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

Skip to comments.

Schwarzenegger Candidacy Illustrates The Republican Party's Lack Of Commitment To Conservatism
Toogood Reports ^ | October 5, 2003 | Chuck Baldwin

Posted on 10/06/2003 8:12:39 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS

If there is anyone left who truly believes the Republican Party is committed to genuine conservative principles, the candidacy of bodybuilder/actor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be California's next governor should be enough to set the record straight.

Despite Schwarzenegger's extreme liberal views, he has won praise from Republicans nationwide. On virtually every issue worth noting, Schwarzenegger comes down on the left side of the page.

Schwarzenegger is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights, pro-gun control, pro-green, and pro-illegal immigration. He even said that Clinton's impeachment made him "ashamed" to call himself a Republican.

Furthermore, Schwarzenegger's immoral escapades make even Bill Clinton look unsoiled. He once bragged in an Oui magazine interview about participating in sex orgies, not to mention his repeated admissions of drug use.

In spite of his personal and philosophical discrepancies, Schwarzenegger has received accolades from notable conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson, not to mention practically the entire national Republican hierarchy.

Writing for The New York Times, Frank Rich correctly observed, "It is hilarious to watch conservatives, the same conservatives who often decry phony Hollywood liberals and their followers, betray their own inviolate principles to bask in Arnold's hulking movie-star aura so that they might possibly gain a nominal Republican victory in the bargain."

By supporting a liberal such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republicans demonstrate that they have no real loyalty to conservative principles. Beyond that, by supporting Schwarzenegger, they have turned their backs on a true conservative gubernatorial candidate, Tom McClintock.

However, people who are paying attention know that this is the rule, not the exception, for the Republican Party. In race after race, Republican heavyweights will throw their support behind a liberal candidate and will starve out a conservative candidate. This is not an accident or a coincidence. It is the party's plan A. The Republican Party no more desires conservatives in political office than the Democrat Party does, and people who think otherwise are only deceiving themselves.

At some point, conservatives must awaken to the reality that they do not have a political party in Washington, D.C., that represents them. They must, at some point, be willing to abandon the Republican Party and unite around a party and a candidate that will courageously and consistently promote their principles. Can I get a second for Judge Roy Moore and the Constitution Party?


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: cagop; conservatism; liberalism; mcclintock; recall; republican; schwarzenegger; spam; spamspam; spamspamspam; spamspamspamspam; spamspamspamspamspam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Dave S
Conservatives (not just Republicans) are being played like cheap fiddles! Think about it: there is a worthwhile way to compared the two candidates, Arnold and Tom, without spitting conservative v leftist arguments all over the press; which candidate has the background experience to deal with Sacramento? Sorry to have to say this because it will just draw flak, but it is Tom McClintock who is the more qualified candidate to deal with the sludge that covers Sacramento. All the railing against Arnold is absurd. All the 'he's not conservative enough to be a true Republican' is mere manipulation utilizing the values conservatives espouse. This is not an election of conservative v liberal, it is an election to try and fix at least some of the putrifaction now infesting California political control.
41 posted on 10/06/2003 11:28:08 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
WHICH DO YOU PICK AS BEING THE WORST?

They are both screwed up. Why choose between them? I'm for Arnold and secondly for McClintock. Why choose between two daffy ducks like Davis and Baldwin (who thinks GWB is the Anti-Christ) when we have two guys that can turn California around.

42 posted on 10/06/2003 11:28:23 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Here in the Valley, the most amazing thing has happened. What used to be a place where conservative Republicans flourished - and we were proud - has now become a place where the leaders have sold their souls to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Our GOP Central Committee Chair, Jane Parsons, is like a love sick school girl. Bill Jones and Mike Der Manouel Jr. are acting like star struck groupies. These people, mind you, used to be pro life/pro family staunch conservative Republicans.

IT'S FRIGGIN' EMBARRASSING!!!

I "walked for Tom" McClintock on Saturday so I can sleep well.
43 posted on 10/06/2003 11:29:13 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Someone said they couldn't tell the diff between Davis and Baldwin.

I think it's easy.

I've never seen the GWB is anti-christ claim by Baldwin.

If I had to choose between a Christian conservative and Davis to run my state, though, I'd always go with the Christian conservative.
44 posted on 10/06/2003 11:31:55 AM PDT by xzins (And now I will show you the most excellent way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If I had to choose between a Christian conservative and Davis to run my state, though, I'd always go with the Christian conservative.

I wouldnt if it was a kook like Baldwin. With Davis you can always buy him or threaten him. With kooks like Baldwin that believe they are the only spokesman for God on earth, they would drive the state into total ruin thinking they could do no wrong because they are led by God.

Baldwin wrote an editorial that appeared on FR titled "Is GWB the Anti-Christ" and then proceeded to show how Bush was not the friend of conservatives had done nothing for conservatives.

45 posted on 10/06/2003 11:37:42 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
"Hard-right conservatives are a minority and always will be so."

Let me help you out with that one:

"If conservatives don't stick to their principles and support conservative candidates (which, BTW includes DEMANDING it from the (R) party)...Hard-right conservatives will continue to be a minority and always will be so."

46 posted on 10/06/2003 11:39:29 AM PDT by BureaucratusMaximus (if we're not going to act like a constitutional republic...lets be the best empire we can be...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
In other words, he was calling Bush a name. He didn't put forward a biblical argument on how GW was the fulfillment of the anti-christ scriptures.

I'd take the Christian conservative.

But, I don't consider Schwarzeneggar to be a conservative of any variety. Do you?
47 posted on 10/06/2003 11:39:56 AM PDT by xzins (And now I will show you the most excellent way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: xzins
But, I don't consider Schwarzeneggar to be a conservative of any variety. Do you?

Fiscal conservative which is what I care most about. Live and let live for the rest, unless someone starts telling me how I need to behave then I get pissed by the Baldwin Kooks as well as the idiots against religion in society.

Bye for now. I've got to work.

48 posted on 10/06/2003 11:43:37 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
I don't consider him a fiscal conservative. I consider him a pro business liberal Republican.

A fiscal conservative wouldn't have accepted Warren Buffet to be economic advisor. Nor would a fiscal conservative seek fiscal solvency first in tax increases, which he first announced; nor in taxes on Indian casino money, which is his current position.
49 posted on 10/06/2003 11:51:15 AM PDT by xzins (And now I will show you the most excellent way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
What good are principles if you always lose?

Too bad we can't ask that question of Ronald Reagan. I don't think that Reagan abandoned his principles, and he won, yet at the same time his principles ofttimes succumbed to political reality during his administration. One of the major realities being: even if deficits go way, way up, it's hard to cut spending on 1/3 of the budget in order to balance it. And that's a current reality, too; one that very few, if any, current elected officials are willing to face.

Arnold's going to face the reality that 70-80% of the California budget is currently allocated due to voter initiatives and can't be cut. One of those initiatives he championed (after school programs) so I doubt he'd want to cut it. So when he starts attempting to cut what he can, which isn't much but which might be popular (environmental protection) or vital (prisons), he stands to become very unpopular in a hurry. About the only thing I admire about Arnold's run is that particular risk (yet he also could drag down the California GOP with him). We'll see if he can deliver on his promises.

50 posted on 10/06/2003 12:06:36 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Furthermore, Schwarzenegger's immoral escapades make even Bill Clinton look unsoiled

Yet another idiotic Chuck Baldwin screed. The above sentence is one of the dumbest things ever posted on this forum. Where is the "BARF ALERT"?

51 posted on 10/06/2003 12:21:52 PM PDT by montag813 (Fire Tenet...Jail Joseph Wilson...Rally 'Round Our President, Dammit!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollywog
Thank you.
52 posted on 10/06/2003 12:23:55 PM PDT by pgyanke (Social liberalism leads to fiscal socialism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
You boy cannot win....no matter how many posts you put up...no matter who endorses McClintock...no matter how hard all of you fight the wind mills with your swords, you cannot change reality...If McClintock was the chose of most in California, he would be leading in the polls...it is just that simple.

The fact that the GOP threw itss endorsements behind Arnold, is not due to a total abandoning of conservatism, but an acknowledgment of reality....face the truth...stop fighting wind mills with your swords....you are not going to change reality.
53 posted on 10/06/2003 12:26:36 PM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Termite the Gropinator admires the Kennedys and even married one. Bubba Clintoon's mentor was John F. Kennedy, and he also admired the Kennedy brood. The Kennedy men are notorious womanizers. So it's not surprising that Termite the Gropinator and Clintoon have no respect for women. Does anyone remember the infamous former Sen. Bob Packwood and his lack of respect for women? The Gropinator, like Clintoon-Packwood-Kennedy men, is just interested in how fast a woman can spread her legs for him.
54 posted on 10/06/2003 12:49:38 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
The Republican Party no more desires conservatives in political office than the Democrat Party does, and people who think otherwise are only deceiving themselves.

The Republican Party is no different from the Democratic Party. Both are primarily interested in political power. The RP can not counted on to maintain any values all by itself. It's the membership that keeps it in line. If the RP can ensure political power by moving left, it will do so and abandon conservatism in a heartbeat if it means more power.

55 posted on 10/06/2003 12:51:15 PM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpinyNorman
Another illustration of how the perfect (McClintock) is the enemy of the good (Arnold) for Conservatives. Arnold can help rebuild a moribund Republican party in California. And that is something McClintock never can do. Plus, I would rather trust a man who has both made and met a payroll (Arnold) vs. a man who has spent his whole life on the public teat.
56 posted on 10/06/2003 1:11:35 PM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

Termite the Gropinator

LOL…that tags him pretty well….

57 posted on 10/06/2003 1:17:56 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: gaspar

Arnold can help rebuild a moribund Republican

LOL- you are so incredibly clueless…

58 posted on 10/06/2003 1:19:27 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
post #58
59 posted on 10/06/2003 1:20:11 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
BUMP!!!!!
60 posted on 10/06/2003 4:14:09 PM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next 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