Replies

Whatever. If you think you can package the pure conservative message in a way that will change hearts and minds, more power to you. I have yet to see a really good example of this, but no one can fault you for trying. I'm simply saying that there is a pragmatic need to keep the Democrats -- the embodiment of evil -- out of power. In some areas of the country, a "pure" conservative message isn't a winner; in some places it is. But look at the Calif. Governor's race. The two "pure" conservatives, Simon and McClintock, together, amount to 14% of the support. 14%!! It's still early, and one of them might break out and make a race of it, but the "pure" message of conservatism doesn't resonate here. If that means we have to get behind a guy we agree with 50% of the time in order to keep another guy out office we agree with 0% of the time, that's the reality and we need to accept it. Falling on our swords in a noble effort to keep ourselves "true" to the "pure faith" has no merit when the state is going down the tubes.

I repeat something I've said elsewhere: folks need to wake up and realize that "RINOs" are not the real enemy.

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...

If you call the Democrats the embodiment of evil, how is it that you are advocating any different if there is minimal substantive distinction in policy between they and your "acceptable" candidate?

It's still early, and one of them might break out and make a race of it, but the "pure" message of conservatism doesn't resonate here.

Enough of it does that a "pure" candidate can be successful. The problem is packaging by and ignorance among the political "professionals" for whom I have little to no respect.

If that means we have to get behind a guy we agree with 50% of the time in order to keep another guy out office we agree with 0% of the time, that's the reality and we need to accept it.

Actually, Gray Davis isn't as bad as it gets. Even I would give him 10%.

Falling on our swords in a noble effort to keep ourselves "true" to the "pure faith" has no merit when the state is going down the tubes.

You keep assuming that this is a matter of faith and not rational practicality. You've been living in the thesis/antithesis world for too long. There are other options you haven't considered.

As for the 14%, it's a far cry better than it was only a couple of days ago. As people get to learn more about Ahnold, those numbers will shift. The depth of his support is very weak. Fortunately for you, I don't have time to go after his negatives. I'll stick with defining a positive program which you'll see in fairly short order.