Arnold's corruption of Republican Party

World Net Daily ^ | 10/6/2003 | ALAN KEYES

[Snuffington]

A second fact is this: Unnaturally divorced from these issues, conservatism mutates into mere immoral greed, to match the immoral lust of contemporary liberalism.

Bumping and agreeing with your take. Keyes summed it up nicely there.

[Roscoe]

These are what RINO Arnold supporters use as arguments.

It's a tacit admisssion that Arnold's positions are largely indefensible.

[jmc813]

So you're happy to elect more Republicans like Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, John McCain, David Duke, etc.

You forgot about Liddy Dole and Christie Whitman.

[Howlin]

I've already told you once that there were a LOT of Freepers there who were shocked by Keyes' remarks, but you keep insisting that the vast majority approved.

[carton253]

I am saying that people who disagree with a plank of the platform can still be a Republican. That being a conservative doesn't make you exclusively a Republican, nor does being a Republican makes you exclusively a conservative. We can have disagreements over issues and still be Republicans.

[carton253]

Which are only your opinions masquerading as facts.

[EternalVigilance]

Mr. Keyes ought to go back and compare Ronald Reagan's track record while he was governor of California -- he'd probably be shocked to discover that Reagan seemed to be two different people during the course of his political career. He governed California much as Schwarzenegger would have, and he served as President much as McClintock would have.

I find it ironically amusing that Arnold's supporters find it necessary to sully the name of Ronald Reagan to try and make Arnold look better.

I guess if you want to kill a tree, you go for the roots...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

"Hot damn, Mr. Keyes. You use your tongue purtier than a 10 dollar whore....."

[carton253]

Yes, you can. Again, you have confused conservatism with being a Republican.

[hedgetrimmer]

If you want to corrupt the republican party from the inside out, you just put up a candidate like Arnold. He is " the only republican who can win". Once he gets in, the republican platform will be tilted leftward so that the more centrist can relate.

I have news for you. The centrists are the leftists from the old days and the leftists are unabashed communists(like camejo). Do you really want the republican party to become a tool of the leftists as the democratic party has? We need to vote on principle and not fall for the leftist scare rhetoric that a vote for McClintock is a vote for Bustamonte. That is pure and simple leftist propaganda meant to scare people into voting a certain way instead of encouraging them to vote on principle.


82 posted on 09/24/2003 9:56 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/988908/posts

[carton253]

No, a republican can not be ProAbortion, but a RINO can.

Well that's the biggest pile of crap I've heard today.

[carton253]

Yes... it proved my point.

[Reagan Disciple]

This is a special-case election and there is blood in the streets - that is why Tom is polling so strong.

In a general election Tom falls just like Simon did - and I know Simon ran a horrible campaign. I know because it happens here in NY. All of our major candidates have leaned left on certain issues.

The leadership knows that real change will come if Tom ousts Boxer from the Senate. He will do all of us a greater service if he's there (selfish I know).

[carton253]

No, how can you read thread after thread for thirty days and miss the obvious.

[MuchoMacho]

excellent article. as i've said before, i wouldn't support hillary clinton if she was a republican, just because she could win.

as soon as we start to abandon our principles in the name of political expediency, we lose the heart of what makes us conservatives.

i would rather be a righteous loser than a moral relativist winner.

go tom!

[jmc813]

But, the platform is voted and agreed on by the majority. it is not a unanimous decision. Should the minority now have to seek another party?

You raise good questions about the platform of the party as it relates to the members. One must wonder what limits, if any, there are to inclusion within the Republican Party. Let's say that Tom Dachle, for instance, wanted to join the GOP. Should he be allowed? If not, what positions of his fail the "litmus test"?

[carton253]

Here is what you do...

Then you vote for Tom.

What you don't do is call those who will vote for Arnold RINOS, LIBERALS, SOCIALISTS, ETC. Because there are some very good Republicans who support Arnold, have worked for Arnold, and will vote for Arnold.

Can you let the disagreement stand without the name calling, or the p*ssing contest. (And the Arnold supporters are just as guilty)

[jmc813]

If the country is getting more liberal, why does every poll show more and more people becoming pro-life every year? If the country is getting more liberal, why do the American people support the war on terror and hold the anti-war idiots in contempt?

It's also worth noting that the anti-gun movement has dramatically died down in the last 5 years or so.

[hedgetrimmer]

Why do the republicans have a platform if they continually nominate persons who do not support it?

What is the purpose of a political platform? To trick people into voting for your candidate, then stab them in the back because your candidate doesn't believe in the values that the voter put them in office to uphold?

[carton253]

And, oh, the Tom Supporters don't trot Reagan out every five minutes to support their cause.