You seem to want to explain the phenomena happening in the party on 'sore losers.' You are way off base here, IMO. It has to do with keeping a set of checks and balances in place.
I understand. What I was referring to specifically in this context was the awful brawling I saw in this forum; which continues to rear its head. And as you write below: I fully concur: the below is as hollow and idealogic as a counter-retort (jumping to the "well, it coulda been worse"):
When the various actions taken by this governor are highlighted on these threads, instead of acknowledging the fact that they are taking us in the wrong direction, many party faithfuls attempt to justify these actions by bringing up Bustamante, McClintock, etc.
I've very much enjoyed the discourse I've had in this thread; in that I've gotten to learn much. What I've tried to suggest, throughout my posts, my hopes that both sides of CA gop might find more productive ways to address these issues than "flame throwing" at the other guy's "candidate". That can be difficult to do; I know this.
Perhaps you can help me understand another thing, cacowgirl.
You have referred here to the "moderate" GOP supporters as "party" faithfuls (or "loyalists" as per Amerigomag in another post). If indeed the conservative side of CAGOP IS the "genuine" party of the Republican Party -- doesn't that make them the true party loyalists? I don't understand why the "moderate" supporters would be referred to as the "loyalists/faithfuls", therefore.
But if this reasoning is not quite apt, and, let's assume, the GOP as a whole, as Carry_okie has asserted in post #77, this thread:
Yes. The GOP leadership is the party of socialists who want someone else to pay the taxes. The Slave Party is the party of socialists who don't care about taxes because they've got all their money in tax-exempt foundations. Big difference, isn't it? You heard it here first. :--)
Why try to stay and work within a party that is already "Socialist"? I've pals involved in the Constitution Party. And, those I've corresponded with express the same sentiments about the GOP as some in this thread. My thinking here is: If indeed one holds the position that the GOP is now socialist, or all about money and coopting "true conservatism" -- why continue to fight for a principle within a party some see as already "sold out"?
It's usually a big yuk-yuk in this forum when die-hard Dems fight for a party platform within the Dem party that has already sold out.
Not quite the same, but along the same lines, when my "church" was infiltrated and sold out to liberalism -- it was very painful. There were legal battles. People worked hard to retain the "core" of the church faithful. Ultimately, the church faithful found it simply wiser to start their own diocese. Now what is happening? More are leaving the "sold-out" church, and joining the more orthodox.
On its face, the difference may be obvious -- "we need the money"; but this also happens within religions and churches vis a vis donations and real estate.
Lastly, if indeed it is a shared view that the GOP is sold out to Socialism, I can certainly understand the viewing and calling names of any still supporting the GOP as "sell-outs". My suggestion? While telling them they are sell-outs, why not promote at same time your own newer party; or even to call yourselves the "Constitutionalist GOP". (That wouldn't work, I know and because it, as a name, tends to lend support to the GOP.)
Many people on these threads seem to think principles no longer matter, dismissing them by calling people "idealogues"
Calcowgirl, "idealogues" come in every brand, shape and color -- all across the aisle.
I'm glad you are bringing up principles. But, what I witness, by the very nature of the brawling during "total recall" -- moderates were coined as ideologues for being "party loyalists". It goes around and around...
There is no moral equivalence with Arnold's supporters here, Alia. The reasoned discussion you just had here was attempted so many times and met with such vicious derision, that what you see is the result. They were unable to show how he was going to be the "fiscal conservative" he falsely claimed to be. They continually asserted that his wealth placed him above influence while he raked in money from all sorts of habitual political financiers. They denied he would do what he plainly said he would do as regards his environmental policy. Arnold's supporters had no facts to support their claims that failure to support him would elect Bustamante, but it was their only tool, and we were constantly accused in very unpleasant terms of supporting that leftist candidacy.
Alia, had you been identified as a "TobBot" during the recall, you would never have had a discussion as you have had here. We offered reasoned debate, got crap, and are now holding them accountable seeing as the results are becoming all too apparent. It may seem like opening old wounds, but as far as I am concerned, it's to put in a drain.
There certainly are registered Republican Party members here, especially since the 2000 election cycle, but they are part of the mix, not the center. Republican partisans are tolerated and or encouraged when they recognize and promote conservative principals, criticized when they support or tolerate liberal principals and shunned when they sacrifice principals for party (power).
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an excellent example of the mess that results when compromising principal to achieve power, a hallmark of political party ethics and the California Republican Central Committees over the past 5 years. The fact that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans in California is no consulation to conservatives.
Thanks for the stimulating thread and comments, calcowgirl and alia.
----
alia, Good reply and very thoughtful, it made me set my pitchfork down for a minute so I could read it..
Your comments about supporting other parties are interesting. Unfortunately, The little fellars I have in the past voted for are still little, what's up with that? ;-)
Ahh, the Recall days , sigh , when this state had a chance to make a statement, and the message and party got mugged instead by a novice politician, behind the scene elite advisors, a bargeload of hype, and a lot of dough from supporters worldwide, large and small.
Which should raise the question, How does a little guy (Tom)with sound ideas make it on the stage when he is outshone by GReen, hype and has little plans at hand to talk about other than generalities, cut cut cut taxes, etc ad nasueum.
Here we are 2 years down the road, and the state debt is larger, the budget is larger, some progress has been made in a few areas, but , overall, California has turned no corner nor changed its direction much at all the last 2 years. In fact, has gone backwards as more GReen influence is now exercised than ever before.
It doesn't take a poll or a focus group to tell me how or what I would like to change in this sticky mess of gubamint special effects that has leeched onto this state's tax coffers like The Blob.
The voters of California will vote for who they feeel like it, if they show up at all the next few elections. Here's hoping sanity prevails! ;-)
It will be a wild ride, a real E ticket one!
PS - did ya know the GUb says global warming is real and something must be done asap.? And he supposedly speaks for the voters of California, :)
No, I never mentioned "moderates" in my post. I refer only to those who think that having an (R) by someone's name is enough and that what the candidate actually stands for does not matter (as evidenced by their responses to factual posts about issues). I prefer to look at things on a factual basis, not a partisan basis.
...why continue to fight for a principle within a party some see as already "sold out"?
I feel like I am getting the New Majority spin here, trying to purge the conservatives and hijack the Republican party.
...if indeed it is a shared view that the GOP is sold out to Socialism...
Many have sold out to corruption. I'm not sure about the Socialism, except for those socialist programs which feed their pockets.
why not promote at same time your own newer party...
Why not just expose and purge the infiltrators who promote a platform largely in conflict with that of the GOP? A much more direct and honest approach, IMO.