Replies

So can Arne count on your vote now?

The way freepers are applauding decadance -- because it was committed and celebrated by someone with an R after his name -- confirms my worst fears about the degrading effect that Arnold and his ilk will have on the conservative movement. All sorts of standards and convictions -- pro life, pro family -- will be cast aside in the name of staying on Arnold's good side and "winning." This isn't healthy for the party -- or society, because the Republican Party is the one political vessel for those who want to buttress society's moral foundations. When it starts celebrating depravity, we've taken a bad turn indeed.

By the way, most freepers would be howling outrage if this same stuff were being revealed about Clinton.

Nonsense. Clinton was nailed in a lie just before the primaries. He was on tape with Jennifer Flowers and he denied it to the press with a straight face. He confirmed the worst of his character.

If Arnie is caught in a similar situation at this time, during the recall, I would not vote for him.

if these latest reports are from his past and he's cleaned up his act over the last 20 years, there is no reason to not vote for him.

GW Bush was a major partier, probably used coke and pot (I don't know this for a fact)but met a good woman and cleaned up his act.

Nope, at least not in my family.

My folks and I (all, by the way, Republicans) talked extensively about the issue, as I'm sure we all did. Our final positions were the following:

- My mother felt that, while his behavior was morally reprehensible, she did *not* want him impeached. Not for moral reasons, but strategic. Had Clinton been removed, Gore would have succeeded him with enough time to establish himself as President in his own right. That would have made him a far more formidable candidate in 2000, and she felt this to be an unacceptable risk. My father and I agreed with her on this point.

- My father didn't want him impeached either, but primarily for a different reason, and I took this position as well. Impeachment is a double-edged sword. Neither of us felt that sex with an intern deserved impeachment, period, though lying to a grand jury about it would. However, we also felt it an unwarranted risk, though for a different reason than my mother did. We felt that impeachment is a double-edged sword, and, were Clinton to be impeached (and worse, were he to be removed), it would lessen the weight of the impeachment process and open it up to use by Democrats against a hated Republican president. We felt that creating a culture of repeated impeachment would be extremely damaging to this country and was most definitely *not* what the founding fathers intended for this instrument.

You are absoluterly 100% correct.

Here's a quote from 68grunt im message #114: Social conservatives are destroying this country worse than the lying liberals.

Conservatives are worse for this country than lying liberals???????? How Cintonesque.

I hope the people who are being swayed by the argument that "a conservative can't win in California" see this thread and realize exactly what kind of people are pushing that line.

There are people on FR defending behavior that Jim Robinson won't even allow a link to, let alone be described here.

Sabertooth is exactly correct when he states in message#112: Is there anyone here who hasn't figured out that if the Democrats have any weapons grade dirt on Arnold, they'll wait untill the GOP's eggs are all in his basket before dropping the bomb?

Wake up California.

HB

You're absolutely right! I actively campaigned against Clinton and, later, Gore, because they advocated murdering the unborn, homosexual rights, and violating rights of gun owners. Now, I'm expected to vote for a man who advocates these very same things, simply because he calls himself a Republican? I don't think so.