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."

[68 grunt]

Yes, Go Arnold

[68 grunt]

I feel that Arnie is a uniter and will bring the state together to rectify our problems like no politician heretofore. Go Arnie

[srweaver]

Perfectly valid question/point.

Reagan wrote a book "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation."

I see the primary effect of Governors/Presidents on the issue is in appointing judges/"justices" who will enforce the constitution, rather than re-write it to reflect their radical tendencies that usually have nothing to do with the will of the people.

Rehnquist - Nixon/Reagan (chief justice)
Ginsburg - Clinton
Bryer - Clinton
Stevens - Ford
O' Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - Bush I
Thomas - Bush I

With a few notable "mistakes" I think conservatives tend to appoint conservative judges.

Also the laws and how they are enforced falls largely to the executive branch, laws such as RICO (anti-mafia of organized crime) statutes being used to persecute/prosecute American abortion protesters who were trying to exercise free speech rights.

Bush II is trying to get qighly qualified conservative/constitutionalist judges on the bench at the District Court levels, and hopefully will do so at the Supreme Court level. This may lead to the overturning of legalized baby murder in America, if God gives us enough grace to survive that long.

Note how vigorously George W. is being opposed in the Senate on judicial nominations, because they understand. The haters of America and unborn babies have drawn their line in the sand and might as well be saying "We will not go back to decency and morality" because that is what they truly mean.

Even Governor Davis understands the judicial appointment issue and has rapidly stepped up the appointment of liberal justices in California in order to do much more damage in his (hopefully) short time left in office.

That is how executives thwart the will of the people (remember, legalized abortion was never voted on by the people, and is a result of political activism and a judicial usurpation of power not granted to it in the Constitution). The people's will is routinely thwarted by the courts in the name of the "law."

So how do you propose "the people" stop abortion?

[EternalVigilance]

I feel that Arnie is a uniter and will bring the state together to rectify our problems like no politician heretofore. Go Arnie

Glad you're in touch with your feelings...now go bug someone else.

[huck von finn]

Because you are positing that in the middle of a critical debate that is going to effect the direction of the country for years to come. And you did it by introducing a false premise. Ridiculous

I didn't introduce any kind of premise at all. I'm a casual observer here who does not live in California and who respects the fact that it is the Californians who stand to win or lose via the result of this fiasco.

Have you not been paying attention? The first thing he said when this started was that he wanted to bring business back to CA so that everyone could be taken care of. His economic advisor, close friend and mentor called for raising property taxes. He supports bigger programs ie more spending. He seems clueless that the crisis is a spending crisis.

I see nothing wrong with a candidate's wanting to bring business to his state. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; politicians say that all the time. As for a close friend and mentor of his calling for raising property taxes--that was a close friend and mentor, NOT Arnold, correct? As an aside I might add that I live in a state with a Republican governor, and my property taxes have gone up quite a lot of late. So even if Arnold proposed raising property taxes, I don't know that that would make him a crazed liberal.

He supports bigger programs ie more spending. He seems clueless that the crisis is a spending crisis.

What programs?

Nope, as I've always made clear, several times on this particular thread even. So, is FR suddenly an exclusively CA board or something? I don't think so.

You certainly have a right to your opinion, but you might respect Californians a bit more. This is their problem, after all. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a disaster waiting to happen for California, the GOP, and America. Face it.

That's so hyperbolic as to be laughable. That's one of the funniest things I've heard all day.

[68 grunt]

Sure, go bug someone else, no problem.

Go Arnie

[EternalVigilance]

That's so hyperbolic as to be laughable.

Nope. It's completely accurate.

The ascension of Schwarzenegger would empower liberals in both parties, and give currency and force to liberal ideology throughout the political debates raging in this country in the years ahead.

Sorry you can't see that far down the road.

[EternalVigilance]

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!"

You've made it clear that this about entertainment value to you.

So I suppose da Terminatah is the appropriate candidate for you.

But some of us take this all a little more seriously, and therefore support Senator McClintock.

Later.

[Tamzee]

Why aren't you paying attention? Arnold's fiscal views are liberal

Why do you feel the need to lie, EV? It's quite interesting when "principled conservatives" ignore the most basic principle of honesty.

Straight from Arnold Schwarzenneger on video" Does this mean that I am willing to raise taxes? No. Additional taxes are the last burden that we need to put on the backs of the citizens and businesses of California."

"We must have a constitutional spending cap."

"Now does this mean that we are going to make cuts? Yes."

"Sacramento has overspent, overtaxed and over regulated our businesses."

There is an additional 45 minutes of the same here at the C-Span feed of his press conference last week.

http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=schwarzenegger

McClintock has a wonderful enough record for you to make your case from. I question the credibility of ANY "conservatives" who lie while pretending to be defending moral values.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

So how do you propose "the people" stop abortion?

The answer is both simple and incredibly difficult at the same time: If enough people refuse to tolerate any policy except abortion only in severe circumstances, the government will follow. Change the minds of the people and the government will [slowly] change to meet the new will -- and hopefully without bloodshed.

Government does not lead on moral issues, it follows after the fact. Prohibition demonstrated that in an earlier era. And the aboltion of slavery demonstrated that [with blood] in an even earlier era.

Regardless of the number of good appointees to the Supreme Court, the Court will not alter the current status quo, if it thinks that the action will cause bloodshed or open rebellion. We talk a lot (out of our hats mostly) about a rebellion on the right (election of Hillary being an example). But rebellion on the left is possible in many densely populated regions of this country. The Court will not cause such a spark, even if it had the numbers to correct the situation.

[srweaver]

I am working to change one heart and one mind at a time, both through the pulpit and the local Crisis Pregnancy Center. You win some and you lose some.

How will neglecting the government/political policies help personal "one person at a time" efforts?

If the Supreme Court had not "invented" a right to abortion, there would not be 40,000,000 babies killed at their mother's hands with the help of greedy abortionists.

Some would have gotten illegal abortions, but not 40 million.

Arnold Schwarzenegger would do nothing to prevent the ongoing slaughter on the unborn, only exacerbate the problem (dead babies) by ignoring it. He would probably further worsen the problem by appointing pro-killing judges.

Major wars are not usually won on one front, but many.

If all were Christian in America, following the commands to "love God" and "love your neighbor as yourself", there would be no need for domestic police, justice departments, or judges. It is incredibly simple. But in the interim, what are we to do? And historically, when has this happened (no need for government)?

If the abolition of slavery (and the other issues involved in the Civil War era) took bloodshed, what do you think the abolition of legalized abortion in this country will take?

By the way, the casualty count in the Abortion War is already over 60 times as many killed in the Civil War. The government started and perpetuated this legalized personal bloodshed that takes place on a daily basis in America.

Or don't dead babies count as bloodshed?

[Zack Nguyen]

How is it hyperbole?

[Zack Nguyen]

Is "Tommy" Tom McLintock? I do not actually live in the state.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

How will neglecting the government/political policies help personal "one person at a time" efforts?

These two things are not necessarily related. And casting a vote based on one issue is certainly everyone's right. However, en masse such voting behavior tends to relegate those who hold that single position to irrelevancy. There are not enough people who vote solely on the abortion to have an impact in California elections. So the "harmless as a dove, wiley as a serpent" postion would be to take small political gains wherever one might achieve them -- even if those gains are on other issues -- in order to slowly advance your cause through the election of people who will at least listen to you, even if it is on other issues.

Arnold Schwarzenegger would do nothing to prevent the ongoing slaughter on the unborn.

Nope. And neither have Reagan, Bush or Bush II. Can't be done that way. There is no one who can be elected who will appoint such judges in California. And if one ever did manage that, you'd simply get in California what we have in Washington: An initiative passed by over 70% positive vote that puts abortion-on-demand (and fully funded by the state) in our state Constitution as an inalienable right.

But in the interim, what are we to do?

Fight guerilla warfare. Take small wins. Deny offices to those who are furthest from you...or those who will never count as allies people you support. If Arnold supports Bush, as he says he does, can you not see an opening there, a possibility, that impact can be made?

what do you think the abolition of legalized abortion in this country will take?

Honestly, I don't know. I don't see it within the realm of possibility, really. The best I can see happening...and we're a long way from this...is to see Roe v. Wade over-turned and the whole issue tossed back to the states -- where abortion law would vary state by state with no Federal input. Then many states, where majorities do exist, could ban abortion in all but extreme circumstance. However, many states, like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Maryland, Vermont etc. etc. would still have state laws authorizing abortion-on-demand.

I think that is the absolute best that can be achieved on this issue, short of a complete dismemberment of the country and Balkanization of North America (in which case, abortion-on-demand would still be the law of the land in those areas that support it. On this earth, you cannot force people to accept things they will not accept.

[Zack Nguyen]

They destroyed the party's grassroots and made endless mischief in Republican primaries. We are still trying to recover from the damage they did.

Thank you for pointing that out. True believers are always targets for those who desire power only. "Moderates" can be counted on to shut out conservatives.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

From the left - Aside from the "R", What's Wrong with Arnold?

[zbigreddogz]

Amen to that.

[zbigreddogz]

You McClintiacs are all alike. Always talking like this is Star Wars, and you are going to "sand against the dark side" or some such garbage.

Here's the truth: THIS ISN'T A MOVIE. McClintock CAN NOT WIN. He 'may' have been able to win in a normal election with a primary, although I sincerely doubt he would amount to much more then Simon did, but without one, HE CANNOT WIN.

Schwartzenegger can. He is your standard Pro-Choice republican, who would oppose partial birth abortion. On every other issue, gay rights, etc. It is the same, he is FAR more conservative then Danny DeVito and Grayout. You will not only hurt yourself on economic issues, DeVito actually PROMISES to raise taxes, but you will also hurt yourself on social issues as well, where you would have someone that agreed with you 20-30% of the time, as opposed to 0% of the time.

My favorite politician said, repeatedly, "A man who agrees with me 70% of the time is not my enemy."

Wanna know what "Surrender Monkey" said this? RONALD REAGAN.

[William Tell]

Jeff Gordon said: "Tommy is the guy you expect to do something about gay marriage? Whatever his talk on this issue, it is clear that he does not walk that talk."

I agree. He should have voted as a matter of principle, even if he thought that his side had no chance to win.