Schwarzenegger Would "Do Damage" to Republican Party Suggests Political Analyst

LifeSite.net ^ | August 28, 2003

[miltonim]

Social conservatives have a viable candidate in McClintock

TORONTO, August 28, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Steve Jalsevac, a long-time political analyst with Campaign Life Coalition Canada suggests that were actor Arnold Schwarzenegger to capture the Republican Governorship of California it would mean political damage for the Republican Party. "A core constituency within the Republican Party is its social conservatives, most importantly those who are pro-life and pro-family. Schwarzenegger is so obviously a liberal on social issues, his running as a Republican reeks of opportunism and demeans the party's integrity," said Jalsevac.

Republicans have another capable candidate in the race who is considered authentically conservative. California State Sen. Tom McClintock, first elected to the State Assembly in 1982, is also running. McClintock ran for state controller last year and lost by a margin of 0.3% to a Democrat. In that race, McClintock captured more votes than any other Republican on the ballot. In an interview with Human Events released today, McClintock acknowledges that he is pro-life and pro-family and willing to act legislatively on those convictions.

"As we have seen so many times in Canadian politics, conservative parties are usually a delicate balance between fiscal and social conservatives, and where fiscal conservatives are so insensitive as to alienate social conservatives, the Party suffers debilitating division," Jalsevac told LifeSite News. "Arnold may well give the Republicans Governorship of another state, but his strong liberal stance on social issues will damage Party unity and weaken critical differences in policy between the two major parties."

On a radio talk show yesterday, Schwarzenegger attempted to appear less offensive to social conservatives saying that he is pro-choice, but against "partial-birth" abortion; that he supports current domestic-partnership law but not gay 'marriage'". However, Schwarzenegger's Republican strategist Allan Hoffenblum was candid about the actor's negligible chances of appealing to social conservatives. Speaking of "family-value types", Hoffenblum said, "that is the group that is least likely to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger regardless."

[EternalVigilance]

With an agenda that is simple and direct, McClintock is rallying Californians fed up with high taxes, out-of-control spending, a laughable public school system and stifling bureaucracy. He is offering hope to voters in a state where cynicism reigns. He is speaking truth to power. And, in the year of the unprecedented recall election in this, the trendsetter of states, that could just be the ticket to victory.

What a fantastic piece.

Thank you for posting it.

[68 grunt]

Am not! That was a pretty gross lie. I am a bigot hating deist. I consider you intolerant and a pitiful example of what I think of a xians, those whose major holiday is xmas, and whose main concern in life is other peoples business. Yes, you are in that group. The more you display your hate the more you hurt your cause.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I thought so too. You are quite welcome.

[srweaver]

Thank you. I will vote for Tom McClintock. The press is assiduously avoiding mentioning him as much as possible as they can "live" with an Arnold win. They seem to be once again successfully "framing the issue" -- only allowing the sheeple to choose between the lesser of two evils rather than be presented with all "viable" choices.

There are those who would cheat in sports, finances, or life to "win". We used to think less of them than honest people. I am talking of voters here.

If "winning" means cheating on your morals, I would rather "lose" and maintain some integrity.

Long ago I decided those elected representatives who would do nothing to stop the murder of unborn innocents do not deserve my support in any way. If you would like them to represent you, you have the ability to make that moral decision in America -- for now.

Jump on Arnold's bandwagon, and perhaps you will enjoy the destination. I don't think I will.

[huck von finn]

There are now so many of these threads about California that it might be better if the Californians were the ones to participate in them!

Or maybe a separate forum would be in order...

But it's no skin off my nose if Arnold is elected there. As a matter of fact, it could be quite amusing: "I AM A MACHINE!"

And if Arnold has good convervative money sense, it will be good for California. That's what the state needs right now.

[Cultural Jihad]

By all means vote your conscience, but then don't whine when Governor Cruz Bustamante does something you don't like.

[Cultural Jihad]

Well said.

[EternalVigilance]

And if Arnold has good convervative money sense, it will be good for California. That's what the state needs right now.

Why aren't you paying attention?

Arnold's fiscal views are liberal, and he has no experience in governance.

Tom McClintock has spent over 20 years actually in the arena fighting as a LEADER for sane fiscal policies.

Don't you realize the shallow nature of what you are advocating??

[68 grunt]

Appreciate the thought, but let it go. Californians can display their flag, and if their flag isn't displayed, its just an opinion, not a wasted vote.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Long ago I decided those elected representatives who would do nothing to stop the murder of unborn innocents do not deserve my support in any way.

Now don't take this the wrong way...I am going to say something that sounds extreme solely for the purpose of making a point: Three of the last four Presidents elected in this nation have been Pro-life. What did Reagan, Bush or Bush II do to stop the "murder of unborn innocents".

Not what was their position...that's not what you said...what did they DO?

Here's my point: Politicians will not be the ones to stop abortion. The people are going to have to do that on their own. Arnold being pro-choice or pro-life will make no difference on the issue of abortion in California. If he's one or the other...nothing will change on that issue. He won't even address the issue. Neither have the three Pro-life Presidents. Even the bully-pulpit is inoperable on these things.

Politicians make the trains run on time, they don't instruct people on morality. Kings do, but we don't have those much anymore.

[huck von finn]

Why aren't you paying attention? Arnold's fiscal views are liberal, and he has no experience in governance. Tom McClintock has spent over 20 years actually in the arena fighting as a LEADER for sane fiscal policies. Don't you realize the shallow nature of what you are advocating??

Try reading my post again before reacting.

[Russ7]

First, you have to win before you get to govern. I'm Pro-Life, Pro 2nd amendment....yada yada yada. The difference between you and me is knowing when to fold your hand and get behind the candidate that will most likely WIN! Lots of Pro-Lifers will go down guns blazing ....still shooting at the other Rebublican candidates ...right up to election day. I'm suggesting to take your best shots in a primary and then once a winner surfaces....back him vigorously. Remember...this is no primary....it's a winner take all. It doesn't mean you have foresaken your Pro-Life/Pro-gun principles....you're just being pragmatic.

Rudy Guilliani is a perfect example. There were Pro-Life opponents....I backed them when I lived in NY. Once Rudy surfaced as a clear winner to beat Dinkens, we had to hold our nose and support him. I walked the streets in NY under Dinkens and then when the city was run by Guilliani. The difference was like night and day.

[GatekeeperBookman]

I am only athief-he SAID plainly he was "conflicted by the two cultures"-in the first he was a child & in the second he is an adult. This is a golden chance to illustrate the awful opportunity of putting a foreign born person at a major seat of our government. Then comes the goofy & slick Amendment proposed by Hatch! I reacted with real anger when some nice person posted it-the idea that a Utah Repub would put this trash up for serious consideration!

[GatekeeperBookman]

I heard the Sean Hannity program-at least he 'questioned' a few points afterward-but OH! I could hardly imagine what it must take to offend Hannity. What a strange affair.