From WorldNetDaily, October 6, 2003:
“On all the matters that touch upon the critical moral issues, Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the evil side. This is a fact. A mere list of the positions he supports is enough to make this plain: abortion as a ‘right,’ cloning of human beings, governmental classification of citizens by race, public benefits for sexual partners outside of marriage, disrespect for property rights against environmental extremism, repudiation of the right to bear arms — no more need be said to show that this candidate is wrong where human decency, human rights and human responsibility bear directly on political issues.” [my emphasis]
What changed?
{ 13 comments }
What changed? Not a thing! He’s more of a Libertarian than a Republican, but hey, he’s ‘our’ guy.
More enlightenment. The Republicans were playing him up as a conservative and “individual thinker” (can’t find the link), yet another “definition” of a libertarian? Am not much into definitions.
Libertarian? What? I have no idea why you think he’s closer to being Libertarian.
But you are right…not a thing has changed with him.
he’s a conservative in name only, and afraid to offend the screwballs in california.
He heard how easy it is to compartmentalize and be fiscally conservative while everything goes to crap on the social side. Good luck to him.
I think La Shawn’s point is what changed about Alan Keyes who wrote the article she quotes. I can only come up with that in 2003 Keyes wasn’t running for office.
“A second fact is this: Unnaturally divorced from these issues, conservatism mutates into mere immoral greed, to match the immoral lust of contemporary liberalism.”
Does this include supporting positions on running for office in a state in which one does not reside and supporting a position on reparations that one found abhorant only a couple of years ago? Or are we only talking about REAL moral issues?
Sorry, I know the article was dated last Oct – my questions may be unfair in that context. Mr. Keyes has had a few months to “Kerry” a couple of issues.
Keyes is not, nor ever has been, a Libertarian. In fact, he was just railing against free trade last week, and he has made statements advocating more christian influence within the national and local laws.
I think you guys have Libertarian confused with Librarian. He’s closer to being a librarian than libertarian.
Thanks for clarifying, Russ. That’s exactly what I meant. Maybe I should say so in the post.
I can’t wait until the elections are over this year, politicians are really hitting my last nerves. Where are the real leaders of our nation? Everyones acting like their standing in line at the front door of the outhouse. Selling out the soul is very dangerous on both sides.
While in the midst of an election in the ancient Roman Republic, a young, first-time Senate candidate asked an older Senator what he should say to the people. He was told to go to the slums and tell them what they want to hear; go to the suburbs and tell them what they want to hear; go to the rich in the cities and tell them what they want to hear. The young man protested that each of these groups wanted to hear something different. He was told it didn’t matter as the people would only remember what was said until the election. After being elected he could do whatever he wanted as no one would remember what was said.
Now this is less and less possible because of the internet. What has been said and written is only a few keystrokes away. Any candidate can be hoisted on his own pitard by anyone with a little time to burn, just as La Shawn has done here.
Keyes was saying that those things were Arnold’s positions- ones that he disagreed with. Arnold is a Republican with some libertarian leanings…
Comments on this entry are closed.