Replies

ok...

Let's look at the Big Tent Theory, after all this "Big Tent Theory" very effectively kept the GOP in the minority for 60+ years after FDR. What happened in 1994? The Contract with America removed the Big Tent...and Republicans were elected. Reagan wasn't the exception...he was the freaking RULE! That's why you can't point to a conservative in the presidential office for *decades* other than HIM.

How is it that you can you still believe in the Big Tent since we now KNOW it drives away the people you *need* in favor of people you want?

Conservatives are a minority voter in California.
But then...they are more common than the conservative candidate. Which tells me you don't know much about CA politics.

The only way to win elections is to have a majority in the number of voters. There are many ways to accomplish this and the Democrats frequently use Fraud, they also infiltrate the Republicans and water down the conservative message so that the conservative voter simply can't tell the Republican from the Democrat.

You might be interested in electing Republicans...and it seems you can't see beyond that point. The (R) behind the name doesn't solve CA's problems, it creates more...and it doesn't solve the Republican's problems, it creates more.

As for your *perception* of the primary arguments against Arnold. The primary argument is singular: He isn't even "moderately" conservative. It's noteable that those liberal causes are the ones that resonate with you most.

Warren Buffet should have ended your support for Arnold if you had a bit of intellectual honesty. I'll concede that you might simply continue to support Swartzenegger out of ignorance. Buffet's selection irrefuteably denies the sole support you've expressed for Arnold (other than the superficial "he can win").

You'll have to describe to me how you think you're a conservative. You haven't met any standard I could consider. Socially, you're a liberal...and seem to think that this is the way all of California is going. Obviously that's false, at *most* sections of the major cities are that way, but cities are famous for falling into degeneracy before chaos overtakes them. Economically, you claim to be a conservative and seem to think that Arnold is as well, however, Arnold's own statements refute that concept, and his selection of Buffet demolishes the concept altogether.

I'm sorry you're offended by being reminded that homosexuality is a mental disorder. That's not my problem. I studied the issue for 4 years before my conclusion was reached. I didn't study the issue to please anyone offering grants. I'm not overly concerned by the facts of life being offensive. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

It has a big problem too...it's the only mental disorder with political clout just as the primary disease affecting it has political clout. So, should anyone have the GALL to DARE question preconceptions concerning homosexuality, they're labelled ignorant, bigotted, or whatever demonizing term is du jour. Facts is facts, and you can choose to do your own study or believe the crap specifically tailored to persuade you that buggering one another is acceptable.

Morals dictate certain fundamental laws. Morality determines when a person is hurt by another, why, and laws are necessary to dictate a punishment. I wouldn't legislate morals against things that do not directly impact other people. So...go ahead and have a prostitute...I won't make it illegal, I'll send the photo of you and the prostitute to your wife. Go ahead and use drugs...I won't make it illegal, I'll just make sure you're never employed by anyone. Hell...if you OD on drugs, I'd rule it a suicide, and cart your corpse off to the

Let's back up a bit though...
...you say conservatives are a minority in the state. You imply that "things gotta change" and that this "change" would be the compromise of conservative principles to elect a Republican.

Since *when* has the Californian GOP...dominated by RINOs mind you...supported conservative candidates????

Yes...something's gotta change. The RINO's out there need to realize that it's time to do their fair share and support a conservative.

The "progressives" don't support the individual freedom of people in California nor America. Please do some homework on the subject. It isn't about freedom for gays...it's about dividing people into small easily conquored segments.

You don't know Warren Buffet...other than the fact he's rich.

You couldn't possibly be very old if you've spent your entire life and come up with this conclusion. IF YOU ARE...then you couldn't possibly have studied very hard.

It's far easier to accept that you're a liberal yourself rather than so absolutely ignorant about California, Republicans, conservatives, and their electability.

You are wrong about the your Contract with America analogy.

America is fiscally conservative. The Contract with America united the Republicans behind an issue that resonated with the voters. It distacted attention away from the divisive issues that have traditionally caused the Republicans image problems.

It is note-worthy to point out that it didn't help Republicans one bit in California.

I never said that I think California is *heading* in the direction of social liberalism. Tolerance is not the same thing as "social liberalism".

Intolerance is the #1 perception that keeps Californians from voting Republican. Remember, "tolerance" does not mean liking or actively supporting something. It merely means putting up with it. Just as you "tolerate" a noisy child.

A wise person accepts that which he cannot change.

"It's noteable that those liberal causes are the ones that resonate with you most" is a completely baseless assumption. I have merely argued against the reasoning most commonly advanced to oppose Arnold. I simply do not believe they are winning issues in this state.

You and many others here seem to be operating under a delusion that this race is McClintock vs. Schwarzenegger. It is not. McClintock is not even on the radar screen, and has no chance of appearing so long as Simon is in the running.

The race is primarily Davis vs. the Recall, and then Schwarzenegger vs. Bustamante.

It is people like YOU who are sabotaging the Republican party by refusing to vote for the most conservative candidate that can WIN.
A vote for anyone other than Arnold is a vote for Bustamante.

You seem to harbor this false idea that homosexuality and other issues of social tolerance are the biggest threats California is facing. They are not.

Illegal immigration is by far the biggest threat to California, and I will choose Arnold "Prop 187" Schwarzenegger over the alternative, Cruz "Mexifornia" Bustamante anyday.

If it looks like you social conservatives manage to trash Arnold enough to threaten his lead over Bustamante, I will instead choose to actively oppose the recall.

The "progressives" don't support the individual freedom of people in California nor America. Please do some homework on the subject. It isn't about freedom for gays...it's about dividing people into small easily conquored segments.

I totally, completely, 100% agree with that statement.

What is sad is how you have miscontrued and misrepresented my observations about the historical changes in cultural attitudes as some kind of political alignment.

Progressive politics and relaxation of strict cultural views are two totally seperate things. I do not believe politics affects culture. Instead, it is culture that affects politics. Political views must adapt to cultural changes, or they die.

Politicians who are out of sync with contemporary culture do not win elections. The Progressive platform is advanced by the conservatives' reluctance to accept cultural changes. Progressives get elected based on their tolerant cultural views, and their socialism merely piggybacks on that.

The average voter has only a vague understanding of fiscal budget issues, and almost no grasp of the dynamic effect of economic policy, if any at all. But when the Progressive comes out and says "my opponent wants to spy on you in your bedroom", that has a tangible impact.

If we could break the reluctance of conservatives to accept popular attitudes as they are, then the voters would surely opt for the fiscal conservative over a socialist. It's a matter of taking the opposition's strongest issue away from them.