According to WorldNetDaily, Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger encouraged opponents of the Proposition 8 not to give up until the measure is overturned.
“It is unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end,” vowed the governor in yesterday’s interview, referring to Proposition 8’s passage, “because this will go back to the courts.”
He later said of the voter-approved state constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman, “We will undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward.”
Has this guy totally lost it? Not only is he going against his own Catholicism and his own party but now he’s going against the will of the people.
I know what he’s thinking. He’s thinking that he could earn himself a slice of the liberal vote by kow-towing to their desires on social issues. This guy is one of my worst fears. Because I’ve already heard rumblings from the Republican Party that they’re taking the exactly wrong lessons from the past two elections. I’ve heard from a few people that Republicans need to “moderate” their stances on the social issues in order to woo the moderates and liberals. This is the exact wrong lesson. I fear the Schwarzanegger-ing of the Republican Party. If the party follows the path of the former movie star I will be without a party and so will many people I know.
The Republican Party will either be led by the Sarah Palin/Bobby Jindal wing of the party or the Ahh-nuld/Rudy Giuliani wing. Let’s pray they make the right choice.
November 11, 2008 at 7:52 pm
This is absolutely NO surprise to anyone living here in Ca. The governor is only nominally Republican and Catholic. He is tolerated among conservatives solely due to his star-power.
The question is not “if” the Republican party betrays us, since it has already done so on many occasions (this is evident if you live in Ma, Ca, NY etc). The unfortunate fact is in this country, anything outside the two-party system is seen as “kookie” and not given any real credibility (look at Ross Perot back in the 90’s or Ron Paul of this last election).
As was shown last week, Catholics are far from monolithic. A pro-life (in EVERY aspect fo the term) party would be a very nice change in dynamics. But I don’t think we could even count on Catholics to vote for it even if the entire church came out and sponsored it.
November 11, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I say we stop catering to the GOP if they bring another McCain/Dole/HWBush type of candidate.
We go third party. Create our own. Besides, it’ll be Obama’s to lose in 2012. We make some noise, get the attention of the GOP, the GOP reorganizes to cater to Pro-lifers and come back and take the white house in 2016.
As for a name, I don’t care. Creative Minority Party has a nice ring to it. How about the Christian Democrats. Confuse the heck out of Obama Catholics eh?
November 11, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Look David, don’t get snarky with me. You pay for a lot of crap with your tax dollars. My tax payer dollars pay for Medicaid recipients to receive birth control pills. It also pays for low income women to drop their kids off at day care so they can go work at McDonald’s. It pays for my mother’s Oxycontin that she’s addicted to, it pays for the ridiculous education system we have. I could go on, you see. But perhaps you approve of all your tax payer dollars to support these programs. I don’t like it a bit–in fact I hate it. In fact, I happen to believe they are all morally offensive. As Christians we are responsible for paying our taxes. However our souls are not in danger if our government uses that money to pay for programs that are evil or that we don’t approve. Our souls ARE in danger if we vote for these fools in the first place. The point is this–MOST Americans don’t mind a bit paying for low income women to have access to birth control pills or free day care to dump their kids off and they don’t mind paying for abortions for women who were raped, are victims of incest, or whose life is in danger. It’s a stone cold fact. If the Republicans continue down the path of moral legislation, they will continue to lose. Why did Sarah Palin energize the base? What base do you mean? The social conservative base–who makes up only about 30% of the party? Or maybe the fiscal conservative base who, after careful examination, found her credentials lacking. Or maybe it was the neo-conservatives who were ecstatic over her foreign policy experience. What I’m saying is, the Republican party is only 30% social conservative. The other 70% may or may not be as opposed to social issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. My argument is that most would just as soon take the libertarian approach–keep the government out of everybody’s darn business, stop taxing everybody to death for every thing, and live by the Constitution. When that happens, Republicans might win.
November 11, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“Look David, don’t get snarky with me.”
Hey, it got you motivated to explain yourself, didn’t it? That was the idea.
Let’s not blow off the libertarian approach so easily. I think much of the “conservative base” which you consider a liability, is in fact prepared to go along those lines. But the Americans who voted for Obama may say they want tax dollars to go for those things. Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe they’ve been lulled into such a stupor that they’ll support whomever gives them a handout. It’s why I think western Pennsylvania went for Murtha, even after he insulted them. Johnstown may be thriving in the next few years, thanks to his mooching off the pork barrel buffet.
Then again, I’m not sure they won’t reach a threshold where they say, enough. A government of entitlement can only go so far, and when Obama succeeds in bailing out one industry after another, the Republicans could be poised to provide an alternative. The neo-cons will only suggest more of the same. They have so far. So we need to look to something else, and that’s where the conservative base is the answer.
I don’t think 30 percent is anything to sneeze at, especially when you don’t count the “pro life Christians” who voted for Obama for want of a clearly articulated alternative. They were with the GOP before, and they can be won back, even by the 2010 congressional electios. I would challenge your notion that Palin is lacking in credentials after taking on the party bosses in Alaska, cutting costs left and right, and winning an 80 percent approval rating. Don’t be fooled by the Couric interview. Once she was allowed to be herself, she was in her game mode. See the interviews on my blog today from Fox News last night.
November 11, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Since a couple people have mentioned Michael Steele in the same breath as Palin and Jindal, it might be worth noting that Steele is a founder and co-chair, along with Christine Todd Whitman and Jack Danforth, of the Republican Leadership Council, which is a “moderate” organization that basically advocates attaining party unity by ignoring social issues. Although Steele calls himself pro-life, he has also indicated that he thinks Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, based on stare decisis. (See the 4th and last quotes here).
November 11, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I believe we should form the Patriotic Party, choose the eagle for our representative animal, and white for our color. Whereas the other parties are divided mainly along economic lines, we would be the party of the moralists, focused not on money, but on human dignity, justice, and virtue.
Then, we would have a tripartisan system: the Red, the White, and the Blue.
I suggest not catering to Christians alone, but all men of goodwill. I also counsel that we make the promotion of knowledge, in all disciplines, another key part of our platform. We should portray ourselves as the righteous philosophers of Athens, gazing down in scorn upon the tyrants of Sparta.
November 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm
eo – I like the idea, but we have to break up that white a little bit. We don’t want people to think we’re surrendering when we have barely begun to fight.
November 12, 2008 at 5:44 pm
White for purity and victory, dontcha know. 😉
And besides, we have surrendered–to the Truth.