Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schwarzenegger Would "Do Damage" to Republican Party Suggests Political Analyst
LifeSite.net ^ | August 28, 2003

Posted on 08/30/2003 6:14:46 AM PDT by 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."



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: arnoldthepervert; california; getlostarnold; recall; recallarnold; schwarzenegger; schwarzenkennedy; whoinhellisjalsevac
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-298 last
To: FormerLib
Do check out the 1986 Tax Reform........120 BILLION in new taxes on corporate businesses...........
281 posted on 08/31/2003 4:43:52 AM PDT by OldFriend ((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
Yeah, great successes.

Especially compared to 40 million dead Americans who never had a chance to breathe, learn, pay taxes, or contribute to Free Republic.

Oh, I forgot, the unborn dead do not count, as you did not substantively address them in your response to me.

These political victories you are celebrating are like Denver celebrating the 10 points it scored when San Francisco creamed it 55-10 in the Super Bowl.

Perhaps we need a new game plan, rather than thinking a liberal with an R after their name is a win.

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

So our taxes are cut and our streets are safer. That means we can go rent a video and sip a hot chocolate without a twinge of conscience while the American Holocaust continues on unabated.

282 posted on 08/31/2003 7:29:06 AM PDT by srweaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: zook
Pataki and Giuliani have not helped a single conservative to office.

It's a simply fact, easily verifiable. It's a situation that is consistent throughout history. There just isn't any evidence that electing liberals helps conservatives. It instead, helps liberals from either party.
283 posted on 08/31/2003 8:05:13 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
None "examples" of those helped conservatives be elected to office.

Which is what we're talking about, after all.

There were other liberals who, for various reasons (mostly related to retaining power), have done similar things.

284 posted on 08/31/2003 8:08:43 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
Perhaps you'd like higher taxes, an active Soviet Union, perhaps you'd like a little more rape and pillage in NYC, perhaps you'd prefer our military emaciated and impotent?

You know, what you are trying to accomplish will not be accomplished in the way you are demanding it be done.

You insist that politicians implement your will in total, even if your will is not acceptable at this time to the people. If the people WILL NOT accept your position, how are you going to force them to accept it?

The only solution for your problem is dismemberment of the nation, bloody or otherwise. In which case all of these states where abortion-on-demand is the favored position will still have abortion-on-demand, they will simply not be a part of rump nation that you now live in. All that "carnage" you speak of will still be occurring, but that "occurring" will be in some "other land" under some "other government". Would that make you feel better about it?

285 posted on 08/31/2003 9:14:59 AM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
Well, hell, if you don't now want to talk about policy gains now and just getting people elected: How are you going to get conservatives elected in California when an outright majority of the voters are liberal? Go look at the numbers -- they're out there for everyone with two eyes to see (hell, even one eye will do). You are a minority trying to get a majority that thinks completely different than you do to elect your guy. So are you going to lead with your chin?

Since you are suddenly interested in electibility: How are you going to convince those majorities who think that gays should be given domestic benefits, who think that abortion should be legal, who think social services for immigrants are necessary for the public peace, who think that conservatives are a bunch of Taliban who want to take money from them to give to the rich, how are you going to convince them to renounce everything they believe in and vote for a doctrinaire conservative?

Do you really think your cause is advanced by "glorious" defeats?

If you lived in Oklahoma, I'd say go to it, you're a sure winner. If you lived in NYC, I'd say get behind Giulianni or pay the price in defeat.

286 posted on 08/31/2003 9:24:00 AM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
The discussion has always been about getting conservatives elected.

Why do we not talk about policy gains?

Simple. For every policy "gain" you seem to think a liberal Republican gives us, that same liberal Republican gives us three or four policy setbacks.

Some people recognize this as a losing strategy. As a republican you're not even allowed to complain because, after all, "your guy" is in office.
287 posted on 08/31/2003 1:13:59 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
This address (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973554/posts) on Free Republic has the results of a current nationwide poll from pollingreport.com that shows 58% of Americans believe an unborn baby or fetus should have all the same rights as a newborn baby.

Who says "the people" will not accept abortion curbs. The NOW/NARAL crowd will have a fit, but most impressionable young girls who now sacrifice their babies on the altar of convenience/pressure/misinformation will no longer kill their babies.

Others will have to find new means of birth control, but we will no longer be killing 3000 unborn Americans per day.

Perhaps you think the (fill in the blank) "activist" community represents the "will of the poeple."

Was the majority vote against homosexual marriage in California "respected" by homosexual activists? NO. They are continuing to pursue their agenda in the courts, which are not the constitutional means to have new laws passed, since they have no hope in the legislature (except in California, where the legislature routinely ingnore the will of the people).

Perhaps a nation that dismembers its babies deserves to be dismembered itself.

Job 4:8  Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.
288 posted on 08/31/2003 3:46:07 PM PDT by srweaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
Well, this is a difference between us...I prefer winning 1 in four policy battles (or even one in ten) to 0 in four).

As I said, everything would be different if this were Oklahoma or Utah or Idaho or Alabama. But it's not. And the people out here are not the same as people in those places. Their very view of life is as diametrically different as that of people living in Iceland vs. Zaire.

I prefer to cut my losses, by whatever margin they can be cut, in places that I have no chance of winning (aka Arnold), in order to maximize the impact of victories in other places where my point of view is strong.

Denying an office to Democrats is never a setback.

289 posted on 08/31/2003 5:04:56 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
that shows 58% of Americans believe an unborn baby or fetus should have all the same rights as a newborn baby.

No doubt. But that isn't the question. That's the beauty of questions on polls -- they can be phrased in ways that give an answer your looking for. I'll bet that very question would get a solid majority in my state. Yet my state put abortion-on-demand into its Constitution by a 72-28 vote.

The people will absolutely accept "curbs" on abortion. No politician anywhere in this nation (save perhaps San Francisco, Berkeley, Seattle or my town, Olympia) would be harmed at all by passing a ban on partial-birth abortions. In most places (again not the west coast), politicians wouldn't even be hurt by a ban on 3rd trimester abortions.

But a ban on all abortions except for the life of the mother, or other equally dire circumstances, would create mayhem and havoc in the streets of urban centers where abortion is most popular. After the experience with Prohibition, politicians are going to walk very carefully when taking social "rights" away from the public at large (now I fully understand that you or I would not consider this a "right" -- and in a vacuum we'd be absolutely correct -- but there is a sizable part of the population that does consider it a "right" and that's what matters in this case).

No politician is going to take that step while emotions run that high on any issue. Frankly, the politicians are hoping to punt this issue long enough so that technology solves their problem for them...after all it was technology, medical technology, that had a big hand in creating this problem in the first place.

290 posted on 08/31/2003 6:45:32 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
"Denying an office to Democrats is never a setback."

Bloomberg.
291 posted on 08/31/2003 9:07:20 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
So the Democrat was better?
292 posted on 08/31/2003 9:08:52 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
Ummmmm, you need to recognize sarcasm and exaggeration when you see them.

You also need to recognize Schwarzenkennedy for the menace that he is. California needs and actual Republican Party or its elections do not matter at all. If Arnold is the answer, it must be an uncommonly silly question.

Make that just like Bustamante, Davis and Arnold (who has said that government must get everything for the people). What on earth does any actual conservative see in this leftist circus clown of a candidate????

293 posted on 09/02/2003 7:04:00 AM PDT by BlackElk (National Committee Against RINOs and CINOs and Ahhhhhnold and Justine Raimondo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt; ninenot; ElkGroveDan; EternalVigilance; Canticle_of_Deborah
Remember that the deeper the division the less likely that Arnold can be elected. Thank God!

It is neither vile nor rude to post the truth about Schwarzenkennedy. What IS vile and rude is to campaign in favor of the abortion holocaust, in favor of lavender marriage disguised as "domestic partnership" and in favor of placing innocent children in the hands of lavender couples who want to "share their love" with children, all while claiming to be "Republican." It is also vile and rude to adopt the Pete Wilson script, study it and portray oneself as a "fiscal conservative" while planning to emulate Wilson in enacting massive tax increases. Remember that to the RINO crowd "fiscal conservatism" means balanced budgets achieved by tax increases while Republicans are the actual fiscal conservatives who achieve balanced budgets by slashing government spending so that it remains within a sharply reduced allowance provided by the taxpayers.

There are a lot of angry conservatives. They are angry at this rank opportunist Schwarzenkennedy for trying to burglarize the party and steal its name for the purpose of restoring the power of trash like Wilson. They are not going to vote for Schwarzenkennedy if he is the last candidate on the ballot. They are not impressed with decades old and always discredited RINO lies to the effect that only RINOs can be elected.

The last thing I worry about in politics is artificial manners. This business of inflating the importance of manners in the tea and watercress sandwich set is going to be the death of the GOP wherever it is practice. The GOP all too often brings a pillow to an Uzi fight. The GOP civilized candidates get their skin flayed off by the likes of Doofus, Bustamante, Boxer, DiFi, the Sanchez sisters, Maxine Waters, and so many others and then, having had their heads handed to them again, go slinking off into a corner sniffling over the beastly manners of those awful Demonrats. Well, at least WE don't behave like THEM!!!! Small consolation!

I am afraid that I care more for policy than for sensibilities. California can elect McClintock. That is the real cure for California's every actual woe. If not, then the retention of Doofus or the election o Bustamante will guarantee that you are one primary and one election (2006) from a real victory. If Arnold wins (not very likely), you are at least three primaries and three elections (2014) from a real victory, if one is ever available again after racist dimwits and taxoholics like Wilson (Arnold's puppetmaster) get finished wrecking California and its GOP one more (and perhaps final) time (sure to lose in 2006).

That is just the way it is. Reality is like a 2 X 4 and it does not matter whether you or Arnold's other supporters like 2 X 4s or not. Reality is reality.

294 posted on 09/02/2003 7:30:46 AM PDT by BlackElk (National Committee Against RINOs and CINOs and Ahhhhhnold and Justine Raimondo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Welcome back from the holiday.

>> "you need to recognize sarcasm and exaggeration when you see them." <<

OK, NOW I GET IT.

>> "need to recognize Schwarzenkennedy for the menace that he is" <<

A BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLE OF SARCASM AND EXAGGERATION.

Thanks.


295 posted on 09/02/2003 7:31:01 AM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Avoiding_Sulla
I think that you mistake either my motives or my actions. I used to be a libertarian in my distant youth. I was even a state libertarian party officer. I was cured by Roe vs. Wade and its equally illegitimate progeny.

I am NOT any kind of so-called paleocon nor will I ever be. I have had too close an encounter with the Rockford Institute crowd of paleos to EVER be tempted by what passes for their philosophy or view of history post-1900. It is sterile. It is dead. It has no purposes worth achieving. It would diminish the United States to a puny shadow of what the United States should be. I am a contemporary but traditional Catholic. The only ancient traditions that stir my enthusiasms are those of Catholic culture. I am not eighteenth century in my approach. I believe that, although I have been a Republican since high school and my labor union family of cousins and such has largely joined me in voting habits if not always in actual party registration, the traditional Catholic Faith is infinitely more important than ancient constitutional squabbles.

What is a statist? If it is someone who believes that the government has a role in foreign affairs that is interventionist and not internationalist nor, may God forbid, isolationist, then I guess that makes me a statist. If a statist is someone who believes that there is room at the banquet table of life for all of God's children, as John Paul II has said, then I guess I am a statist. I am not even slightly moved by a desire to exclude Mexicans from our land. I see them as social issue allies and as the new immigration needed as was the old immigration of Irish and Germans and Slavs and Jews and Italians and Scandinavians and Chinese and Japanese and Cubans and Vietnamese. As I came to Illinois because it was a better place for my family than Connecticut, so these folks are coming to America as a better place for their families. If that makes me a statist, so be it. If those immigrants apply for services, education, benefits and what not, from government sources, they are going to get them under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause on the same basis as citizens even if some folks already here have apoplexy as a result.

I am the product of a family of people who were blue-collar labor union Democrats. I do not think that the largely private sector AFL-CIO of the 1950s and 1960s was any kind of communist inspired or controlled movement. In fact, I know it was not. Today's AFL-CIO is a disgrace by comparison and objectively.

As it happens, the handful of actual "neo-conservatives" who are largely very elderly New York City Jewish intellectuals: Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Dean Donald Kagan, Eugene Rostow, Walt Whitman Rostow, the late Sidney Hook, and a few ohers like the late Senators Henry Jackson and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Except for the two senators, they abandoned the Demonratic Party when it was seized by communists, social anarchists and other enemies of Western Civilization. They had distinguished careers as liberals (yes, as statists) and then distinguished secnd careers in shoring up a GOP used to being the puny 90 pound weakling on the political beach. They never claimed to be pure capitalists but then neither did most Americans or even most Republicans. The genuine "neos" were worthy opponents and have become quite worthy friends.

I am a member of the only genuinely conservative movement in our nation other than conservative but non-political religion, reflected by Young Americans for Freedom, Young Republicans, College Republicans, National Review, Human Events, American Life League, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition, and many other groups and publications consistent in their values. We are not "neo-conservatives because we are not New York intellectuals and former leftists who were born in the immediate aftermath of World War I. We are not "neo-conservatives" just because a group of cranks, eccentrics, neo-isolationists and idiosyncratic "blood and soil" types like the Rockford Institute are having delusions of competence that they are a political movement of "paleoconservatives" (suggesting that they are the heirs of an older conservatism) just because Ronald Reagan would not hire them or their socially strange comrades into his administration. No matter how many magazine articles may claim otherwise, we know the conservative movement that elected Ronald Reagan and the paleos aren't it.

The conservative movement contains materialist elements, i.e. people who are primarily concerned with lower taxes on themselves and sometimes on others and a deregulated marketplace. The most articulate enemy of free trade on the right is Pat Buchanan. As is often but not always the case, he has much worthwhile to say on the subject and on others. He is tragically misguided in foreign policy and military matters. I regard GATT and WTO as unmitigated disasters, and prefer a restoration of sensible tariffs to replace some existing federal revenues, but most importantly to restore American economic and political sovereignty. The elderly actual "neos" are accustomed to using levers of economic power to achieve desireable societal results. In this respect why should they be any different from the AFL-CIO of George Meany or the Board of Directors of General Motors or of Microsoft?

As we near your big question, I will point out three axioms that are genrally valid but may have exceptions. First, Loyalty to one's allies is a good thing. Second, you have no reason to believe that I would attack you. We are often in agreement. See first axiom. Third, I do generally answer questions even when they are not softballs. I may sometimes err but I am never uncertain.

If by "Neo-Cons", you mean the New York elderly mentioned above, their social conservatism is really social moderation. Some may accept abortion, let's say, as worthy of being legal. I certainly do not. Fewer accept homosexuality. They are certainly neither partisans of McClintock nor partisans of Arnold nor, to say the least, of the formally Demonrat candidates. I think they are irrelevant to the discussio of the California election.

If by "Neo-Cons" you mean the conservative movement as I have described it, I am afraid that some like Dana Rohrbacher and Bob Dornan have sold out to Arnoldmania. I like Bob Dornan a whole lot but I also remember him being a major mouthpiece for Bush the Elder whom I did not care for as I do for his much wiser son, Dubya. Most conservative movement folks know a candidate who is no good when they see him and Arnold is no good.

I can and do sometimes make the point that Arnold is untrustworthy on economics and will likely revert to what you call Statist positions on taxing and spending. To me, however, guns, abortion, marriage and morality are far more important issues. They are also more natural objects of absolutist remedies than are mere matters of economics.

296 posted on 09/02/2003 9:05:56 AM PDT by BlackElk (National Committee Against RINOs and CINOs and Ahhhhhnold and Justine Raimondo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
Actually anything said about Schwarzenegger tends to be sarcastic but minimizes his evils as a candidate and as a man because his mesmerized supporters can only take just so much truth.
297 posted on 09/02/2003 9:09:54 AM PDT by BlackElk (National Committee Against RINOs and CINOs and Ahhhhhnold and Justine Raimondo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
And neither have Reagan, Bush or Bush II.

Well-not domestically.

But Reagan formulated and implemented the Mexico City policy, and Bush II has damn near re-created it whole. Bush II is VERY active against abortion internationally, through the UN as well as through various direct US aid programs.

Not all, yet

And not here, yet.

298 posted on 09/02/2003 10:29:57 AM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-298 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson