Why This Far-Right, Pro-Life Christian Plans to Vote for Schwarzenegger

Self | 10/5/2003 | Daniel J. Phillips (BibChr)

[Jim Robinson]

Great Post!!

[TERMINATTOR]

You nailed it! The emperor has no clothes. A steaming load of pseudo-religious dung!

Molon Labe!

[SteveH]

Here's the second occurence. For your information, it is under "reports" and not "reported" as you claimed, so it was harder to find in your essay ... which we both fully can agree is ... long...

Is that still true, or is it not? To be specific, is McClintock without sin? If the reports are right, was it not evil for him to promise to leave the race if he was not winning, and then not do so? Is he the exception to the many sweeping statements in Scripture showing that we all still err, even the saved? Then a vote for McClintock is no less a vote for the lesser of two evils. And the decision must be made on another basis.

So you repeat your contention that McClintock is with "sin" and "evil". At least, you pose the question, and base your logic on the presumption that the answer is YES. You apparently cannot find much more ammo than an unproven contention, a non-binding promise, allegedly made in private conversation to a rival politician.

Contrast this with Tom's many public pronouncements that he is in the race to stay, and one gets the picture that your version of veracity does not pass Ockham's Razor, which is to say, the most likely explanation is not that Tom broke his many public promises for a private promise to a campaign rival, but that the campaign rival is misrepresenting a private conversation for public political gain or leverage.

IOW...

Get a frickin' grip, Dan!

[SteveH]

Dan... response please?

[chirp... chirp... chirp...]

;-)

[Ronzo]

Interesting essay, but reeks of rationalism. Not that being rational is all bad, but there are times, especially when defending yourself, that rationalism doesn't quite cut it. Why? Because I could just as easily make a rational, biblical argument demonstrating how sinful it would be for you to vote for Arnold.

However, I will spare everyone the long rebuttal, and just mention one reason why someone shouldn't vote for Arnold:
1. He's married to a KENNEDY!!!

However, if I were living in California, I'd probably vote for Arnold anyway, for the following two reasons:
1. He's a fiscal conservative (if not social)
2. He's not Gray Davis.

To badly paraphrase Winston Churchill: If my only two choices for govenor of CA were Satan and Gray Davis, I'd vote for Satan.

[RaceBannon]

It is an entirely appropiate position to take, and it is the very one our founding fathers used when selecting leaders for the community.

It is one of the original Christian principles taught in this country, and it is good enough to choose leaders today.

When Bibchr tells people it is ok to vote for an adulterer and groper over an obvious better choice, Bibchr is dead wrong and needs to be seriously rebuked

[nickcarraway]

What happens if Schwarzenegger gets the GOP to take the pro-life stance out of the GOP plank?

What if Schwarzenegger/Riordan issue a mandidate that no pro-lifer can get backed for important offices? We've already seen the CAGOP move in that direction. The GOP officials have already hinted to some candidates that they will have a pro-choice litmus test for who is backed in next year's Senate race.

[RaceBannon]

Everyone of your reasons to support Arnold can be said about McClintock, and McClintock does not have the immoral baggage that Arnold does. Your analogy fails because of that.

Arnold is in a profession that openly promotes sin, immorality, sex, violence, and he himself publically said he supports rights for life partners/Domestic Partners which means he supports people living together without marriage and also gays living together, clearly immoral position to hold.

Bibchr claims to be a Bible Believing Christian, and he is openly telling people to vote for someone as immoral as Arnold??? When there is a clear choice to choose another more conservative person instead?

If Jesus was in a grave, He would be spinning right now.

[Afronaut]

-- "Four states, ten or eleven stops. Four days. This is a real commitment for you. What do you get out of that? It is exhausting it seems to me." (Answer: Loves meeting people.)
-- "Do you feel physically, emotionally, spiritually different when you get out of Washington, get on the road?" (Answer: Yes.)

-- "You and I spoke right at the beginning of this second term. Now, with two years left, is it something you look forward to? Do you get out there and say I want to keep going out, I want to meet people, I have more stuff I want to do, or do you look and go Oh, my God, two more years! (Answer: Wish there were more time left since I love meeting people.) [See the fax report cited at the top of this issue for more on Shriver 1996 interview.]

-- so much speculation now about what you're going to do. What Hillary Clinton's life is going to be after the presidency. Do you find that takes away from what you're going to do, or do you just like slough it off and pay no attention?;

-- we've talked to several people and they came up and said so different than I thought she would be. She's so much more of a people person. She's funny, she's nice. Do you think that, like, people don't get you? I mean you get out there and people see a different side of you.

[RaceBannon]

I am finally forming words to explain what I see as total hypocrisy on the Arnold/McClintock thing...

When Bill Clinton groped women, we said that was a reason to state he had no morals and should be kept from office. We were right of course, but the Dems said, "So What?"

Now, Arnold is proven to grope women, the Dems say he is unfit to hold office because of that, and the Repubs are saying, "So What?"

Who is the bigger hippocrite here? Us with Arnold? Or the Dems, with Clinton?

And don't bring up Juanita, groping is still groping, and is certainly a reason to say someone is unfit, regardless if there is a worse charge after that, groping is still a reason to say someone is unfit!

And a guy like McClintock, with no baggage, and great ideas and a wholesome attitude and outlook, is considered not worthy of voting for or supporting as a party.

Is it any wonder why the Republicans are called THE STUPID PARTY?

[EternalVigilance]

Matthew 18


(1) 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.


(2) 6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

[RaceBannon]

AMEN!

I am finally forming words to explain what I see as total hypocrisy on the Arnold/McClintock thing...

When Bill Clinton groped women, we said that was a reason to state he had no morals and should be kept from office. We were right of course, but the Dems said, "So What?"

Now, Arnold is proven to grope women, the Dems say he is unfit to hold office because of that, and the Repubs are saying, "So What?"

Who is the bigger hippocrite here? Us with Arnold? Or the Dems, with Clinton?

And don't bring up Juanita, groping is still groping, and is certainly a reason to say someone is unfit, regardless if there is a worse charge after that, groping is still a reason to say someone is unfit!

And a guy like McClintock, with no baggage, and great ideas and a wholesome attitude and outlook, is considered not worthy of voting for or supporting as a party.

Is it any wonder why the Republicans are called THE STUPID PARTY?

[ladyinred]

Very well said! I did read every word, and I must say thank you for this. It helped me as a Christian who also wants to do the right thing, and yet feels conflicted.

I have been surprised and appalled by the depth of anger, hatred, and just plain mean spirited attacks on fellow republicans I have seen on the recall threads. It has NOT advanced the cause of republicans or Christians, or anyone for that matter. It has instead in some cases, made us look like what the left is always accusing us of, a bunch of narrow minded hate spewing Archie Bunkers, etc. etc. It has really opened my eyes, and I don't like what I saw.

Lastly, I was rather surprised to see that Tom voted for the domestic partners act! I am stunned to hear that, as I thought he was 100% pure.

[Afronaut]

But does anyone doubt that the 2004 Republican convention in New York would be dominated by media heavies tripping over themselves to get the governor of the nations most populous state to denounce the GOP platform on social issues (Abortion) as "out of the mainstream"?

The Whole Pie is right here. Can you see this in NY? Reporters will be on Arnold and Maria like a gallery following Tiger Woods. His Opinions will be getting headlines, His voice and the "raging Liberal", Maria will be the lead in all the News broadcasts.

[SteveH]

Good stuff, Dan ~ some of the Schwarzenegger attackers seem to think that he is more of a sinner than they are ~ the truth is ~ we're all sinners!

Moral relativism. ... Moral relativism is the viewpoint that moral standards are not absolute, but instead emerge from social customs and other sources.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[McGavin999]

God bless you Dan. You are a good man.

[ladyinred]

Each day proves his character truly flawed for the position of authority and leadership.

.I assume by this you support the attacks from Davis on Arnold. You support the women who are coming forward out of the woodwork, who have been silent for years, some of whom have been proven democrat operatives? You support the politics of personal destruction being waged by the Davis machine? Take it from me, a woman, if these women were really hurt, upset, degraded, and had life ruining encounters with Arnold, they would not have waited until a few days before the election to say so. Please!!!!

[EternalVigilance]

He didn't.

[RaceBannon]

Are you a Christian? What Christian leader in the Bible was a good leader on paper? Was Peter, who denied Christ three times? Was Paul, who stood and watched the cloaks as the first martyr was killed? Was Aaron, Moses, David? The question is not whether the politician is a good leader but where will the leader lead? Moving the election to the "right"? Does that mean voting probusiness or proindividual? It clearly does not mean profamily or prolife. Does it?

It absolutely matters, especially when all of those men were specifically chosen by the LORD to BE the leader, and were gifted in many ways beyond what any of us can ask or think.

The main reason your analogy is wrong is that all of these men had special Spirit Led guidance to keep them through.

It is from their examples of OBEDIENCE in the final years of their life and in the written record of their obedience that we can call them faithful men!!

Arnold falls NOWHERE in this category!! Arnold is more of a Balaam or Esau, not a Peter or Moses!

And for someone who is supposed to be knowlegable about their Bible, you should see that as obvious.

[SteveH]

See #235