Satanic Schwarzeneggerians

"I have gone back and forth on Schwarzenegger, so much that I almost have whiplash. But my new – my current – position on him is: To hell with him."

I like Arnold, the bodybuilding evangelist and the movie star. But I have no regard for Mr. Schwarzenegger-Kennedy, the evasive politician. He's a man of the people now – give him a little more time and he'll be feeling our pain and doing everything "for the children." Fortunately, it didn't take long for Arnold to destroy himself as a viable candidate in the eyes of thinking conservatives everywhere. He was already suspect, indeed, anathema to those of us who believe in principles over party.

But he damned himself even with the pragmatists, those who care more for power, party and position than principle, with his dismissal as "right-wing crazies" those who support Proposition 54, which bans the state's collection of racial statistics on the population. How eminently fitting that a son of a National Socialist would fail to see the dangers in compiling such data! After all, without it, how can the state be expected to find those pesky Jews and Japanese in case it serves the interests of the children to round them up again?

The Republican enthusiasm for Arnold was initially based on his star power. It was nice, for a change, to see a Hollywood entity throw in with the GOP for once instead of barking mindlessly at it with the usual combination of vacuous accusations and cretinous insults. But his real support stemmed from his presumed electability, which sufficed to prevent numerous Democratic grandees from throwing their hats into the ring.

The problem is that the concept of electability is a massive crock of fumet. The Bush administration is demonstrating this truth in real-time, as its compassionate big-government neo-conservatism expands the federal leviathan at a pace faster than anyone since FDR. Would President Gore have been worse? Perhaps – but then there would be an opportunity to elect a man who actually opposed the rising tide of government in 2004 instead of surfing it like a cattle rancher gone beach-boy stoner.

Schwarzenegger, far from representing the salvation of California's Republican Party, stands for its complete immolation. He does not offer a philosophical alternative to California's self-destructive Democratic socialism; instead, he is a form of life-support for it. Instead of swearing to cut spending, he vows to beg more money from the federal government – demonstrating very clearly that this Republican is no republican!

Republicans in the state legislature have held their ground against the rapacious taxes proposed by Gov. Davis, and their obdurate political Manichaenism will allow them to do the same against Bustamante. But they will not be able to resist the same tax increases which would be proposed by a future Gov. Schwarzenegger. Furthermore, California Republicans will then be tarred by the same fiscal irresponsibility that now sticks only to their Democratic rivals, which, combined with their contemplated Schwarzeneggerian abandonment of cultural conservatives, will leave them wholly without a raison d'etre.

Pragmatism in politics is self-defeating in the long run. It is a euphemism for the slow sacrifice of one's principles. The constant substitution of "electable" moderates for principled conservatives is what repeatedly kills the Republican Party and prevents it from ever realizing even a small part of its platform when it is in power. It is particularly ironic when the electable moderates show themselves to be nothing of the sort, which in this particular case has already happened when the managing editor of the seminal National Review abjures the Great Teutonic Hope in no uncertain terms.

And those so-called Republicans who would drive a principled conservative like Tom McClintock from the race should hang their heads in shame. If they cannot fight for this candidate, they may as well abandon the battle altogether, for they are useless soldiers. It is better to spend 40 years in the political wilderness than to forsake one's soul for all the kingdoms of the world, much less four years in Sacramento.

Still worse, however, are the right-side commentators who urge conservatives to abandon their principles and line up behind this false Republican god. To sacrifice your own soul to the naked pursuit of power is bad enough, to tempt others to do likewise is not just the ultimate in negative campaigning, it is pure political Satanism.

Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist Convention, and his weekly column is syndicated nationally by Universal Press Syndicate. He has been down with Madden since 1992.

If Arnold wants to call himself a conservative Republican, it would be in his best interest to step up and talk about the real issues that concern conservative Republicans.

Arnold needs to release specifics of his economic recovery plan for California, detail his planned spending cuts, take an unequivocal and unambiguous pledge not to raise taxes under any circumstances, support Ward Connerly's Prop54, take a stand opposing affirmation action, commit to sealing the borders, support supply side economics, renounce his support for gay rights, agree to reduce welfare entitlements for deadbeats and illegals, dump Warren Buffet, condemn abortion on demand, drop plans for increased gun controls, support oil drilling off the California coast and support oil exploration/drilling in ANWR. Arnold also needs to step up and join in the debates.

Most California Republicans don't seem to care about the real issues when it comes to Arnold's campaign efforts. I find that pathetic and sad.

I actually heard the interview, and it was obvious when he made that statement he was searching for words..and by the look on his face it was apparent.

Tells me he either...

A) Forgot his talking points his "handlers" fed him...(Ignorant)
OR
B) Really believes in socialist social positions, but knows that by givin them voice, he'll damage his chances; so like the Peter Sellers charachter in Dr. Strangelove, had to verbally keep himself from letting the cat out of the bag too soon...(Liar)
OR
C) Doesn't really have any core beliefs, and needs to grope his way thru conversations and questions on the issues like a blind man at the Playboy mansion! (Vacant)

Anyway you slice it, is that Governor-Quality material? Is THAT how MexiCali likes it's Governors, ignorant, or liars, or vacant?

I believe the question in the FR CA recall debate can be summed up as follows:

principle vs. pragmatism

I understand, to an extent, the Arnold supporters position, that it is sometimes better to be pragmatic and win, then principled and lose. I believe most McClintock supporters understand this position to some extent as well.

Thus, I think the real debate here is just how much principle it is alright to sacrifice in order to "win."

For instance, if Arnold truly ran as, and sounded like, and surrounded himself with, fiscal conservatives, and was believable that he would not raise taxes and would cut spending, I think most conservatives (not all) would be willing to be pragmatic and vote for Arnold.

Or, in the alternative, if Arnold was fairly conservative on social issues (immigration, gun control, abortion) and was "moderate" on tax and spending, I think most conservatives (again, not all) would be pragmatic and support him.

However, neither above scenario is true. Arnold has surrounded himself with liberals (both democrat and republican), with only Schultz as a token conservative. Arnold's statements have either been directly opposite of the conservative agenda, or made his support of the conservative agenda questionable, or even outright insulted conservatives. I have repeatedly asked several FR posters to elaborate any single policy stance Arnold has taken to earn conservative support. Literally, all I have heard back is that a) according to these people, McClintock cannot win; b) Arnold can win; and c) bustamante must not win.

To me, as a well educated conservative who has participated in politics and followed politics for some time, I do not see that as a convincing argument for conservative support. I do not see why pragmatism dictates support for Arnold. Pragmatism would dictate supporting a candidate who disagrees with you on some issues, but agrees on some other, important issues. I have yet to agree with Arnold on any issue - save his statement that he would not raise taxes, except in an emergency. Considering that this is the same Rhetoric used by Pete Wilson (Arnold's "mentor") during his first campaign, before Wilson won, declared the budget crisis an emergency, and raised taxes, I am fairly confident that Arnold will raise CA taxes, while increasing spending, increasing regulations, limiting gun rights, and expanding illegal immigrant rights.

So, the question remains, how much principle do we sell to get a "win." Some believe that no principle is too important to comporomise and that an "R" win is all that matters. Others think certain principles must never be compromised for any reason. I'm somewhere in the middle, believing you have to look at the whole package, i.e., what you get for what you give up. I just do not see conservatives getting anything whatsoever from Arnold.

Conservatives voting for Arnold, in my estimation, will mean - loosing any influence in the CA republican party; a significant leftward tilt in the CA republican party and possibly the national party; no solutions for CA, whose troubles will then be laid at the feet of the CA republican party; and, despite wishful thinking, no help for G.W. Bush in the presidential election.

In the end, it does not seem pragmatic to me for conservatives to support Arnold. It seems the opposite.

Now, all of the Arnold supporters can (and probably will) call me names, say that I really want Bustamonte to win, say that McClintock is a loser and selfish, and that I am a fanatical conservative that does not know how to compromise. That simply is not the case. My take on this is based on an analysis of the facts at hand, the pros and cons of compromising to support Arnold. Weighing these, my belief is that support for Arnold would do more damage than good for the GOP and CA. Now, you may disagree with my analysis, but that does not mean I am naive or an idiot, or that I am incapable of compromise or pragmatism, or even that I am a closet liberal, rooting for Bustamante.

With that said, I invite others to explain to me why I should change my mind - however, I will state that I do not find the following "arguments" persuasive

a) McClintock cannot win (so what, that does not mean that conservatives should support Arnold)
b) Arnold can win (so what, that is not an argument for conservatives to support Arnold, see above); or
c) Bustamante will win unless conservatives vote for Arnold (I'm not really sure this is a compelling argument - see my comments above).

In the past, I have participated in the flame-type name-calling emails on this issue, which both sides (in my opinion) are equally guilty of. I am attempting not to participate in that from here out.

Sorry I'm late to this thread, guys. I had to restock the old brimstone supply for the winter, stomp some baby chicks out in the yard, and order some more Aleister Crowley books to hand out to elementary school children.

But take heart - soon, we'll have OUR candidate elected and we can proceed with the satanic takeover of California, making it Satan's very own playground on Earth. (I'm particularly looking forward to the "dogs and cats living together" part, aren't you?). All of the Golden State's citizens will be under our thrall, and we can launch schemes of unimaginable evil against the rest of the world from its shores unmolested.

Now don't forget - Codebook X28 is the current cipher. The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall. John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache. See you at the next meeting!

BUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

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.

Give me Tommy or give me liberal tyranny.