A few interesting observations:
- The McClintock-uber-alles crowd seems to intersect very closely with the I'm-never-voting-for-George-Bush-again crowd. It seems that they don't want to actually elect Republicans.
- If the prominent Republican appears to disagree with one of their pet issues, they'll pick up whoever the perceived "pure" alternative is.
- The standards are extraordinarily high for Republicans, but if the candidate simply calls himself a conservative, that's good enough for them.
- The Cruz=Arnold argument is the only one that justifies tossing one's vote away. And they seriously make it. Hey, Bush=Gore, right?
- It's really about abortion.
- This group would rather vote for a dogcatcher with pet allergies who says he's pro-life than for someone who could actually do his job.
- McClintock is in a conservative district. He doesn't actually have any power to do anything with respect to abortion so he can say he's pro-life all he wants without having to do anything about it.
- Arnold opposes PBA. In this case, Cruz != Arnold. So, what happens if Cruz gets elected? Hmmm?
- Nobody recognizes that Arnold simply calling himself a Republican is an act of incredible political courage. If he had decided to run as an Independent, he would take this election in a walk. The mere fact that he calls himself a Republican will allow a large number of Republicans to be appointed to positions that they haven't occupied before. And some will be genuine conservative Republicans, too.
- They say, "Let Bustamante get elected and the people will revolt." Guess what? Californians are revolting (insert joke here) right now! They have arranged the recall of an elected politician one year after he got re-elected. That's extraordinary. The political chaos doesn't rise to a higher crescendo than this.
- Where, exactly, has McClintock proven himself a competent administrator? He managed to (barely) lose a campaign for controller. That's the highpoint of his résumé. At least Arnold has managed the business of Arnold, Inc. quite well. Quite well, indeed.
We go through this every time. There's always some reason not to vote for some Republican. Basically, they all have to be Reagan -- or what we remember Reagan to be. The truth is, Reagan was all about compromise. He took his half-loaves anyplace he could get them.
But Reagan wasn't good enough either, I guess.
>>
It's really about abortion. This group would rather vote for a dogcatcher with pet allergies who says he's pro-life than for someone who could actually do his job. <<
Find me a Republican nominee who's liberal on abortion but conservative ON EVERYTHING ELSE and guess what?... they've got my vote. Barry Goldwater was like that in '64, and conservatives loved the guy.
Hell, find me a Republican nominee who even manages to vote the way I want 51% and guess what?... they've got my vote. Governors Jim Edgar and Bob Elrich were like that during that campaign, and most conservatives found them acceptable. They really WERE moderates and "middle of the road", not Kennedy-style "Republicans" who pledged to "never forgive" the party during impeachment.
Your boy Arnie is liberal 90% of the time. On most social issues, he's a LIBERAL. On most fiscal issues, he's a LIBERAL. You can keep denying it and PRETENDING everyone who opposes them wants a "pure" candidate. We don't. We want someone who acts remotely conservative. Arnold is not, nor even will remotely conservative. You're not getting "Half a loaf" with Arnie or even BREAD CRUMBS with the guy. You're getting Davis with an "R" next to his name. Davis was a moderate Democrat, just like Arnie. They don't have to be Maxine Water types screwballs to be solid leftists, they just have to believe in the 'RAT party platform.
You guys remind me of the deranged media types who keep calling Jeffords a "moderate" who's only opposition was "the far right wing". Have you noticed "moderate" Jeffords is berating the DEMOCRAT leadership council for not being liberal ENOUGH lately?