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

Skip to comments.

The Real Reason Conservatives are So Vehemently Opposed to the Candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger
www.allsouthwest.com ^ | Eric Dondero

Posted on 09/13/2003 2:46:24 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii

 
 

The Real Reason Conservatives are So Vehemently Opposed to the Candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger

By Eric Dondero

What do you think the real reason is for why the conservatives are so vehemently against the
Schwarzenegger candidacy?

It's not the reason they are telling you.  It's not because Arnold Schwarzenegger is a "liberal."  It's
because our so-called conservative cousins are scared to death that if Arnold wins his new brand of


"fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" Republicanism will catch on and spread like wildfire outside of California across the nation.

It almost happened a couple times in the past. Senator Barry Goldwater shocked fellow Conservatives by coming out for tolerance of Gays and for marijuana decriminalization in the late 1980s.  Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld came real close to popularizing a fiscally conservative/socially tolerant brand of Republicanism in the early 1990s. Jessie Ventura came real close too a few years later. If he had only been a Republican he might have pulled it off. And now out of California comes the Terminator.

Did you all catch Conservative Christian Reverend Lou Sheldon's remarks the day after Arnold announced a few weeks ago? It was vitriolic. This religious right Conservative standard-bearer was vicious in describing the "highly promiscuous hedonist" Arnold Schwarzenegger, playing it like he was almost "Satan incarnate." Now the American Spectator On-line (American Prowler), is brutally attacking Arnold every single day.  Social Conservative Columnist George Neuyamar has been merciless for weeks in savaging Arnold. Neuyamar blasts him cause he's tolerant on social issues. He and other Conservative Publications like the California Policy Review have been body-slamming Arnold sometimes even double-teaming him with two hit pieces a day.  They paint him as a "liberal" Republican.  They conveniently ignore his support for free market economics while playing up his
few liberal stances on social issues.

Yeah right!  Arnold is a "liberal."  If Arnold was such a liberal, than why is he such a fanatic devotee


of Mr. Libertarian himself Economist Milton Friedman? This appears on the Laissez Faire Books web site:

I started flipping the television dial. I caught a glimpse of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton
Friedman whom I recognized from my studies in economics. I didn't know I was watching Free to
Choose. It knocked me out. Dr. Friedman validated everything I ever thought about the way the economy works. I became a big pain in the neck about Free to Choose. All my friends and acquaintances got tapes as well as books for Christmas after Christmas. If I had come up with Free to Choose, maybe I wouldn't have got into body building. -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
 

Arnold has been a frequent attendee and speaker at Reason Foundation Banquets in Los Angeles over the years.  Even more it was recently uncovered that Arnold once attended an even more hardcore libertarian conference.  Former UCSD student and current PrestoPundit.com Columnist Gregory Ransom discovered Arnold's name as an attendee at an obscure conference on Austrian Economics held at his college in the 1980s. He wrote, "I remember picking up a small, poorly bound book that was a collection of papers presented at a very academic, very technical symposium on Austrian economics. On the first page was a small list of attendees at the conference, and there was Arnold Schwarzenegger's name."

Highly respected conservative and Washington Times Editorialist Donald Lambro had this to say about Arnold in a recent column; "he has deep-set political beliefs in the power of capitalism, deregulation and free markets to create economic prosperity. His reading includes books by Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist best known for his seminal free-market work, The Road to Serfdom."

And according to a San Jose Mercury News report, Schwarzenegger is a "fan of the University of Chicago Economics Department, which had provided President Reagan's economic advisers."

And this quote from Arnold once appeared in London's Financial Times; "I still believe in lower taxes -- and the power of the free market. I still believe in controlling government spending. If it's a bad
program, let's get rid of it."

Lending even more credibility to his libertarianism Schwarzenegger recently appointed hardcore free market economist and drug legalization advocate George Schultz of the Hoover Institute to be his top Economic Advisor.  In addition, the fact that Arnold has repeatedly asserted his enthusiastic support for Proposition 13 Property Tax Roll Back and Proposition 187 which eliminates illegal immigrants from the welfare rolls, proves that Schwarzenegger is not only a libertarian, but a pretty loyal one at that.

When was the last time liberal Republican stalwart Michael Bloomberg the Big Government tax-loving, cigarette smoker-hating SOB ever quoted Milton Friedman? When was the last time that RINO Dick Riordon ever contributed money to the libertarian Reason Foundation right there in Los Angeles? When was the last time squishy moderate Pete Wilson's name appeared on a roster of an Austrian Economics conference?  When was the last time liberal Republican Senators John Chaffee of Rhode Island or Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania ever appointed a libertarian like George Schultz of the Hoover Institute as his top economics advisor? Come to think of it when was the last time ANY REPUBLICAN AT ALL APPOINTED A LIBERTARIAN AS AN ECONOMIC ADVISOR?

I'll tell you when - 1980 when "supposed limited government advocate" Reagan threw us libertarians a bone in an effort to appease those of us who had backed him instead of Libertarian Ed Clark by
appointing libertarian David Stockman at OMB. And then, Reagan turned right around and stabbed us libertarians in the back by firing Stockman a year and a half later.

Let's take it a step further. Would a "liberal Republican" like Maine's Olympia Snowe, Connecticut's
Chris Shays, or even the Ripon Society, bastion of liberal Republicanism, support a Property Tax Cut
Initiative like Proposition 13? Would they support an Initiative to Stop Illegal Immigrants from mooching off our welfare system like Prop. 187?

Hell no! Those sorts of positions on issues give northeastern liberal Republicans stomach ulcers.

I know liberal Republicans. They do exist. I'd say they are about 5 to 10% of the entire Republican
Party, mostly in the Northeast with a few in California. In the early days of the Republican Liberty Caucus, we flirted a bit with the liberal Republicans. We visited with the Ripon Society folks. We made some outreach efforts to liberal Republicans in New Jersey through liberal-libertarian hybrid Dick
Zimmer's Campaigns for Congress. Believe me, Arnold Schwarzenegger IS NO RIPON SOCIETY REPUBLICAN! The Liberal to Moderate Republicans would be strenuously opposed to his views on immigration and tax cuts. They'd be extremely turned off that "right-wing kooks" like Dana Rhorabacher and Ed Royce are acting as Arnold's campaign advisors and accompanying him to
many of his campaign events and appearances.

No, Arnold is a solid "libertarian" Republican. That's spelled L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N.

Yes, Arnold leans more moderate than most libertarians, particularly more so than the anarcho-capitalists, paleo-libertarians or the extremist Libertarians in the Libertarian Party.  He
is a mainstream libertarian right smack dab in the middle of the libertarian movement.  On the World's
Smallest Political Quiz he comes out at about 75% to 80% on economics and maybe as much as 80 to 90% on personal freedom issues on the New Political Spectrum. Even more libertarian than Weld and certainly higher than Ventura.  Interestingly, this is exactly where Milton Friedman (and notably Barry Goldwater), ends up on the New Political Spectrum.

This is precisely why our so-called Conservative pals tremble in fear of the thought of a Schwarzenegger victory.  This is why you are witnessing such a saliva-spewing vitriolic response from Christian Conservatives, The American Spectator and other conservative groups and publications at the mere mention of Arnold's name.

This California race is about much more thanCalifornia. This is about changing the entire face of


the Republican Party for years to come. It is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Republican
Party. It represents the ultimate battle in the never-ending competition between the two frequently
warring right-wing factions: conservatives and libertarians.

First, in the late 1950s there was the firing and banishment from the Conservative movement of Frank
Meyers because he switched from conservative to libertarian, and the subsequent dismantling by
conservatives of the premiere libertarian think tank FEE.  Hayek reacted to the libertarian banishment in 1962 with his famous article, "Why I am Not a Conservative."  Then, there was the Young Americans for Freedom Split in 1969 in St. Louis where the libertarians walked out on the "trads" (more accurately were physically ejected). Then there was Reagan's campaign recognizing the appeal of libertarianism and stealing rhetoric from Libertarian Presidential Candidate Ed Clark in 1980, enough to win the election, along with his subsequent "night of the long knives" firing a year later of the Administration's leading libertarian Budget Director David Stockman. Then there was the Conservative Establishment's on-slaught against libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul when Ron chose to run for re-election in 1996. Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, Ed Meese and just about every single washed up Social Conservative who had an opening on their schedule came down to Texas Congressional District 14 to campaign against that "extremist libertarian" Ron Paul.

And now we have the California race, where every social conservative in the country is pulling out all


the stops to make sure that libertarian Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't pull this thing off. So much so
in fact, that I've even seen conservatives in various on-line forums promulgating the line that it's "better to have Schwarzenegger lose and have two more years of Dems Davis or Bustamante" so that they can get a "real conservative" to run in 2004.

This race has little to do with California Budgetary matters. No this race is not about Gray Davis. This has everything to do with the Decade's Old War between Libertarians and Conservatives. The Christian Right/Drug Warrior Coaltion, made up of folks like Lou Sheldon, George Neuyamar, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell just won't stand for any Republican being elected to a high profile office who has a good sex life and makes a few positive remarks about medical use of marijuana.
 

A man who once bragged in a Dirty Magazine about some sexual orgies he's had in his life and all the
hundreds of beautiful women he has had sex with?

Heavens No! We can't stand for that!" the social conservatives say, huffing and puffing.

Will we let the social conservatives prevail yet again? Or will we libertarians come out on top?

If you are a libertarian of any stripe you should be out there campaigning as hard as you can for Arnold Schwarzenegger. You don't need to agree with him on all the issues. This fight is about much more than Arnold. It is a battle for the heart and soul of the Right. The conservatives have treated us libertarians as a bastard step-child for too damn long.

To steal an old political line: "Let's win won for Uncle Milty."
 
 
 

*Note - Eric Dondero Rittberg is a Libertarian
Republican Activist living in Houston, Texas.  He is a
former National Committeeman of the Libertarian Party,
LP candidate for state legislature, and served as Ron
Paul's Travel Aide in his 1988 Libertarian


Presidential Campaign.  In 1990, he Founded the
Republican Liberty Caucus.  He went on to serve as RLC
Chairman, Executive Director and National
Spokesperson.



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: libertarian; rlc; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last
Posted for your perusal, I'm not sure how much of this is wishful thinking. True, Arnold has some good advisors, but he also has some very bad ones.
1 posted on 09/13/2003 2:46:25 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
Being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is impossible. Why?? Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.
2 posted on 09/13/2003 2:53:26 PM PDT by chris1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
This California race is about much more than California. This is about changing the entire face of the Republican Party for years to come.

In the long term, it is about the sure death of the Republican Party if social conservartives are marginalized and and rejected.

In the short term, it is about the sure loss of the White House in 2004. Karl Rove had better pay close attention. Bush cannot win without the votes of the social conservatives that Arnold and the Log Cabin Republicans despise.

And make no mistake about it: social conservatives WILL stay home on election day if their only choice is to vote for a social liberal Republican or a social liberal Democrat.

Social conservatives are the life-force of the Republican Party. Only they truly appreciate and understand the truth that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are mutually exclusive.

3 posted on 09/13/2003 3:01:58 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; DoctorZIn
Not saying I agree with this article, but it's interesting.
4 posted on 09/13/2003 3:27:47 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii (Actually Tarzana CA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
It is revealing. I appreciate the ping. I'll check it out.
5 posted on 09/13/2003 3:33:09 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Lots of issues tied up in this article, some true some not.

Let me just address a couple:
WRT conservative, maybe we agree, with fiscal conservatism all else follows the conservative path. This is often said while there are no absolutes...

But the word libertarian covers a lot of ground at least in the "thought forming for many press".

The father of libertarian ideas was Friedrich Hayek -- Rush renewed Hayek's fame by advertizing his book, The Road to Serfdom,certainly worth the read. (eg "why the worst get to the top.")

But so are all of Hayek's collected works, re: fiscal conservatism worth reading.

Often, I see that the Von Mises institute gathers and muddies Hayek. The reason they represent Hayek's ideals -- no started out that way, is known but not a nice story.

So for me, libertarianism means Hayek -- but we can no longer state it. Liberal hedonism seems to have taken over the word.

But we also cannot lump into a dish conservatism and religion. Hayek received a nobel prize for his work and so did a man whose work he admired called Rudolf Euchen (in around 1910), a German fiscal conservative. Euchen wrote "Konnen wir noch Kristin sein" (sp) wrt to socialism which he wrote, destroys the human spirit.

The article posted here mixes true and untrue and then states conclusions on false premises...





6 posted on 09/13/2003 3:37:27 PM PDT by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Look Kevin. I've been there. In 2000 I felt the same way you do. People voiced the same opinion we did and they left the party and voted for others. Where did that get us?

I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but until the debate is somehow made more sellable, you and I have no power at all.

I left the party in 2000. I voted for Buchanan. Did that accomplish what you thought it would?

I don't want Bustamante in there. If McClintock were able to surpass Schwarzenegger in polls, I'd vote for him. I've said so here till my fingers are sore. I can't change reality bud. Niether can you.

If Bustamate gets in, there is going to be a figurative bloodbath on conservative values that you could have only dreamed of in your worst nightmares. Why can't you see that?
7 posted on 09/13/2003 3:38:30 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
his new brand of "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" Republicanism

BWAHAHAHAHA!

This reminds me of the tortured logic espoused by Fred Barnes the other week trying to explain why it's ok for the Prez to be a big government Repubbie. I don't care what labels they chose to use. There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible Nanny State.

8 posted on 09/13/2003 3:40:02 PM PDT by Camachee (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris1
Jesse Ventura was a fiscal conservative and social moderate. (Healthy dose of personal responsibility.) Big difference between social liberal (victimhood) and social moderate (personal responsibility).
9 posted on 09/13/2003 3:45:16 PM PDT by tkathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
"Let's win won for Uncle Milty."

Is misspelling a libertarian thing ("Who are THEY to make up rules on how to spell)?

10 posted on 09/13/2003 3:46:30 PM PDT by Ed_in_NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
He is no Free Enterprise Republican.

But he is in touch with the Neo-Conservative
dream.

A muscular government that serves the interests
the Neo-Conservatives want it to serve
Big Business along with social liberalism.

Arnold is cut form that model.

And they wish to push real conservatives
down to the bottom of the party and just tell
them they should behave like blacks do toward
Democrats and just go along with this garbage
no matter how badly they get done.
11 posted on 09/13/2003 3:48:24 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
If Bustamate gets in, there is going to be a figurative bloodbath on conservative values that you could have only dreamed of in your worst nightmares. Why can't you see that?

  I know I've made my decision. When polled, or in conversations, I say I'm voting for McClintock. When it comes time to vote, I'll see whether he or Arnold is ahead in the polls, and vote for that one. If Bustamante is leading either of them in the polls, I'll vote no on the recall, and still vote for the leader of Arnie or McClintock.

  No matter how much I dislike Davis, I don't want Bustamante as Governor.

Drew Garrett

12 posted on 09/13/2003 3:49:24 PM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
Jesse was a lot better than Arnold is.
13 posted on 09/13/2003 3:49:24 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: agarrett
I think you're headed in the right direction, but consider this. If the recall is defeated, the state debt will be something like $70 to $80 billion before the next election.
15 posted on 09/13/2003 3:57:10 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
I think it's highly premature to state that Arnold Schwarzenneger is a fiscal conservative. In fact, I think the evidence is that he's a big government spender just like George W. Bush, except that GWB is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I cite his referendum for after school programs paid for by, you guessed it, the taxpayers, as well as his numerous statements about the importance of government programs, especially for children (invoking The Children is always a red flag for me).

I think that if he's elected he'll try to balance the budget by a mixture of budget cuts, tax increases and by selling bonds, which is what the California Democrats want, but Arnold would use a different mixture of the three. Then, when the economy turns around and the tax base recovers he'll jack spending way up again to fund those programs that are so dear to his heart. He's said he'll do exactly that, in fact.

Arnold is no conservative, either socially or fiscally, nor is he a libertarian. He's a liberal who just happens to be a Republican. Sort of like a California version of George Pataki.

16 posted on 09/13/2003 3:58:00 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Princeliberty
Once again the over the top terms are pulled out of mothballs to defend the defenseless.
17 posted on 09/13/2003 4:00:54 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
Horse manure. If Arnold was really a libertarian, the GOP would want nothing at all to do with him. Never heard of a gun-control libertarian before, either. This is extremely suspicious considering the way libertarians are routinely condemned and derided as kooks by liberal Republicans.
18 posted on 09/13/2003 4:12:19 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Israel is the canary in the coal mine of Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
How long you been smoking this stuff?

Ronald Reagan? Barry Goldwater?

19 posted on 09/13/2003 4:22:46 PM PDT by Publius6961 (californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
This article almost makes Arnold seem like a Gary Johnson Republican (former governor of New Mexico, who definitely had major libertarian influences). I do not think Arnold Schwarzenegger compares with Gary Johnson (one obvious difference is RKBA). But then, we could be surprised.
20 posted on 09/13/2003 4:24:25 PM PDT by Fred Hayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
I didn't write the article, fool.
21 posted on 09/13/2003 4:28:02 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii (Actually Tarzana CA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
Ping for later
22 posted on 09/13/2003 4:29:29 PM PDT by BlackElk (Lakota Nation never legalized abortion, except the post-natal kind for Custer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek
This article almost makes Arnold seem like a Gary Johnson Republican (former governor of New Mexico, who definitely had major libertarian influences). I do not think Arnold Schwarzenegger compares with Gary Johnson (one obvious difference is RKBA). But then, we could be surprised.

Gary Johnson (Johnston?), was that the same guy who wrote for "Guns & Ammo" in the 1980's? If that is him, I also remember him writing articles for the special issues like on assault rifles back then too.
23 posted on 09/13/2003 4:29:41 PM PDT by Nowhere Man ("Laws are the spider webs through which the big bugs fly past and the little ones get caught.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
No difference at all for the dead babies.
24 posted on 09/13/2003 4:32:17 PM PDT by BlackElk (Lakota Nation never legalized abortion, except the post-natal kind for Custer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
In addition, the fact that Arnold has repeatedly asserted his enthusiastic support for Proposition 13 Property Tax Roll Back and Proposition 187 which eliminates illegal immigrants from the welfare rolls, proves that Schwarzenegger is not only a libertarian, but a pretty loyal one at that.

Arnold hasn't asserted ongoing enthusiasm for #187, he's running away from it.

You bet I don't want appeasement on Illegal Aliens spreading to the rest of the GOP.


25 posted on 09/13/2003 4:34:20 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Arnold opposes the driver's licenses, but he also wants to lobby DC to legalize Illegal Aliens. Ah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
*Note - Eric Dondero Rittberg is a Libertarian Republican Activist living in Houston, Texas. He is a former National Committeeman of the Libertarian Party, LP candidate for state legislature, and served as Ron Paul's Travel Aide in his 1988 Libertarian

A Losertarian...figures. The people without whom we would have a 2 additional Senate seat majority is going to preach to us? Yeah, sure.

26 posted on 09/13/2003 4:34:26 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris1
Because socially liberal values cost the taxpayer many many dollars in terms of dealing with its results.

For example???

27 posted on 09/13/2003 4:36:25 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
You can't be libertarian and a gun grabber. PERIOD.
28 posted on 09/13/2003 4:36:25 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Our party will never be the choice of the NRA" - John F. Kerry, who looks French)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Agreed, which is why I find the article rather odd. Still, I figured it was worth a look.
29 posted on 09/13/2003 4:41:41 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii (Actually Tarzana CA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
I well understand that you are only posting the article and not expressing agreement with it. It is a worthwhile post because it shows more of the ugly underside of the dishonesty that is Arnie's campaign.

In 1969, Mr. Dondero's friends/heroes tried to hijack Young Americans for Freedom. They failed then and they will fail now to hijack the GOP. George Schultz is about as libertarian as Slick Willie. Frank Meyer died in 1972 as Managing Editor of National Review, baptised Catholic on his deathbed with Bill Buckley as his Godfather. He was NOT purged from the conservative movement at any time. I believe he was the sharpest ideologue at NR. His wife Elsie was also an NR editor until her death.

Friedrich von Hayek's Road to Serfdom is a major bulwark of conserrvatism and was distributed free by Young Americans for Freedom in tens of thousands of copies long after 1962. Friedrich von Hayek was not a conservative because he did not believe in God.

That Arnold attended a few economics conferenes or even believes in market solutions is not enough. The market is failing in job creation. Dondero can say that our philosophy is "Devil take the Hindmost" but Arnold had better not agree publicly or he is complete toast.

Ron Paul is an honorable but thoroughly evventric man who has totally marginalized himself. As I understand it, Ron Paul is still a militant pro-lifer, unlike Arnold. Ron Paul's problems are neo-isolationism and an yutterly impractical expectation of treatment of the onstitution as the Ur documen of our nation. If, blessedly, that view might ever be restored, it will not be within the lifetimes of Ron Paul's great grandchildren.

I will give Dondero this much. The fight over California IS a fight for the soul of the national GOP. Will it be pro-death (like left Demonrats and other libertines) or pro-life (like GOP platforms and voting records)? Will it be pro-gun (like libertarians and conservatives) or anti-gun (like Arnold)? Will it be pro-homosexual or not? Will it be (like Demonrats and "paleos" and unlike Arnold) isolationist or interventionist (like Arnold and normal conservatives)? There are m,any other issues as well. Thirty some odd years into the existence of the Libertarian Party it is obvious that that party is stricly an electoral loser. Those in LP circles are again looking at taking over the better brand name of GOP. They aren't going to be allowed to have it.

30 posted on 09/13/2003 4:56:20 PM PDT by BlackElk (Lakota Nation never legalized abortion, except the post-natal kind for Custer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint; Kevin Curry
AIDS treatment comes immediately to mind.
31 posted on 09/13/2003 4:57:20 PM PDT by BlackElk (Lakota Nation never legalized abortion, except the post-natal kind for Custer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Drug legalization.
32 posted on 09/13/2003 5:08:17 PM PDT by chris1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: chris1
Drug legalization

Drugs aren't legal so that is a bad example. The cost of keeping them illegal is what really is hurting us both financially and morally. The cost to society of just letting the dopers kill themselves slowly would be a lot less than we spend trying unsuccessfully to keep them from doing it. Happens anyway so what have we gained?

33 posted on 09/13/2003 5:24:42 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

34 posted on 09/13/2003 5:26:28 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
There's a big difference between being truely socially tolerant and socially liberal. Liberals want to use the government to force their views on the rest of society. Many middle of the roaders wish to be "tolerant" and either endorse or at least not oppose liberal legislation and regulation. This of course betrays tolerance for the rest of society i.e. social conservatives. A truely tolerant approach would to get government out of most of this business completely and localize the rest to let people decide these issues for themselves from town to town.
35 posted on 09/13/2003 5:34:21 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Most interesting article. If Bustamante gets in, he'll reward the far left liberals and MeCHa-supporting Hispanics who elected him--to the detriment of the State of CA and the entire nation. We'll be moaning then about marginalizing of the conservative Republicans!
36 posted on 09/13/2003 5:35:25 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
AIDS treatment comes immediately to mind.

Don't get me going on AIDS.

I happen to be from the Duesberg school. AIDS is caused by hard drug use and the multiple viral and bacterial infections that naturally come with unprotected anal sex. The drugs eat away at your immune system and that allows one of the viruses eventually drags you down and kills you. Look back at the 25 years or so of the "AIDS pandemic" and you will see that this theory fits the facts and explains why drug users and gays (who are very big drug users) are really the only people dying of AIDS.

The HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS. If it was, we would all be dead by now. Assuming I'm right and I am, the cost of AIDS to society has been inflated by a factor of 100 or so just to fund the studies required to support a false hypothesis (HIV=AIDS) and to try to develop a vaccine to cure the problem. They are failing at this and they will fail forever because AIDS isn't caused by a virus.

So your example is not a good one.

37 posted on 09/13/2003 5:35:34 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
"It's not the reason they are telling you. It's not because Arnold Schwarzenegger is a "liberal." It's because our so-called conservative cousins are scared to death that if Arnold wins his new brand of "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant" Republicanism will catch on and spread like wildfire outside of California across the nation."

No Eric, it has already caught on.

38 posted on 09/13/2003 5:42:02 PM PDT by Enough is ENOUGH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
I couldn't agree more.

Just look at how many of them SCREAMS "Baby Killer" and "Homo Lover".

They have problems and they're afraid.
39 posted on 09/13/2003 5:43:55 PM PDT by A Broken Glass Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
This California race is about much more than California. This is about changing the entire face of the Republican Party for years to come. It is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. It represents the ultimate battle in the never-ending competition between the two frequently warring right-wing factions: conservatives and libertarians.

There are some great points in this article, and there are some stupid ones.

I guarantee that Arnie is not the vanguard of a divisive libertarian/Republican battle nationwide. He is merely another example of the range of thought in the Republican party.

We've always had the social conservatives, the religious right, the economic conservatives, the libertarian strict constructionists, and some RINOs we couldn't quite understand held any of the above views.

But the rest of the nation views what is going on in California as purely a local circus. It may be dividing Republicans in California, but there's no spillover anywhere else.

40 posted on 09/13/2003 5:44:48 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Bush cannot win without the votes of the social conservatives that Arnold and the Log Cabin Republicans despise.

I don't know any of them that "Despise" socal conservatives. Social conservatives only use that word again, and again, and again, and again, because it's obviously the way they feel about them. They can't understand what it's like to NOT feel that way.

41 posted on 09/13/2003 5:46:22 PM PDT by A Broken Glass Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
"libertarian David Stockman " ?????? Didn't Stockman get canned for advocating higher taxes?
42 posted on 09/13/2003 5:49:21 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man
Yes same guy and he was even pro-life too so
not the same as Arnold at all!
43 posted on 09/13/2003 5:49:56 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Yes and Stockman later attacked conservatives for
being too eager to cut the size of Government!
44 posted on 09/13/2003 5:50:57 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
Plus, everytime one of these social liberal
economic conservative types gets elected they
ALWAYS raise taxes and increase talke Wilson,
Taft, Weld etc..
46 posted on 09/13/2003 5:53:43 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
twit
47 posted on 09/13/2003 5:58:07 PM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
#30. Excellent post!
48 posted on 09/13/2003 6:06:50 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
Jesse Ventura was a fiscal conservative and social moderate. (Healthy dose of personal responsibility.) Big difference between social liberal (victimhood) and social moderate (personal responsibility).

You are being extremely kind to Jesse. Jesse was all over the place. But as Joe "mayor of garage logic" said Jesse was for Jesse. He was only conservative things that would personally benefit him. (Like a flat fee for vehicle registration, because Jesse felt that it was unfair that he have to pay a much higher fee just because he drove an expensive sports car.) But he was liberal on the social issues, and for a lot of big spending programs, like light rail.

49 posted on 09/13/2003 6:17:39 PM PDT by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii
Article written by a very confused individual....
about a very confused guy....
50 posted on 09/13/2003 6:32:46 PM PDT by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 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