I don't know what an "ilk" is, but I've been inside and outside of the party, and at this point, I'm done with it. And no amount of nasty words about me is going to change my mind, or make me feel "bad" for not being "loyal to the party". As Ronald Reagan once said of the Democrats, now applies to the free-loading-GOP-RINO's and their so called "conservative" buddies who keep putting at the party's controls: I didn't leave the GOP; the GOP left me.
I was a "conservative" back when conservatives weren't "cool". I'm still a conservative, but I'm a whole lot more pragmatic now. And I'm probably the only GOP voter who feels this way; everyone else is probably just hunky-dory happy with the way the party's run things since 1994. But curious as this may seem, I've actually been ahead on a lot of issues. I told my wife to expect the 2000 dot.bom collapse and recession, I told her that Clinton would certainly leave us vulerable and at war shortly after he left office; anyhow, I'm so "average" that I find others going where I've gone. Yeah, the party will probably find it's greatest success this November, election wins over the Dems by landslide proportions, yet I doubt this, even though the Dems produce such piss-poor-mealy-mouthed-surrender-monkey type Pols. The GOP is so feckless, they make even the Democrats look like a viable (or harmless!) ulternative to many GOP Americans, who will probably just stay home on election day.
SFS
When did I call you a name?? And I certainly hope you're not calling me a "RINO" if you're voting for a Democrat. I despise the term in any event because I think the GOP is or should be the Big Tent party Ronald Reagan envisoned with room for many views and opinions. That includes the views and opinions of McCain, Guiliani and even Arnold. I don't have to vote for them, but they're welcome. Anyway, please think twice about A) calling me a RINO when you have pledged to vote Democrat and B) voting Democrat.
Allow me to enlighten you, as it was I who addressed you as ilk. In fact the whole 'ilk herd' concept is mine. It bothers the ilk badly, yet has no impact upon non-ilk. The 'ilk herd' is the subset of the fifth columnists who have infiltrated FR with division and dissent as their goal. Ah, I have to back up as not all ilk are truly 'fifth columnists'. Many of them are good, loyal, conservative Americans who are being duped into 'useful idiocy'. Their sense of loyalty is a major reason why they fall for the fifth column propaganda of the ilk herd bulls. These faux-bulls pretend to be extreme conservatives, but the only extremities they exhibit are that of causing controversy within the republican/conservative base and moving the great unwashed masses away from the center and toward the left. The ilk have as their goal the denial of votes contributing toward any republican victory. Almost all of the states represented at FR have fifth columnists, and they're all over the national threads, but the 'ilk herd' represents California. Fifth columnists are principally 'on message, as too much, too often deceit exposed them. They dupe people by their facade. They make all sorts of claims, claims which often which are found questionable. I've seen too many fakes in my time at FR to believe anyone's self-aggrandisment. The only thing I can judge is what people say here, and if they say that voting for the demonratz, or writing in a 'more conservative' name, they join the ilk herd. So, are you trying to argue for Arnie's defeat as a faux-bull or as just a herd member?