This whole time, I thought that FReepers supported conservatives, and opposed liberals. During the past year or so, it seems that more and more FReepers reflexively oppose anyone *accused of being an “establishment” candidate* (based solely on the fact that he is in elective office and/or is endorsed by some elected officials), and support anyone who claims to be a “Tea Partier” (even when their words and deeds are liberal!) so long as such person never has held elective office. Had Ralph Nader claimed to be a “Tea Partier” in 1984, I guess these blinded conservatives would have supported Nader over that “GOP-e” figure Ronald Reagan running for reelection with the endorsement of 99% of elected Republicans nationwide.
I hope that McAllister was only pretending to be a liberal during the run-off to fool Democrats to vote for him and thus defeat Riser (who was, undoubtedly, the preferred candidate of Republicans and conservatives in LA-05). That would mean that McAllister is dishonest and unfit to be in public office, but at least he wouldn’t have a pro-amnesty, soft-on-Obamacare, liberal voting record.
People can claim anything they want, where do they stand on the issues? Nader would have never gotten any support at all. Ronald Reagan was HATED by the GOP establishment, they still didn't like him after 2 terms in the White House.
They're in the minority for sure, but there's always been a small segment of freepers who support liberals and oppose conservatives (even after FR purged all the freepers who supported candidates like Giulani and Romney in the primary)
Usually the excuse for them electing liberals is that so-and-so is "the best we can get" in a state because the state voted for a RAT President. Thus you had freepers openly supporting uber-RINOs like Arlen Specter and Mark Kirk in GOP primaries. (They will ignore the fact that these states had also elected conservative Republican Senators a few years earlier) Occasionally, this even extends to states that are reliably Republican. A number of freepers supported and defended Lisa Murkowski (even claiming she was "with us when it counts") before her maverick write-in campaign. The worst example was the 2006 election, where you had a number of freepers openly supporting Joe LIEberman and working hard to re-elect Al Gore's running mate. Their excuse was that the "war on terror is the most important issue", so we should waste time re-electing a guy who opposes us 95% of the time, instead of focusing on re-electing conservative Republicans like Jim Talent. The result was the RATs took control of the Senate and LIEberman provided the 50th vote. Best example I've seen of useful idiot "conservatives" scoring victories for the left. You are also correct that a leftist claiming to be "Tea Party" will get gullible conservatives to support them, regardless of their actual track record. The clearest examples being that a bunch of freepers worship liberal RINOs like Donald Trump and Jeanie Pirro simply because those talking heads put on a good show for the TV cameras and blast Obama on TV. You are correct that if Ralph Nader (or Hillary Clinton for that matter) had a press conference tomorrow and suddenly claimed to be a heroic Tea Party warrior who was going to "expose Obama", several gullible freepers would instantly embrace them and start sending them money.
Conversely, there are also freepers who like to bite the hand that feeds them and "take out" incumbent politicians who do what we want 95% of the time. Apparently they think we can "send a message" to the "GOP establishment" by eating our own. Witness the freepers who want to purge Mike Enzi and replace him with Liz Cheney (who is to his left), as a prominent modern example. A few years ago, you had a number of freepers who wanted to purge Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia and replace him with some neo-confederate (because the confederate flag was "the most important issue", of course). One of the excuses used to purge reliable conservative incumbents (besides the silly claim that anyone currently in power shouldn't be allowed to run for re-election), is that the incumbent is from a safe GOP state (of course they use the media's terminology, "red state"), and therefore should be expected to be 100% perfect. Since no politician on earth can live up to that standard, they will locate a single time where the incumbent did something we disagree with, no matter how minor, and demand their head on a platter. Naturally, this rule does not apply to "celebrity" incumbent Senators (John Thune, etc.), or politicians not on the radar. Those incumbents are allowed to vote as they please.
So while they are only a small minority of freepers, there have always been freepers who advocate electing liberals or purging conservatives. And unfortunately their actions have only helped shift this country to the left.