballot box.
He reflects the dysfunctional California electorate well.
That being said.
I will take an Arnold over a nut like Angelides anyday.
I have a chance with Arnold on some things. I have no chance at all with democrats.
Ahhh ~ five MORE good points!
"Arnolds party is Arnold. Arnolds politics are defined by what it takes to win. Just like his career. He learned from mistakes and did what he had to do to win. Be it in body building, box office or ballot box.
He reflects the dysfunctional California electorate well.
That being said.
I will take an Arnold over a nut like Angelides anyday.
I have a chance with Arnold on some things. I have no chance at all with democrats."
I think yours is the best post I've ever seen on the Arnold threads.
Love the Screen Name, and the sentiment ("the last really great president": I happen to agree. By comparison to the stellar accomplishments of Coolidge, even Ronald Reagan -- the last Presbyterian President in recent years -- was at best an "almost great").
However, as you surely know, you have spelled Calvin Coollidge incorrectly.
Yes, I am aware that the correctly-spelled "Calvin Coolidge" Screen-Name has already been appropriated by some Evolutionist who has scarcely posted since 2005, and even then only to tweak Creationists (hardly a worthy heir to the Coolidge name).
However, if you would LIKE to use the good name of our 30th President as your own electronic nom de guerre, I could humbly suggest an alternative to resorting to misspellings... you could use the man's full name, which was of course John Calvin Coolidge, jr. (Born on the Fourth of July, 1872, Coolidge was named for the Protestant Reformer John Calvin, of course).
Just a historical nitpick, from one Coolidge aficianado to another. Your choice of screen-names is your own, of course.
Best, OP
California Conservatives! You have a choice in the November Election! Vote for conservative, down-the-ballot Republicans. For Governor, don't support Arnold and his wacky liberal policies.
Vote for Ed Noonan, the American Independent Party Candidate for Governor. He is 100% Conservative and proud of it. For more information, visit www.ednoonan4gov.org
Gosh, I'm so glad we have a Kennedy in the Sacramento Capitol Building. That way the Dems only get 80% of what they want, and 110% of the morally corrupt stuff.
Here are the obvious problems the viewpoint represents.
1) Approving a liberal at the top of the Republican ticket in California gives license to the CAGOP hierarchy to promote other liberals to high office and expand the footprint of liberalism within the CAGOP
2) Most of the elected Republican officials in California are clearly conservative. They are the force behind Schwarzenegger's veto. Had Schwarzenegger allowed them to act, they would have stopped the increased spending at the legislative level. Under a Democrat administration, this conservative minority, is a legislative roadblock to higher taxes and increased spending for liberal pursuits.
3) Schwarzenegger can continue double digit spending increases and raise taxes with application of the force of the CAGOP campaign purse strings. Angelides couldn't without minority cooperation and if legislative Republicans cooperate, Angelides is the least of our worries.
4) Reagan and other conservative stalwarts have repeatedly pointed out that chance is not good politics. A chance doesn't even represent a 50% compromise and an acceptable threshold for compromise is 75% by the Reagan doctrine. Chance represents whimsy. Our system is republican, not whimsical.
That wasn't my post, you need to direct your post to
Names Ash Housewares (post 12)
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.