Replies

I think I'm somewhere between the two of you. I see nothing divisive about standing with Tom McClintock today. As the California Republican Party's Duf Sundheim said to Alan Murray tonight on CNBC's Capital Report, the Republican party has three excellent candidates to offer voters as an alternative to Gray Davis and the Democratic National Committee.

We are not falling on our swords by standing for the candidate we like at the beginning of the campaign. People so eager to jump to conclusions now could be missing out on an opportunity to really bring change to California's political landscape for the next 20 years. To say the least, with Arnold Schwarzenegger still holding back on the details of his platform, if he continues to have success in the abstract, McClintock and Simon can show him what loyal Republicans (and others who are tired of Davis and the spendthrif of the Democratic party) want.

This is a time for discussion and self-reflection. It's not a time for namecalling and insults among the camps that are definitely going to recall Davis completely in October. Once a candidate has won, we can go back to bickering over just how much government is a good idea, who is a RINO and who isn't, etc...

I see nothing divisive about standing with Tom McClintock today. ...The Republican party has three excellent candidates to offer voters as an alternative to Gray Davis and the Democratic National Committee.

I agree with you. I agree with everything you've said. What I take issue with the "purists" about is that if they don't get the candidate they want, they sulk, or worse, say "I'd rather have a REAL liberal than a FAKE Republican..." (And most of my comments were aimed at those who would abandon Pres. Bush, rather than comments in the context of the Ca. recall election.)

Those who won't support a Republican because they represent at 20- or 30-degree separation from the true path fail to see the danger of allowing a guy in office who's 180-degrees of separation.

I guess what's really ticked me off is that some folks were ready to trash Arnold before his campaign was 24-hours old. I tried to make the case that everyone should give Arnold some slack until he had a chance to articulate his plan for California. But some weren't willing to do so. It was more important to trash him out of the gate. I've never posted anything negative about McClintock and Simon (other than the likelihood that they're not going to win). I could vote for any, and frankly haven't decided how I'm going to vote. But the "purists" are definitely pushing me in a particular direction...

Risk, tell you what...Your post made me realize that I need to leave the "He's-a-RINO" debate out of the threads about the California recall election. This election is unique, of course. It's a completely open election; no primary; no run-off. It's a free-for-all. As I mentioned, my beef is with those who, once the Party has nominated it's candidate, threaten to take a walk in the general election because they may disagree with the nominee a third of the time or so. This recall election doesn't relate to that kind of situation.

Here's what I intend to do: I intend to listen to all the GOP candidates (to make sure one of them isn't a complete embarrassment), keep the options open, and then if all the candidates appear to be bunched up by October 7th, vote for the one I think is the best candidate. But if the "best" candidate is stuck in single-digits, and the leading Republican can use my vote to assure his victory, I'm voting for that candidate. Now, if there are "RINO-baiters" here who are willing to let Bustamante win in order to keep their "purity," then I have a concern about that, but they can do what they want.