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

So you're supporting a candidate you concede is stupid, who cannot control his mouth? And you expect him to lead California and the Republican Party to greatness?

You got it.
I never said he was good, only that he was the best of the field.

101 posted on 09/14/2003 2:51:29 PM PDT by and the horse you rode in on (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)

I guess my question is why RINOs think that California would slide into the sea if the governor was pro-life.

No, moderate pubbies know that what a gov. thinks on abortion is no more relevant than what he thinks of life on Saturn. It is no longer a state issue, though it should be.

It was a faction of the Fetus Republicans who first brought the matter up.

102 posted on 09/14/2003 2:55:25 PM PDT by and the horse you rode in on (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)

I left the party in 2000. I voted for Buchanan.

And now you support Arnold.

In Drivers' Training, that is referred to as 'oversteering'...out of one ditch and into the other.

103 posted on 09/14/2003 3:03:57 PM PDT by EternalVigilance

To: and the horse you rode in on

It was a faction of the Fetus Republicans who first brought the matter up.

As opposed to the 'antiFetus Republicans' like yourself?

104 posted on 09/14/2003 3:05:20 PM PDT by EternalVigilance

I will give Dondero this much. The fight over California IS a fight for the soul of the national GOP.

Let me add to this from another slant...

I just re-read something that a LOT of SchwarzenKennedy supporters have forgotten about how Social LIEberal (R)'s are handled by the media, and the lefties in general...

"Being a "moderate" Republican satisfies the beast only as long as they still need you for your pro-abortion votes and demeaning quotes about your "fellow" Republicans. But no matter how much the press seems to idolize this or that "moderate Republican", the moment the feisty independent maverick is unnecessary, he will transform, overnight, into Joey Buttafuco.

The media may have a crush on liberal Republicans, but don't expect them to respect you in the morning.

As the Packwood case illustrates, politicians with something to hide---say, wild promiscuity, stupidity, Chappaquiddick, or a former membership in the Klu Klux Klan---had best be liberals.

There may be other reasons to be a liberal---generalized hatred of America, for example---but one good reason is you need the media's protection. Only politicians with nothing to hide dare risk displeasing the York Times editorial page."

------Ann Coulter. Slander, page 50.

This is what we conservatives are worried about...McClintock's been around, and the presstitutes have nothing they can pin on him!

But SchwarzenKennedy...there's a LOT there. And if he doesn't dance for the LIEberals like a good trained monkey, it'll all come spilling out!

As for..."Being a "moderate" Republican satisfies the beast only as long as they still need you for your pro-abortion votes and demeaning quotes about your "fellow" Republicans."... we see this happening now! "Right-Wing Crazies" ring a bell to all?

Again, I ask any SchwarzenKennedy supporter to explain how one can be a "Fiscal Conservative", and a "Social LIEberal"? Being conservative fiscally, one would never require the general public to pay for the LIEberal excesses!

Would someone please explain this impossible position to me?

105 posted on 09/14/2003 3:30:10 PM PDT by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)

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.

Only if the fiscal conservatives feel obligated to subsidize people for the results of bad behavior. The Libertarian response is: if they were true fiscal cnservatives, why should they feel so obligated?

106 posted on 09/14/2003 3:39:15 PM PDT by BlazingArizona

To: Tony in Hawaii

Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a libertarian. Owning a Milton Friedman book does not make you a libertarian.

The funny thing about this race is Tom McClintock is a libertarian.

107 posted on 09/14/2003 3:44:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Pataki slid though. His poltics are not the same as when he was first elected.

108 posted on 09/14/2003 3:46:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway

He has said he is libertarian on many issues

One can say anything they want. Howard dean is going around saying he is a fiscal conservative.

109 posted on 09/14/2003 3:51:20 PM PDT by nickcarraway

To: and the horse you rode in on

The Republican Party was founded on this same issue back in the 1850s.

110 posted on 09/14/2003 3:52:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway

To: Tony in Hawaii

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

Simple. He’s not a Conservative.

111 posted on 09/14/2003 3:55:58 PM PDT by Barnacle (Judges can give life to criminals, but never to their victims.)

Do you think a real conservative Republican could win the ~~California~~ Leftafornia governorship at this juncture in politics ... these ain't the days Ronald Reagan faced, so please don't waste time citing his wins and his reforms--which likely saved that state from going under sooner than now.

113 posted on 09/14/2003 4:59:42 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)

To: Tony in Hawaii

114 posted on 09/14/2003 5:04:47 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (>>>>>Ah'm takin' da 5th<<<<<)

To: nickcarraway

I was compairing Arnold to today's Pataki. Strongly liberal on social issues, and a big spender to boot. In short, a RINO, or as I like to call them, Clinton Republicans. Even so, he's infinitely better than Gray Davis, although not as good as McClintock, but he can get elected.

115 posted on 09/14/2003 5:48:49 PM PDT by Batrachian

Was your post intended to reply to #111?

116 posted on 09/15/2003 7:04:13 AM PDT by Barnacle (Judges can give life to criminals, but never to their victims.)

Well said! And we have the possibility of changing Arnold's stance on some social issues such as abortion on demand. No guarantees, but there isn't a chance in hell to change a democrat in the current mold of the democrat party which is absolutely pro-infanticide.

117 posted on 09/15/2003 7:54:49 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794