This cranky conservative thanks you for the spelling correction :)

But my posting had two points: that Schwarzenegger spoke plainly and in a way that makes sense, and that such speaking is rare and refreshing.

It’s not about being simple for the simple folk. It’s about setting aside the double-speak, the ambiguous terms, that words that can have a different meaning if the political winds change.

Arnold is not by any definition eloquent. And I am absolutely sure that many many other people could have said the same thing, with the same clarity, but using elegant phrasing and cultured tones.

But my point is that they didn’t. And they don’t.

I can’t help mentioning that I’m put off by the generic attack on “beaurocrats” [sic] at the head of the piece. It doesn’t really add anything to this post (other than to remind us yet again of Timothy’s cranky conservative bona fides, I guess) and it contributes to a slightly condescending tone of “it’s got to be simple for the simple folk to get it” that just isn’t very appealing. Isn’t it possible to praise a politician for speaking sensibly and clearly without an irrelevant and unsupported attack on a boogeyman?

“First, I have always said that for me, marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said.

Then he added: “But I don’t want to make everyone else go in that direction.”

Wow, someone who understands that two ideas about marriage can co-exist?! A Republican who’s not personally offended by the existence of gay couples to the point of fearing for an evolving institution?! The sky is falling!

In all seriousness, I hope these words get repeated over and over again, because he’s the sort of charismatic person who can change minds. After all, if The Terminator, the dude who fought the Predator, Conan the Barbarian, if that guy doesn’t have a problem with gays —then perhaps his fan base will follow suit.

I also believe that the CA Supreme Court did the right thing and explained itself well in the concurring opinions.

Hopefully the Governator will take more than a passing roll in the campaign to kill this amendment.

Arnold’s legacy is being established right now. He can go down as a hero of fairness, justice and equality in the line of Kennedy and Johnson or he can be remembered (in spite of all the GLBT supportive laws that he signed) as of a George Wallace, standing in the doorway blocking the inevitable progress of minority rights based on his two vetoes.

The slate is now clean for him.

He holds the tools to write his own legacy. I hope he realizes this and takes full advantage of it.

If he works to successfully beat this amendment he may be shunned by the far right of the Republican Party for a few years but he will FOREVER be remembered as a civil rights hero in the history books.

I bet George Wallace would give anything to have another chance at writing his legacy.

I hope Arnold will still stand by his statement that he’s opposed to a constitutional amendment, though.