Hardly. #1, I didn't insinuate. I said it plain as day. #2, I was specifically referring to those who say they will not vote for President Bush again because of the immigration proposal (or whatever issue du jour rankles them). It is they who are discarding the whole person over one policy disagreement, not I. Is that their right? Of course! But it is my right to say that I find such people irritating and sanctimonious.
I am a conservative. Have been one all my adult life, although I don't know how self-professed "real" conservatives define the term — so I don't know if I qualify as "real" or just dogged persistent in voting for a very long list of candidates who identify themselves as Republicans and conservatives. As a Southern Californian, I am not surprised by the immigration proposal since the President campaigned on that issue in 2000. I'm disappointed in it, however, and will do my best to convince the Congress not to pass it. But, unlike "real" conservatives, I am not angry with this President for submitting the proposal.
As for the rest of your commentary, my attitude is fine! Vote for him or not. That is your privilege. You ask: "What 'percentage' of disagreement is sufficent for you to vote against a candidate: 50% . . . 25% . . . 1%?" My answer: I don't think in such limited terms. I'll leave it to you self-professed "real" conservatives to figure out how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
You used the term "real" conservative. I never did. You also assumed that I was voting against him because of one policy disagreement. You are only hearing what you want to hear and making a lot of unsupported assumptions. My point was that the case cannot be made that Bush, as a "whole" has been more in line with the Republican party platform than the Democratic platform in his domestic agenda. I still haven't heard an argument that this statement is wrong. Perhaps you can outline Bush's extensive conservative domestic agenda for me.