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."
Another person trying to give us Governor Bustamonte.
Like they say, "The Devil is in the details." I don't believe Arnie has spelled out in detail what he plans to do about anything. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure his demoRat advisor, Warren Buffet will have some major imput in Arnie's plan.
The only problem with your (kind of) philosophy here is that it further weakens the core of the G.O.P. in the long run as it has done so many times in the recent past. All one has to do is look at what depths the Republican Party has already sunk to by adopting a "win at any cost", "winning is everything" or "the end justify the means" mentality. IMO Arnold is far far left of center and will govern even farther left, so far left that he would eventually damage the Republican Party.
I suspect Republicans would be better off to let the Dems keep this office for now and allow California to sink even further into the red than it is now and hit the Dems in the next normal election cycle and vett a real Republican, at least more than Arnold and his liberal entourage, at least one that is to the center or slightly right of center. Arnold is just so far left that real Republicans (conservatives) should shun him like the plague.
I also do not believe that having Arnold(Rep) as Gov. would be that much help to Bush either in '04. This is just so much hype.
Horse manure. Giuliani was a law and order mayor who cracked down hard on the "anything goes" social liberal mentality that was destroying NYC. Porn freaks, pimps, youth gangs, drug abusers and other fave social liberal victim groups got tough love with a size 12 right upside their permissive posteriors.
Arnie is more akin to the feckless, mewling Bloomberg, who is busy undermining and destroying Giuliani's legacy with gay high schools and other social liberal rot.
Giuliani wasn't perfect, but despite his rhetoric he often did the right thing.
True enough as amended. However our RepubloCratic statists on this board advocate that state powers can be used to 'regulate/control' [read prohibit] our liberties.
Sometimes the federal government oversteps, sometimes the state oversteps (referring to the use of tax money for the promotion of social liberalism). THe fact that the federal bill of rights was designed to limit federal powers only does not create hypocracy.
Our rights in the bill of rights are not just 'federal'. They are inalienabe human rights.
IE -- The state of CA contents that they have the power to prohibit weapons. Your friends here agree. Do You?
And you'll get an earfull of differences: Starting with property taxes, car license taxes, environmental policy (no they aren't at all impressed with his statement about oil-drilling off California -- that doesn't go anywhere NEAR far enough for them), benefits for illegals, hell -- they don't even like his statements on gays and abortion -- because he doesn't go anywhere near FAR ENOUGH for them. Ask them, they'll tell you.
Arnold may be well left of you...but he's light-years to the right of Bustamante and Davis and their consticuencies. The problem with doctrinaire conservatism is that it thinks the political scale only goes off to the left about 5 inches from where they are. The Greens will certainly show you the error of your ways. And if your next Governor is not Arnold, it's going to be someone working day and night to make the Greens [not to mention the illegals] happy.
A quick lesson in the meaning of "inalienable." It means "can't be sold or given away." You can't give your life to a dead person, you can't give your liberty to an incarcerated person, and you can't take your happiness and force an unhappy person to be happy. The fact that some things are inalienable is just a fact, no matter how eloquently expressed.
Of course humans can (and do) defend themselves, sometimes using weapons. There is no way to keep a person from doing so, period. So, the "right" to self defense is inalienable. It's going to happen, no matter how much talk to the contrary.
I personally think that many states have, and certainly the federal government has, miscontrued the 2nd amendment. But "power" is a funny thing. One can't know which side has more, until the battle is over.
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.