I think you're wrong about this; most of the neo-con crowd here seem to be baby boomers, although they come from all ages.
But, yeah, I think we could use a booster shot of conservatism here.
It's one thing to rally around a moderate candidate like Bush who won the nomination, and was in a close race.
It's entirely another thing to support an unabashed liberal in a free-for-all.
You could be right. But what I read between the lines of the pro-Ahnold posts is that politics is like some sort of video game. It's about winning and strategy as opposed to ideas and ideology. What better candidate can there be for video gamers than Arnold Schwartzenegger?
If you really are a conservative, and you support an unabashed liberal, what have you "won." You lose by winning, so to speak. But if all you care about is power then it doesn't really matter. Socialism can be embraced as a means to an end.
Ideologically. there is absolutely no difference between Joe Lieberman and Arnold. And yet, Lieberman is regarded as evil and Arnold a savior. Why? Party. I read one post that argued for Ahnold on the basis that he would give the party patronage jobs. In my widest imaginations, I never thought that the primary motivation of the less-government party would be to get patronage jobs for the faithful. But there it is, and very few seem to question it nowadays.
When we have devolved to the point that there is no ideological difference between the parties, then it's just about the game.
I think what's at stake is far too important to get reduced to that.