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

Skip to comments.

BILL SIMON'S GAY AGENDA
Campaign for California Families e-mail paraphrasing San Francisco Chronicle article ^ | 28 August 2002 | Campaign for California Families

Posted on 08/29/2002 12:10:12 AM PDT by Rockitz

Simon Vows to Promote Statewide Gay Pride Day and Award Rights of Marriage to Gays and Other Cohabitants

Sacramento - In a shocking announcement, gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon has committed to support several components of the homosexual agenda. As published today in the San Francisco Chronicle, Simon submitted answers to a questionnaire from the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans of California. In his answers, Simon said that if elected governor, he would proclaim a statewide Gay Pride Day, empower homosexuals in the Republican Party and award additional rights of marriage to "domestic partners" and other unmarried cohabitants. The Republican candidate also said he would not repeal or modify laws signed by Governor Gray Davis to facilitate adoption of children by homosexual couples. Simon spoke about his domestic-partners plan yesterday on KGO Radio in San Francisco.

"This is such a shock," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization. "Why has Bill Simon chosen this path? We already knew Gray Davis' record of undermining marriage and promoting the transsexual, bisexual and homosexual agenda against average families. We never would have believed that Bill Simon would sell out on this key family-values issue. But it's true."

Simon's new-found support for "domestic partnerships" and "adding rights" of marriage for unmarried couples is a contradiction of his Marriage Protection Pledge. Signed with his own hand on February 6, 2002, Simon said he would "refuse to support 'domestic partnerships,' 'civil unions,' or any kind of relationship that compares itself to the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman."

"Gray Davis has shown himself to be corrupt on family values, and now Simon has shown himself to be untrustworthy on some of the same vital issues," said Thomasson. "Bill Simon has put pro-family voters in a very difficult position. It's very sad that voters are left with two candidates for governor, both of whom would undermine marriage and promote the gay agenda."

In Simon's questionnaire that he submitted to the Log Cabin Republicans of California, he said as Governor he would:

Declare a statewide Gay Pride Day: "In June 2003 I will sign a proclamation declaring Gay Pride Day."

Support "domestic partnerships" and award more rights of marriage to unmarried cohabitants: "I am supportive of the concept of a domestic partnership law...I believe that any two people who fit the qualifications of the law should be able to have their relationship recognized by the state...I would not support undoing any of the rights that currently are available under the law, but I believe those rights should be extended to others as well. In addition, I would be open about adding rights and responsibilities as would be appropriate and justified...I do believe that human beings enter into relationships with other human beings and that some of those relationships are deserving of recognition...in order to allow two individuals who have established a strong caring relationship to more fully function within that relationship."

Empower homosexual activists within the California Republican Party: "I support the continued recognition and involvement of gay Republicans in state party activities...I would back a state party charter for the Log Cabin (Republicans) of California."

Simon's new-found gay agenda is especially surprising given the history of another statewide Republican candidate who signed a pledge to support the gay agenda four years ago. Nine days before he lost to Barbara Boxer in the 1998 U.S. Senate race, Matt Fong signed a pledge to support much of the agenda of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans. Fong's campaign consultant, Sal Russo, is also the main consultant for Bill Simon.

Campaign for California Families has tracked how the Governor and individual legislators have voted on the protection of marriage. While Bill Simon has signed the Marriage Protection Pledge -- and broken his pledge -- Governor Gray Davis has refused to pledge to protect marriage. This isn't surprising given Davis' record. Over the last three years, Governor Davis has signed into law major pieces of legislation that undermine marriage. This year, Davis promised gay activists that he would try to bring "civil unions" (Vermont-style homosexual marriage) to California.

In 1999, Davis signed AB 26, which established a statewide "domestic partners" registry and required taxpayers to fund marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual partners of state employees.

In 2001, Davis signed AB 25, which awarded over a dozen rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners."

In 2002, Davis signed two bills, AB 1330 and AB 1684, which awarded additional marriage and family rights to a segment of state employees' "domestic partners." In addition, the Governor has established a special task force to review how to enact a "civil union" law to bring Vermont-style homosexual marriage to California.

CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES (CCF) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots lobbying organization serving families in this state and across America. Sign up today for CCF's free email updates. Your partnership empowers CCF to work to restore family-friendly values to government and society. Please join with us by sending a gift of any size to:

Campaign for California Families Fighting to Restore Family-Friendly Values P.O. Box 782, Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 443-1410 www.savecalifornia.com

One hundred percent of CCF's resources can be used to boldly influence government on your family's behalf, therefore gifts are not tax deductible.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: billsimon; calgov2002; california; campaign2002; gayagenda; governor; greydavis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
Very disturbing! Join me in voting "no" for governor!
1 posted on 08/29/2002 12:10:13 AM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
why, exactly?
2 posted on 08/29/2002 12:17:08 AM PDT by TheAngryClam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Carry_Okie; *calgov2002; SierraWasp; Gophack; eureka!; ElkGroveDan; Libertarianize the GOP; ...
PAINFUL PING!
4 posted on 08/29/2002 12:19:09 AM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Oh go screw. I'm sure that Gray Davis will uphold the sanctity of marriage, huh? And Dick Riordan? Pro-family, right? What idiotic timing for this crap.
5 posted on 08/29/2002 12:20:02 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
"I am supportive of the concept of a domestic partnership law.

Oh Sh.t! If this is true, Simon is a buffoon.

6 posted on 08/29/2002 12:20:08 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
I like the snippet from Rockitz' blurb: "my mother worked for the Goldwater campaign so my conservative roots are deep". Yeah right, just like Hillary's, huh?

Go back to DU, punk.

7 posted on 08/29/2002 12:21:41 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Stay home on Nov. 5th folks. Bill Simon's campaign doesn't care about the values or lifestyles of pro-family Californians but it will pursue with ardor those who are clearly opposed to them. It looks like those of us who believe in traditional values have been misled, conned and sold-out. We don't have to vote this November. Please help to send the Simon campaign and the GOP the message that you're sick and tired of being taken for granted and ignored. Its about time our party and its candidates started representing American families in the highest levels of our government.
8 posted on 08/29/2002 12:21:46 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
to clarify before someone overzealously bans me without realizing that I'm for real, and I've been on FR for a nice long time...

Goldwater himself argued for more tolerance of gay people. Marriages are, at their most basic, stripped of religion level, contracts.

What justification do you have for stripping people of their free will to join a contract? Free will is one of the foundations of all western, republican (small R) freedoms. So I ask a very basic question: why ought we to restrict this very basic and very precious freedom? Is there a justification?
9 posted on 08/29/2002 12:21:55 AM PDT by TheAngryClam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Forgive me, but it would be difficult to explain to someone from Berkley. Hope you understand. Love and kisses.
10 posted on 08/29/2002 12:23:51 AM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It seems he is more interested in courting the perverted losers in the Democrtic ranks than asking conservatives to vote for him. This gay a$$ kissing scheme will get him about 7 gay votes, and turn off 7000 Republicans. What a maroon.
11 posted on 08/29/2002 12:26:01 AM PDT by Captainpaintball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Unreal. If there was a way to get the conservative right to stay home on election day, this is it.
12 posted on 08/29/2002 12:27:12 AM PDT by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
LOL!
13 posted on 08/29/2002 12:27:38 AM PDT by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
see post #9 for reasoning behind it.

Also, I grew up in Placer county in John Doolittle's district. That is deep in conservative country, good mountain people who like their guns and property and hate their taxes. Berkeley has nothing to do with it. I loathed that city and graduated from the university early to escape it.

Additionally, I worked for Simon in the primary. People who paid attention on FR know this.

That said, I still want to hear the why.
14 posted on 08/29/2002 12:27:46 AM PDT by TheAngryClam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
I am a Conservative Evangelical Christian....then....a Republican.

Excluding what the bible says......the Gay Lifestyle taken to its extreme....eradicates humanity......Hello?

15 posted on 08/29/2002 12:29:52 AM PDT by SolomonSemperFi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Captainpaintball
Say what you like about the Governor, but at least he isn't a hypocrite like Simon is. Simon is going to have his clock cleaned in November and not because he's a conservative but rather because he isn't running as one. When voters are asked to choose between two cultural liberals the answer's pretty clear.
16 posted on 08/29/2002 12:31:11 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Marriages are, at their most basic, stripped of religion level, contracts.

au contrare! Marriages originated as a covenant between a man and a woman. Renaming something doesn't change it.

What justification do you have for stripping people of their free will to join a contract?

No one has stripped you of the right to contract.

Free will is one of the foundations of all western, republican (small R) freedoms. So I ask a very basic question: why ought we to restrict this very basic and very precious freedom? Is there a justification?

I thought you were talking contracts? How is free will violated?

17 posted on 08/29/2002 12:31:32 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
I guess Bush made him an offer he couldn't refuse--the price of presidential support.
18 posted on 08/29/2002 12:32:36 AM PDT by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Um, this isn't exactly "breaking news" material. Similar information has already been posted (yesterday in fact, shortly after noon, and is still in the "Extended News" headlines): Simon supports domestic partnerships, angers conservative backer.
19 posted on 08/29/2002 12:34:17 AM PDT by JameRetief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
It sure was sneaky of Simon to wait until AFTER Bush went to two fund raisers for him to make this announcement. I thought Lieberman was bad enough changing his mind on issues to get votes, but Simon flip flops like a beached fish.
20 posted on 08/29/2002 12:34:45 AM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
Good catch. The timing is beyond coincidental.
21 posted on 08/29/2002 12:36:35 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Good question. I think Sal Russo convinced them that veering to the left and running as a cultural liberal was the only way he could run even with Gray Davis. Of course Russo is the guy who convinced RINO Matt Fong four years ago to sign the Log Cabin Republicans extreme pro gay rights agenda and no one was surprised by the results in November. Simon isn't going to cut it as a cultural liberal and he will lose by a landslide. And in the face of a Rat governor with a huge list of negatives who is widely disliked even in his own party. But now that Simon has cut the floor from underneath his base and burned them, there's not much reason for them to feel motivated about getting him elected. I expect his campaign to wither and die on the vine and he will get even fewer votes as a reward for backing an anti-family agenda than Fong did in 1998.
22 posted on 08/29/2002 12:37:12 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
California family code section 300 defines a marriage as a contract. However, we're not even discussing that, but a partnership. Partnerships, either business or otherwise, are also contracts.

Free will is brought in because the foundation of contract law in the common law is predicated, as far as possible, on not limiting the ability of two people so inclined from entering into legally enforceable promises.
23 posted on 08/29/2002 12:39:53 AM PDT by TheAngryClam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Dare I suggest an alternative? Surely you're not going to let Simon screw conservatives in smaller races by prodding you to stay home?
24 posted on 08/29/2002 12:44:00 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
The gay agenda seeks to validate the gay lifestyle through the creation of man-made laws that will allow them to rationalize their actions in their own minds. God says in Leviticus 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." While I love the sinner and yet hate the sin, I will not enable their agenda with my vote. How's that?
25 posted on 08/29/2002 12:44:37 AM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Free will is brought in because the foundation of contract law in the common law is predicated, as far as possible, on not limiting the ability of two people so inclined from entering into legally enforceable promises.

Granted. So what is the problem? How is your right to contract violated?

26 posted on 08/29/2002 12:46:22 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: toenail
No thanks. I am looking for a pro family values candidate. We don't have one this fall.
27 posted on 08/29/2002 12:46:56 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JameRetief
Different title- didn't catch it. That's the problem with a paraphrased source.
28 posted on 08/29/2002 12:47:31 AM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It looks like those of us who believe in traditional values have been misled, conned and sold-out. We don't have to vote this November.

*deep disheartened sigh* Yep, looks as though you're right.

29 posted on 08/29/2002 12:50:41 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
My hunch is this confirms that the 'crucial internal poll' taken after the trial verdict must have came back with some pretty bad news. The swing voters must have really been turned off, hence the high-risk gamble to alienate the base and go heavy moderate. To me this is a desperation move, but it might work. He's gambling that the dissatisfied clueless/soccer mom/bacchanal middle will take a socially liberal economic conservative over a bumbling Davis in enough numbers to override the social conservative sit-at-home. A reverse-Bloomberg strategy.

I smell Rove. Take a candidate who has bumbled himself into a corner, and run a libertine experiment as an election trial balloon. If it succeeds, could be a future model for wins in the Porn Belt. If it fails, well he was likely to lose anyway. Not that I agree with the strategy, but it is one scenario.

Wow, what a choice. Take the gamble of a lost battle in the culture war, while gaining a position of power to perhaps ultimately win the war. Cede ground now, while maneuvering for future battles. VERY risky, could backfire and lead to the ultimate loss. But a libertine CA GOP would at least help in the Senate and House.

OTOH, stay at home, and watch socialism further entrench and solidify. Perhaps a second Davis term implodes. But at what cost? Send the message that Bloombergs are the future? Risk the formation of a new Conservative party and the Naderization of the right?

Tinfoil silver lining theory: May hasten the migration of social conservatives to Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, shoring up conservatism in these marginal swing states. If California is beyond retaking anytime soon, perhaps a write-off and recapturing of the remaining West could help to mitigate? Not that I believe that, but it is an interesting theory.

30 posted on 08/29/2002 12:55:03 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
#1 - Prop 22 passed by 60+% of the voters. Why is Simon pandering to a minority, liberal, special interest group at the risk of alienating his base? His new 'friends' won't be voting for him.

#2 - Two months before the election is not the time to try and sell conservatives on the virtue of gay partnerships. The sentiment on this issue has already been conveyed by the above Prop, keeping in mind that the 60+% is composed of moderates, independents, and probably liberals. Why is the will of the majority consistently being subverted by Democrats and Republicans alike?

#3 - Most of us DO NOT CARE who people have sex with (regardless of our personal religious views). We do care however when these people demand special treatment because of it. Beyond civil rights, gay issues should not be issues at all. Why are these people entitled to 'Gay Pride Day' and why should the rest of us be forced to endure it?

31 posted on 08/29/2002 12:58:52 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
well, as I am not a homosexual, my right isn't. (on re-reading, it includes unmarried hetereosexual couples as well, but should I use myself I'm positive that someone else will miss this little disclaimer)

So let's assume that we have "Sam San Francisco" and "Will West Hollywood" who wish to form a joint living contract under state law. The entire argument for CCF is that they should not be allowed to do so (i.e. have their right to contract denied) on the grounds that they are a danger. I ask where the danger is.

The reason I ask has several parts. First, I ascribe to a cranky sort of conservatism that is distrustful of ANY sort of reason to allow the government to interfere with how people wish to live or act without great cause. As such, I want to hear why we the people should empower government to act to deny people these rights.

Second, there is a very big slope here. Right now it's "homosexuality is immoral." There are lots and lots of other things that are considered immoral in the Bible that I don't ascribe to. If any Freepers out there like bacon or hug their wives while they're having a period, they're violating those morals as well. Where will it end? Where should it end? These are things I want to hear a reason for before I join on any bandwagon in favor or against anything.

Third, while I do not begrudge anyone to vote their conscience (except in cases of willful malice a la Barbara Lee), asking me to join in voting for that same cause will require convincing me. As far as that goes, I find religious arguments utterly non-persuasive, as I'm not a big fan of conversion at swordpoint (full disclosure: I am Catholic, and Catholics are, along with Muslims, the world leaders of conversion at swordpoint. Furthermore, the Church forbids gay marriage, along with abortion and women priests. The state must not compel the Catholic church, or any other, to change any of these positions for the same reason I don't believe it should be enforcing them in it's own ends).
32 posted on 08/29/2002 1:02:07 AM PDT by TheAngryClam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
No druids, huh? Write-in for Keyes?
33 posted on 08/29/2002 1:04:14 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
The one thing a successful candidate NEVER does is to alienate the base of his party. Bill Simon did best when he ran in the primary as the "conservative candidate." In the general election he thinks veering all the way to the cultural left will persuade people who'd never vote for him in a million years to vote for him oh because he's not really a committed conservative and all that talk of being one was just foderol to fool the party base in accepting him as one. In reality its a desperate move that will backfire and end up with Simon being scorned by both the left and deserted by the base. The left already has Davis and the right who now has no one to vote for will simply stay at home on election day. Sure the RINOs will try to use Simon's election defeat as evidence the party needs to go left but the truth is Simon is going to lose not because he ran as a true conservative but because he looked like a "me too" Gray Davis cultural liberal clone.
34 posted on 08/29/2002 1:06:09 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Wonder if this is a geographic triangulation and recruitment strategy. View it in a state's right perspective, the GOP goes to a big tent coalition of independent agents, and in theory Simon's stance is representative of the majority of CA voters. So bring them into the GOP by not threatening their emotional hot button issues, and siphon off a large portion of the Democrat swing vote by differing with the Dems only on their weakest issues. Build a comfort level and trust with these voters at the state level, and then gradually move them towards core conservatism in these areas. The south will stay culturally conservative, but CA is allowed its own version of the GOP tailored to its local culture. Kinda like predatory pricing, gain market dominance, squeeze out competitors, then gradually balance out fares to a sustainable level.

I disagree with such a strategy, but am wondering out loud about its possible existance. Given the precarious nature of the political balance, I could see the temptation of moving in such a direction. And in theory it fits better with limited-control conservatism. But as someone who believes that our most important division is the culture wars, I am very concerned about the risks of such a strategy.
35 posted on 08/29/2002 1:09:53 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
Randy Thomasson is a cipher and a crank and he is reporting the facts here way out of context. Bill Simon is opposed to same sex marriage and always has been.

This guy is a one-man shop and lives for microphones and TV cameras -- unfortunately for him and for the rest of us he only gets attention when he is slamming Republicans. The press LOVE that, so they give him all the air time he wants.

Bill Simon is prolife, profamily, progun, anti tax, and is the conservative he has always been. Bill Simon is far more conservative than Pete Wilson ever was.

Let's focus here and remember what we are in it for folks.

36 posted on 08/29/2002 1:12:03 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Perhaps a second Davis term implodes. But at what cost?

We'll be bankrupt within a year or two, hopefully Davis will be in prison, then we'll be stuck with.......... Bustamante......who will complete our annexation to Mexico as 'El Norte'. Did he ever get around to completing his Bachelor's degree?

Risk the formation of a new Conservative party

We may have no choice. Maybe after the complete implosion at the hands of the Dems something good may come out of it.

37 posted on 08/29/2002 1:12:27 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
Exactly the point I made on another thread. Its not Simon's advocacy of securing equal rights for gays people have a problem with its his securing special treatment for them that turns them off. If he said gays should have the right to live together and their private life was none of the government's business no one would really feel let down - since after all we Californians are a pretty tolerant bunch. Where Simon erred was to pledge the state government would use its powers to confer public recognition on homosexuals just as in for example a Gay Pride Day. It left a lot of base with the impression that not only is Simon walking away from traditional values, he's bent on repeating Dickie Pooh's mistake in the primary of forcing a set of cultural liberal values upon them that they've rightly rejected. If you want to put your campaign in full meltdown mode, embracing a cultural liberal agenda is a pretty good way to get it done.
38 posted on 08/29/2002 1:13:30 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I suggest you read Bill Simon's answers to the Cabin Log Republicans' yourself. It consists of an endorsement of an extreme gay rights agenda and embracing domestic partnerships even BEYOND what Gray Davis has already agreed to. Some conservative. Scratch the man and underneath Simon looks more and more like a cultural liberal.
39 posted on 08/29/2002 1:16:39 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Maybe? I'm angry now, but I may wake up in the morning with my pragmatist's hat on and see this action on Simon's part as way to get elected, although right now it looks like a net loss in many ways. I really question the man's principles at this point. Maybe in a midyear election like this, only certain groups, like the gays, are lock-ins to vote. Certainly Christians are notoriously poor at turning out to vote. Maybe there is a net gain here? My question- Does the gain in votes make up for the loss in principles? I really didn't think he needed to do this after Grey has fallen on his sword. Simon's people must have panicked. This is a desperation move.
40 posted on 08/29/2002 1:17:26 AM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Its a desperation move. I can't think of Ronald Reagan sacrificing his principles just to get elected. If you thought Simon's campaign was tobagganing downhill, from here on its not going to a pretty sight. His campaign will be in flames even before it hits rock bottom.
41 posted on 08/29/2002 1:20:26 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
You people are all a bunch of freaks. All you hear is how wonderful it is for a "real conservative" to win the nomination. Now, the same idiots who voted for this Simon are the ones trying to bury him. You gay bashing, immigrant hating, self rightous, bigoted, nutcase, extremists are poisoning Free Republic and the world for that matter.
42 posted on 08/29/2002 1:22:44 AM PDT by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I agree, which is why I view it as indicative of desperation and very risky.

OTOH, this passive pro-gay position does put him more in line with the majority of CA voters, and more importantly, removes the major stumbling block that would prevent many from voting GOP in this election. Conventional wisdom is often right, but not in every circumstance.

Please don't view that as a defense of his statements or strategy, I don't agree with him. But as analysis, I'm not convinced that this won't work for Simon. Painful to say that as a Christian conservative I might be forced into such a painful choice at the back of the bus. Now we have to weigh all the issues, and whether the net gain outweighs the loss of one of our most important issues. Sorta like the political dilemma Log Cabin Republicans have been in for years.

Glad I live in Texas, I really feel for you guys on this. At least this isn't a Senate race, so PERHAPS abstaining from voting in the gov race might be an effective way to send a message(though I hate even the thought of throwing away a vote). Whatever ya'll do, I hope you don't sit at home. At least vote for the other good candidates in other races, you can always refrain from voting for gov. In enough quantities, that WILL be noticed.

43 posted on 08/29/2002 1:25:05 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
We'll never get another Reagan again.

I'm going to bed now. Alone. And I'm not going to demand special rights for it.

God I'm pissed.

44 posted on 08/29/2002 1:25:32 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: paul544
Go away DU shill. Yeah we made a mistake believing the guy was a Ronald Reagan conservative and we were burned. We're going to take the lesson to heart for next time and by no means are we going to walk away from fighting for traditional values and the heart and soul of the Republican Party here in California.
45 posted on 08/29/2002 1:25:57 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
What Republican party in California....better get out now before they outlaw conservatives and send the brown berets after you ;)
46 posted on 08/29/2002 1:33:22 AM PDT by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
At least I can dine on gourmet food and fine wine in prison at the liberal stormtroopers expense! ;-)
47 posted on 08/29/2002 1:34:42 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
Let's give Simon a chance to respond.

If this is all true, then to Hell with him.

I won't call any more GOP stinkers roses.

48 posted on 08/29/2002 1:49:14 AM PDT by Taiwan Bocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paul544
You gay bashing, immigrant hating, self rightous, bigoted, nutcase, extremists are poisoning Free Republic and the world for that matter.

Are you totally ignorant of both the gay agenda and the Bible?

That was a great rant, Paul544, but wake up and smell what you're shoveling!

49 posted on 08/29/2002 2:09:23 AM PDT by Taiwan Bocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Taiwan Bocks
Let's give Simon a chance to respond.

Since the alternative is Davis, I'll give him that.

Does anyone have a link to the original article in the SF Chronicle? Maybe my source has a hidden agenda, i.e. raising money for his own charity....

50 posted on 08/29/2002 2:09:51 AM PDT by Rockitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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