Posted on 10/08/2003 6:32:17 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Such a nice turn of phrase, and so logic-free.
Government is the lesser of two evils (Tom Paine called it "a necessary evil") when compared to anarchy. If we had a referendum tomorrow between anarchy and a Republic, would you step into the booth and write in "George Washington" or would you vote for the lesser of two evils?
In the California race there were two candidates who had a chance to win. One of them was willing to risk driver's licenses falling into Al-Qaida hands. The other wasn't. McClintock voters went home with a warm fuzzy feeling because they chose not to help the second guy.
Lastly, let's remember, we're not talking about Hitler, and we're not talking about preventing the holocaust. You don't get any more pro-abortion than Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante. The very worst that can happen is that no babies will be saved under Arnold that would have been killed under Bustamante. It's not "holocaust vs. no holocaust" it's "holocaust under a scumbag vs. holocaust under a non-scumbag and maybe even a win or two." Hitler analogies suck, but I'll go with it if you are really going to be that silly: It's like it's 1942 and some Wermacht general says to an Allied agent, "If you give us a little help, we can kill Hitler and replace him with this guy I know named Ernst. We're not absolutely sure he'll shut down the camps, but he will stop the war, and some of his close advisors are in favor of helping the Jews." And you guy are saying the Allies should respond, "No thanks, not unless you can put Corrie ten Boom in charge."
You are correct. Oops.
Parental notification is another easy choice for a populist like Arnold to make.
Just because it's populist doesn't mean it's not a good policy. I swear, some pro-lifers would rather get a pro-life guy in and lose every single fight than take one victory that actually saves some lives and puts parents in charge.
I'm proud of my screen name
You should be. I love Reagan. In my mind the only debate about Reagan should be "Was he 2nd best behind Washington or third best behind Lincoln?"
Reagan was a pro-lifer, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life/health of the mother. That means Reagan opposed roughly 95% of all abortions.
True, but I wasn't talking about his views. I was talking about policy actions. there are many pro-lifers who feel little got done on the issue during Reagan's presidency. I disagree, however, all of what Reagan did for the pro-life cause was incremental "moving the chains" not massive sweeping change. Take the Mexico City policy, for instance: Didn't save one american baby, but it made sure no American's taxes supported PP's agenda to make sure there are fewer brown people in the world.
My remarks were directed at Arnold's pro-abortion position and the fact that his opposition to PBA is politically motivated and populist by design.
Again, populist does not equal wrong. Also, I doubt that he did take this position for populist reasons. Why would he have to when the reason that Davis was in trouble had nothing to do with Davis' views on abortion? Also, one of the reasons pro-lifers have fought the PBA fight so hard is that there is a major revulsion factor among pro-choicers in relation to this procedure. It is so strong in fact, that about 99% of rank-and-file pro-choicers who oppose the ban oppose it because they believe it could lead to a total ban (or because they believe the procedure is only performed for good medical reasons) not because they believe it's a good idea. One doesn't have to enamored of Arnold to figure he might be looking at PBA and thinking, "Mein Gott! What kind of sicko would support that?"
Normally yes (and this was not gossip) but the last time I discussed this issue with this person, she implied that:
1. I was a sinful person because I thought that voting in a way that impeded the racist who would be soft on terrrorism was a good idea.
2. Didn't care about the facts when I proved that the candidate I supported would not be soft on terrorism, as she had alleged he would be.
Some of the folks in this thread are giving me a hard time, but none of them are refusing reason or discarding facts. I don't see why we need to bring in somebody who would.
In my opinion, its Washington, Lincoln, Reagan.
>>>Again, populist does not equal wrong.
I never said it was wrong. I've just never found populists to be my kind of people. And no, Reagan wasn't a populist, FDR and LBJ were populists. OTOH, Clinton was a phony populist.
As with Eisenhower, both he and Reagan were respected, admired and feared by people across the political spectrum. I'd rather stick to my guns and be feared, then be a populist and fail.
I beleive Mcclintock should have had strong support from day one, but once it became apparent he couldn't win the question became who to vote for that had a chance to win.
Politics is war by other means, the vote is your weapon. If you're firing off your weapon in a way that aids the enemy, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are.
The Catholic Church teaches us now to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Abortion wasn't the only issue though, was it? In the California race there were two candidates who had a chance to win. One of them was willing to risk driver's licenses falling into Al-Qaida hands in order to gain a few votes. The other was opposed to that risk. McClintock voters went home with a warm fuzzy feeling because they chose not to help the second guy.
Yes, for upper class twit of the year.
Better pick a different example. Spector would have to be the Second Coming of Reagan before I'd even think about supporting him for dogcatcher. Why? It's a little known fact that Arlen came up with the Single Bullet theory of the Kennedy Assassination. He's bad news for reasosn far beyond ideology.
Proof? Do you have any facts to back that up, or is that just your opinion?
I seriously want to know.
Here's a news flash: I didn't support Arnold because of the "R", I supported him because of the "MAP" that should have been after Bustamante's name, for "MECHA, Al-Qaida and Planned Parenthood."
Here's another news flash: Pro-choice activists always use every political event to advance their cause. When a pro-lifer's in office, pro-choice activists use him as a bogeyman, when a pro-choicer's in office they claim that he's showing the real way and that everybody else should get with the program. I went over to the RFC PAC website, and they also have press releases claiming that Jim Jeffords' jump was a sign pro-choice is the way to go and that the current GOP platform opposes sex. To these people, a bad corn harvest is a sign that the GOP should be pro-choice and that pro-lifers are inherently unhip idiots. If Arnold had gone down in flames, they would be on TV today saying, "Well, the voters of California saw the 'R' after Arnold's name and were unable to understand that he's not really a repressed woman-hating pro-lifer" or "Californians value baby-killing so highly that only Cruz 'kill-em-all' Bustamante was acceptable to them. The GOP needs to step into the 21st century and endorse all forms of baby-killing."
Praise to the Almighty and Omniscient God that it will be HE who judges on that Day, and not YOU.
What part of "Planned Parenthood's chosen candidate Cruz Bustamante" did you not understand?
What part of this did you not understand?
You know, when I'm judged, I'm sure I'll get credit from God for reading my Bible. I'm sure I won't get any credit if I'm too busy reading my Bible to kill a rattlesnake that's hunting my kid. What good is a pro-life vote that doesn't help any babies get out of the womb alive?
Thank you, Wfan. And let me add one more thing, prolife: I don't think either one of us is going to have to answer for this on Judgement Day, we both did what we thought was right with the light that we had. But you've been on my pro-life ping list for months: Do you really think I'm interested in compromising what's right? If so, I can't imagine what the heck I'd have to do to convince you that I love God and his innocent children.
Back in the days right after Arnold announced, you are correct. On the day of the election, not so. And I don't base my "McClintock couldn't have won" statement on his politics, I base it on the fact that between them Arnold and Cruz were projected to take over 75% of the vote between them.
Kinda like freeing the slaves one a week would have been back in the 19th century.
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.