The man was obviously Hannitized at the time.
I support SB 777!
Posted on 10/21/2007 10:09:49 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
I, a conservative Christian, am partly responsible for passing one of the most pro-gay agendas in American history.
Starting January 1, 2008, California will implement SB-777, a bill that goes far beyond the old standard of public schools not being able to do anything that would “reflect adversely” on homosexuality. Now, the new standard is you can’t do anything that would show either a “discriminatory bias” against homosexuality or anything that would favor heterosexuality.
Let me put this in simple terms.
Textbooks that now refer to “mother and father” or “mom and dad” or “King and Queen” will soon have to also include—with equal emphasis—“mom and mom,” “dad and dad” and “king and king.” There shall be no preference of any kind shown to heterosexuality. Kids, K-12, will learn that every form of family is just as “normal” as every other form. The textbooks that comply will no longer elevate as the ideal that children have both a loving mom and a loving dad, all they’ll need is “a nurturing caregiver”—or maybe a village. They’ll be taught “male” and “female” are mere social constructs that have nothing to do with sexuality or “plumbing.” Increasingly, children will be encouraged to explore their own “gender,” which means they’ll be encouraged to experiment with all forms of sexuality since nothing is “abnormal.” We’ll throw them condoms, pass out Plan B in the health center, and even put 6th grade middle school girls on the pill to ensure that we make sex “safe.” And when some get pregnant, and others get the inevitable diseases, we’ll just take them for an abortion or for treatments under HillaryCare—all during school hours, and all without their parents having a clue.
All this will happen because I—like millions of other conservative Christians in California—voted for Arnold. I voted for the Republican Arnold in order to avoid the Democrat Bustamante—but ended up getting quite of bit of Bustamante anyway. I’m not mad at Arnold, really. He told us who he was and what he believed in, and we were just glad we could vote for a candidate that had a real shot at “winning,” who could “stop Bustamante.”
Sound familiar? Now we’re told again that we have to vote for a candidate that can “win,” because we have to “stop Hillary.”
Consider this.
How many people do you know who still proudly call themselves “Republicans?” I know of increasingly few. There was a time when I was so proud of being part of the GOP. That was before all the scandals, the earmarks and the spending of “Compassionate Conservatism,” before the massive Prescription Drug Benefit and McCain-Feingold, the failure of Social Security reform, the poor communication that still continues regarding the War on Terror, the amnesty of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Harriet Miers Moment. I could go on.
It’s like we’ve been watching “How to Destroy a Great Party in Two Administrations.”
And now we have Arnold the Republican signing the most pro-gay agenda in our state’s history and Rudy the Republican who’s supporting abortion on demand, civil unions and gun control.
It’s déjà vu all over again: Beware of an Arnold dressed as a Rudy.
I may no longer be an enthusiastic Republican, but I am a proud conservative who’s angry at the political party that has moved away from me. I haven’t changed these past several years, they have.
In 2008, for a Republican to win, he must have the enthusiastic support of conservative Christians who will raise money, walk precincts, and get out the vote. But the reasons most Christians support the Republican Party are primarily moral, not economic nor even out of national security concerns. If Republicans lose their opposition to abortion and gay marriage they’ll lose much of the Christian vote. Sure, some will vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but it won’t be enough to win the election.
I just don’t see how Rudy can beat Hillary without a big Christian turnout—and he won’t get it.
In the end, if Republicans are foolish enough to nominate Rudy, I doubt many conservative Christians will make the mistake we did in California.
When I look at Rudy, all I see is Arnold.
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
I don't like it, either, but if Rudy is the nominee, I really don't see another way out of the mess. The Republican Party cannot abandon the social conservatives so completely by nominating someone completely antithetical to their views (at least Romney pays them some lip service). If so, they will go back to the status they had during the New Deal-Great Society days, when the only person we could elect as President was a general who was allowed to win a war. It will take a generation or more to rebuild this party, and the unborn will have been forever abandoned by that point.
What's the sense in voting for the guy with the (R) next to his name, if the brand no longer means anything?
There are indirect Romney/McCain links to Soros, as well. According to Michelle Malkin, Soros donated money to the Main Street Individual Fund, a group she links to the Republican Main Street Partnership.
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/11/28/exposing-the-main-street-republicans/
McCain is currently listed as a Republican Main Street Partnership member senator:
http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/members.htm
When Romney was in office, he was a member governor (along with Pataki and Schwartzenegger):
http://web.archive.org/web/20050526141137/http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/members.htm
Are these indirect links close enough to be meaningful? Who knows.
And I will blame the party elites for running RINO candidates we can’t vote for.
“Beware of an Arnold Dressed as a Rudy (Could Giuliani Spread the Damage Nationwide?)”
Ever since that crapola last week out of Schwarzen - Kennedy’s office basically FORCING homosexual Indoctrination on school kids this is what has been on my mind. Is this what a Rudy Presidency would bring us nationally?
“He made conservative promises, broke them and moved Left as soon as he was safely in office.”
And that could never happen with Rudy, right?
“What if the Witch was running as a Republican?.”
Well that would automatically make her acceptable now wouldn’t it?
(sarcasm)
The GOP would also be abandoning small government conservatives by nominating Giuliani. There may be a few who care only about taxes who would still support him. However, most small-l libertarian types care about the overall size and intrusiveness of the federal government, not just about taxes. For the latter group, Giuliani would be a disaster.
So, the current leader in the polls represents an abandonment of 2/3 of the Reagan coalition (and IMO, his national security record doesn’t merit the support of the defense hawks, either). As the old curse goes, we live in interesting times.
“For you social conservatives (I’m an economic Conservative) Mitt is against gay marriage and abortion.”
Yeah, NOW he is.
“Vote for the GOP nominee, period.”
What if Hillary had an “R” after her name?
It isn't who you endorse that 's being compared. It's your tactics in doing so. Calcowgirl is correct: you are employing the exact, same "Us or Them, you're no conservative" rhetoric that FO employed constantly. Lots of the candidate partisans are full of the same tactics, from all sides.
As Calcowgirl points out, we are supposed to be adults making informed adult decisions. Personal attacks do nothing to further those decisions. Scorched earth vituperance is offensive, no matter whom employs it, let alone when it is dumped on fellow conservatives whom you might well want at your back in the General elections. GSGOP was a scarred vet here in the Arnie/McClintock wars, and has earned respect from the rest of the "Ilk" for his opinions on the subject. I don't recall your contributions at that time.
Think about that.
Al Gore(R) for president! He can win! /s
Thanks Lex. You said that much more diplomatically than I did. FWIW, ReaganMan was a very avid anti-Arnold during the Recall posting very compelling arguments as to why Schwarzenegger should be opposed and withstanding some of the worst flames. I learned a lot from him at the time.
RM, I regret the manner in which I delivered the message (but not the message itself as Lex describes better). For that, I apologize.
Boy was I wrong. I expected to see, in the first few posts, Arnold dressed up in Rudy’s drag costume.
The man was obviously Hannitized at the time.
I support SB 777!
That is a question that none of the Rudy rooters can answer.
A man laments the “Collie-Forniya” that he voted for.
As for me, I’m voting for the Big DH in the primaries.
Fixed your tagline.
>>>>>It isn't who you endorse that 's being compared. It's your tactics in doing so.
My tactics are to see the best conservative candidate gets the nomination. Not some liberal, centrist or moderate. You can get a better insight into my political reasoning at post #60.
For your information, FO was supporting two liberals. First Schwarzenegger and then Giuliani. His posts in support of Rooty is what got him banned. I don't support liberals of any stripe, nor do I condone liberalism of any kind.
>>>>>I don't recall your contributions at that time.
Looks like you don't know a damn thing about me either. In the 2003 recall election, I supported conservative Tom McClintock over the liberal Ahnold. I took as much abuse from the Harpies, as anyone who dared to oppose Ahnold. Maybe more. And I'm proud of it too.
Now I'm supporting conservative Fred over liberal Rooty and I'm proud of that too.
Forgot one thing.
Anyone defending Rooty Toot, is fair game for attack. That includes your precious goldstategop.
Should have put that last line in quotes.
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.