And they say the same thing about you. In truth, both groups are conservatives who differ about strategy.
Now I voted for Santorum but supported McClintock and probably would have voted for him, so where do I stand?
The beginning of my sentence is necessary for the accurate context...
"The same "all-or-nothing" faction types in PA sabotaged solidly conservative Santorum, too, which shows you how absolutely unappeasable they really are... or what utterly fake conservatives many of them are in truth."
If you voted for Santorum, you aren't part of the "all-or-nothing" faction I was referring to. I would have voted for McClintock, too, I had high hopes for his becoming Governor after Schwarzenegger left office :-( The posters I was referring to above are the ones who feel it would be better if Schwarzenegger lost even if someone like Bustamante or Angelides won instead.
TAdams, you hit the nail on the head in another post when you said that most of us are solid conservatives who agree on issues but differ on strategy. What you didn't see years ago (this is an old debate with many of the same Freepers on either side) was that many of us here explained that over and over again only to be personally attacked and repeatedly trashed as "liberals" and "progressives".... and this was for trying desperately to keep hard-left people out of the governor's office, go figure ;-)
For quite some time, this was my working theory in explaining the difference. I have discarded the theory since early this past year, in light of facts and evidence. The "conservative" movement has been factionalized via the "single-issue" voter, and ego or economic self-interest, all the while in light of the fact that we are in a war for our nation's very survival. Those who couldn't or wouldn't see the forest for the trees acted and pretended as tho this war didn't "really" exist or that having been fought, their own single-issue be given second priority, as they demand. -- Much like liberals do.
On one hand, this is very bad, as evidenced this past election and in regards the WOT.
OTOH, it is very good, in that the extremists in both liberal and conservative groups are now at parity. The playing field has been "leveled" in this regard. There exists more purple than a clear "divide" between red and blue.
This is exactly what President Bush proposed in his "unity" speech years ago. And, it appears the legislative bodies reflect this very result.
The President made clear that the safety and security of this nation was PRIORITY #1. And factions within the conservative ranks ensured it was backpedaled, given lip-service, but only as long as their single-issue was given a higher priority.
Moonbats Meet Faux Conservatives, is how I refer to these next few years (aka: The Great Threshing of the American populace).
"The posters I was referring to above are the ones who feel it would be better if Schwarzenegger lost even if someone like Bustamante or Angelides won instead."
It would not have been better if Bustamante or Anglides had won. Then, NONE of our conservative principles, would have been represented. Now, unfortunately, the party is stuck with a Liberal like Arnold. However, yes, better for the party to be stuck with Arnold and CA stuck with him as governor for eight years, then to be stuck with Bustamante or Anglides.
However, in the first election, a rare circumstance to be sure, I would likely have voted for McClintock who was viable. Had he won, neither Schwarzenegger, Bustamante, or Anglides would be a problem for us today.