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

Skip to comments.

Arnold's corruption of Republican Party
World Net Daily ^ | 10/6/2003 | ALAN KEYES

Posted on 10/06/2003 8:23:46 AM PDT by kellynla

I have an urgent message in my heart, and I will speak plainly about it, as I feel I must. It concerns Tuesday's recall election in California. First, two unhappy facts must be faced.

On all the matters that touch upon the critical moral issues, Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the evil side. This is a fact. A mere list of the positions he supports is enough to make this plain: abortion as a "right," cloning of human beings, governmental classification of citizens by race, public benefits for sexual partners outside of marriage, disrespect for property rights against environmental extremism, repudiation of the right to bear arms – no more need be said to show that this candidate is wrong where human decency, human rights and human responsibility bear directly on political issues.

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

Accordingly, there is no choice in the California Recall race for people of good conscience except Sen. Tom McClintock.

But many good people – and especially conservatives in California – are in denial. They do not, or will not, see that they have but one choice.

What makes this so hard for some who profess to be conservatives to understand? Apparently, it is fair-seeming, "pragmatic" arguments that we must grasp a victory for "our party," and that it is shrewd for Californians in the present election to choose the "lesser of two evils." Let us consider the wisdom of these arguments.

First, as to our "victory." Last week, we saw Schwarzenegger does not deny habitual crude offenses against young women. Rather, he theatrically, vaguely and impersonally apologizes for them, before a roaring crowd of adoring fans, admitting neither any connection between action and character, nor any need for genuine penance or reformation. Arnold had, he says, no "intention to offend." And he "apologizes" from the stage while his hired guns blame the whole thing on a vast left-wing conspiracy. Cheers. Adulation. Let's move on.

Does this remind you of anything? The Republicans who vote for Schwarzenegger will owe Bill Clinton an apology for having given the nation the impression that they sincerely believed character to be an issue for those claiming high office.

Our "pragmatic" fellow Republicans, yearning for Arnold to be governor because of what they imagine he will do on this or that particular policy of secondary importance, seem quite willing to forget what Washington, the Father of this Republic, always kept in mind – that the most powerful education our children get is the good or bad example of those in authority.

Such "pragmatism" seeks foolishly to raise to the level of grave responsibility and high leadership in the Republican Party a man whose prominence will establish in the public mind the false notion that Republican attacks on Clinton's lack of character were simply partisan ploys. The problem with "speaking no ill" of fellow Republicans, and expressly shielding such "leaders" as this man, is that we must be ever after silent in the face of the very defects we would loudly and rightly call to account in a Democrat, a Libertarian or anyone else.

Such silence reduces all talk of morality to a cynical, partisan show – which precisely serves the purposes of those who are trying to drive every shred of moral concern from our political discussions. This outcome is an enduring defeat that overshadows any transitory victory of office-holding.

Now, as for the "lesser of two evils." It is true that we must sometimes act so as to accept something bad, intending to avoid something worse. But this truth does not apply to the California Recall for two reasons. There is not merely an acceptable, but an outstanding third option before the state's voters; and a victory for Arnold will be worse than a failure to replace the Democrats, bad as they have been.

"Republicans" like Schwarzenegger enjoying power and prestige are a worse evil than the Democrats. Because they wear the Republican label, they defuse the opposition that would otherwise be roused against the positions they take. They operate in politics as the AIDS virus operates in the body – it fools the cell into thinking it is a defender against infection, all the while silently reprogramming that same cell to work for the death of the man.

A sign of the extent of this infection is the position many who think of themselves as principled conservatives are now taking in California. Not long ago, the question facing conservatives was whether to support candidates whose commitment on the most critical moral issues was in doubt. Now many so-called conservatives are eagerly surrendering to the political triumph of a man who aggressively advertises himself as an enthusiastic liberal on the most important of these issues, the matter of life and death.

Failure to address fundamental moral issues has already brought this republic to the brink of death. The issue of abortion, for instance, does not present us with a challenge of "more or less," in which we can rest content with only marginal progress, much less accept stalemate or conduct a limited retreat. Such a strategy may well be the permanently wisest course in some economic, or diplomatic matters.

But a nation that sanctions abortion as America does now has crossed fundamentally from blessings to curses. If we do not correct our course, we live in the last era of true liberty in America. To be a moral conservative in our time is to understand this fact, and its implications for our politics. This deep truth, not ephemeral poll numbers, is what the truly practical statesman must keep in mind.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is of the party of surrender on the question of life. Indeed, he stands with, and has always stood with, the enemy. He asserts that there is a fundamental "right to choose" death for the innocent unborn. The justification offered by his collaborators for allowing such a surrender by a "leader" of the GOP, our national pro-life party, is that the evils of a Schwarzenegger victory will be less than the evils of a Davis or Bustamante victory. This justification cannot be defended by anyone who truly believes that moral issues are of critical importance.

The essential primacy of the moral issues is precisely what conservatives supporting Schwarzenegger are forgetting, for all their alleged political shrewdness. This forgetfulness suggests a profound lack of wisdom, a loss of vision of the truly big things. In these days of fateful decision for self-government, loss of vision of the end is a worse fault than the lack of shrewdness about the means.

The Schwarzenegger corruption of the Republican Party – and apparently, of a significant portion of the conservative leadership of that party – in the name of victory threatens to undermine the very reason for the party's existence.

The worst enemy Republicans face in the political realm is not the Democrats, but the power of evil that lurks in all hearts. In the context of this true reality, the decision to vote for Schwarzenegger is not a clever tactical calculation. It is a strategic blunder. Troy did not fall until the Trojans brought the horse into their city. The Greeks offered them a false victory, and so destroyed them. The leadership of the California Republican Party does not appear much wiser than the Trojans', nor, I fear, will its fate be any happier.

Why have Arnold's "conservative" supporters been so sure from the beginning that the apparent electoral weakness of McClintock, the choice of merit, was not due to their failure to support him, as they bowed before an idol of false pragmatism?

It seems that many California Republican leaders never even seriously considered the recall as an opportunity to make their real case to the people of California. As I write this, the under-funded and under-reported McClintock defeats Bustamante in head-to-head polls, with Arnold off the ballot. A vast majority in the state understands even now that Tom McClintock is the candidate most able to handle California's fiscal crisis. Californians told pollsters, by a two-to-one margin, that McClintock won the debate, that two-thirds of them also said would be crucial to their choice on Oct. 7.

The recall had providentially presented Californians with the prospect of electing a principled moral conservative statesman to handle a crisis of government fiscal and budget policy that he has spent his entire career preparing to face. McClintock's predictable surge in the polls from an asterisk to nearly 20 percent, as voters began to focus on the question of who would replace Davis, and before his widely watched victory in the debate, positioned him for a final surge to victory.

California Republican leaders could have viewed this moment of opportunity through the lens of the statesman, not of the director of sitcom casting. But instead of uniting behind the obvious man of the hour, they increasingly viewed McClintock's surge as a problem, and have done their best to sabotage it.

All the clever calculations of "conservatives for Arnold" utterly disregard the demoralizing effect of such pragmatism on those who do respect their moral obligations – voters and prospective candidates alike. Such game-playing feeds the cynical reaction that disparages stands of principle as unrealistic and impractical. It tempts those who should rally round the courageous leaders raising the standard of principle to abandon them instead. All the while, our pragmatists mouth hollow words of praise for those, such as McClintock, who have consistently demonstrated their willingness to do what is right.

Tom's supporters are called arrogant for persisting in making moral judgments. Think about that for a moment. Why is it "arrogant" to act on what human beings can know, rather than to act as if we had knowledge that can only belong to God? Is it humble to have more faith in what the pollsters extrapolate in the present, and consultants predict about the future, than in what the Lord and reason have revealed to us all as the unchanging moral truth?

We cannot know the future. We cannot even be sure of how things stand at the moment. But one thing we can know with certainty is that many California Republicans now openly prefer a candidate they acknowledge to represent evil (the "lesser" of evils, as they call it, is evil still) over one who represents what they know to be good. Only God can have full and certain knowledge of the circumstances, of who is winning and a more viable candidate. The future lies in the care of Providence. But decent men can have certain knowledge of the right, of which candidate stands for moral truth and which against it.

Instead, the "pragmatic tough-mindedness" of our strategists of Republican "victory" leaves a good, courageous and decent leader like McClintock to his own devices, and studiously avoids examining the hard consequences of that abandonment. What could still be a moment of principled Republican unity behind a candidate uniquely qualified to address the crisis in California, threatens to become instead a nationally watched step in the moral suicide of a great party.

And here the circle of surrender is completed. Conservative leaders abandoning both principle – and principled men – do so, they say, because a decent political agenda cannot win at the polls. And yet, by this very abandonment, they pursue a persistent and thoughtless course destined to ensure the very scarcity of moral leadership they claim drives them to vote for Arnold. Surely there is no foolishness like the wisdom of the proud.

So much for the strategists, and their specious arguments. Now, one brief word to the citizens.

At the end of the day, it will not be leaders, but citizens, bold to vote their consciences, who will prevail. Or, not daring to do so, who will prove the ultimate cause of defeat and disarray. No religious conservative can deny that it is a serious moral obligation of religious political leaders to stand against abortion. And yet pro-life Christians voting for Arnold would neglect the obvious corollary – that it is the moral obligation of Christian voters to support pro-life leaders, such as Tom McClintock, when they take the right stand, especially against so-called Christian politicians like Schwarzenegger, a professed Roman Catholic, who is violating this obligation of his professed faith.

This nation desperately needs leaders who have the courage and integrity to stand without apology for policies that are morally right. If we have any such leaders left, it is surely thanks to God's grace and providence – and no thanks to the wisdom of self-terminating conservatives.

I pray to God that decent citizens will choose one of the few such men left to us in this hour of judgment for California and America.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: alankeyes; corruption; gop; liberalism; mcclintock; party; republican; schwarzenneger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 841-846 next last
To: sinkspur
Keyes isn't on the team.

He hasn't gone anywhere. He's still firmly on the conservative team.

It's you guys who are scoring TDs for the opposition.

21 posted on 10/06/2003 8:37:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: zook
An AS victory will give me 80% of what I want.

Do you have a laundry list of things, readily accessible or easily explained, that you want? I'd be interested in reading them.

22 posted on 10/06/2003 8:37:39 AM PDT by outlawcam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Keyes called Bush "evil" too

Source please.

23 posted on 10/06/2003 8:38:00 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; doug from upland
The Republicans who vote for Schwarzenegger will owe Bill Clinton an apology for having given the nation the impression that they sincerely believed character to be an issue for those claiming high office.

Doug - defender of Willey - needs to hear Alan on this issue. I ask again: would Doug and all the others who rightly screamed about the treatment of Willey by Clinton, have kept their mouths shut if it had been ARNOLD who groped her? It's looking like they might have. They seem to care less about Willey and women who are victimized than the party label of the alleged victimizer

24 posted on 10/06/2003 8:38:17 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabid Republican
Half of California's conservative base has been duped by Doof and his minions. It's not too late - the real poll is tomorrow.

Why have Arnold's "conservative" supporters been so sure from the beginning that the apparent electoral weakness of McClintock, the choice of merit, was not due to their failure to support him, as they bowed before an idol of false pragmatism?

It seems that many California Republican leaders never even seriously considered the recall as an opportunity to make their real case to the people of California. As I write this, the under-funded and under-reported McClintock defeats Bustamante in head-to-head polls, with Arnold off the ballot. A vast majority in the state understands even now that Tom McClintock is the candidate most able to handle California's fiscal crisis. Californians told pollsters, by a two-to-one margin, that McClintock won the debate, that two-thirds of them also said would be crucial to their choice on Oct. 7.

The recall had providentially presented Californians with the prospect of electing a principled moral conservative statesman to handle a crisis of government fiscal and budget policy that he has spent his entire career preparing to face. McClintock's predictable surge in the polls from an asterisk to nearly 20 percent, as voters began to focus on the question of who would replace Davis, and before his widely watched victory in the debate, positioned him for a final surge to victory.

25 posted on 10/06/2003 8:38:32 AM PDT by Rabid Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
I really don't see ANY Conservative principles being upheld by ANY Republican, including my President!

So Ahhnold is in good company.

26 posted on 10/06/2003 8:38:56 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Arnold is in good company.

With you.

I didn't need any more assurance that McClintock was the right choice, but there it is anyway.

27 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:05 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rabid Republican
"Expect Keyes's character to be drug through the mud on this thread. His message will be ignored."

Hey! That's not fair.

You're using a crystal ball.

28 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:08 AM PDT by G.Mason (Lessons of life need not be fatal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Keyes called Bush "evil" too

No, if he used that word about anybody in 2000, it was McCain. He didn't blast Bush in that race.

29 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:31 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Typical b/s. Blame one guy, Arnold Schwarzenegger, for all the ills befalling the Repulican party in California.

You need to read the whole article. The last few paragraphs put the blame exactly where it always must lie ultimately...and it ain't all on Arnold.

30 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:34 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
This is a false assumption.

Your assumption is obviously based on something. What is it?Is it based on polls, which indicate McClintock would win if Arnold was not in the race, or are they based on your own gut instinct?

31 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:35 AM PDT by outlawcam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
We don't have to "eat" and we certainly don't have to "swallow" everything that comes out of a person's mouth that claims to be a "Republican"??? I guess you supported David Duke too! But then you don't live here so what do you really care...you're not going to have to pay the con$equence$! VOTE4MCCLINTOCK or vote for the liberal(either one of them) and pay the freight! http://www.helptom.com
32 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:46 AM PDT by kellynla (USMC "C" 1/5 1st Mar Div. Viet Nam '69 & '70 Semper Fi VOTE4MCCLINTOCK http://www.tommcclintock.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
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.

33 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:47 AM PDT by Afronaut (Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: outlawcam
Yep. But I'm too busy to rehash this here now. Plenty of others have rattled off lists. The main thing for me is an R next to the name of the Calif. gov. This will damage the Dems and help Bush in 04.
34 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:50 AM PDT by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
You know I said on the other thread that, indeed, I've often been embarrassed by the Republican Party. But what's happened in California to the party is not Arnold's fault. He may have taken advantage of it, but he has not corrupted the party.

Alan Keyes was whining about the GOP long before the recall movement ever started.
35 posted on 10/06/2003 8:39:59 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (FRee post #2. Contribute to the FReepathon ---- www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
No, we are not. Because Arnold is not the opposition. He is a Republican. You are sadly mistaken if you think Republicans come in one size fits all. They do not, and it is silly, stupid, and counterproductive to keep insisting otherwise.

All Republicans are not pro-life. Sorry, but its true. All Republicans are not anti-immigration. Sorry, but its true.

As long as you keep believing that only your brand of conservatism is what makes a republican a republican, you will continue to be defeated at the polls.

36 posted on 10/06/2003 8:40:15 AM PDT by carton253 (All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: outlawcam
The Democratic Party is the party of abortion.

They have competition for the "pro-death" title now. When the Republican Party supports abortion it is no longer worthy of support.

37 posted on 10/06/2003 8:41:40 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
"I really don't see ANY Conservative principles being upheld by ANY Republican, including my President!"

" So Ahhnold is in good company."

Ain't that the truth?

I'm just happy the Whore House is now the White House!

Sad to say but a little at a time is the best "we" are gonna do.

38 posted on 10/06/2003 8:42:08 AM PDT by G.Mason (Lessons of life need not be fatal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff; doug from upland
To be fair, Doug has posted that if Arnold does something like this in the Governor's office, Doug will be first in line calling for his ouster. But I don't understand why this behavior becomes disqualifying only when done while in public office? Does that mean women are fair game for groping in other settings?
39 posted on 10/06/2003 8:42:10 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Well, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition supports Arnold wholeheartedly.

Their endorsement

40 posted on 10/06/2003 8:42:42 AM PDT by Bob (http://www.TomMcClintock.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 841-846 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