[tallhappy]

Thanks. I also said something similar.

But it should not be construed as preferring Bustamante over Schwarzenegger. Preferring a Bustamante victory vs a Schwarzenegger victory is slightly different.

My comment is a Bustamante victory would be less detrimental to the state and the nation and the Republican party in the long run than a Schwarzenegger win.

I would never vote for Bustamante or encourage anyone to vote for him.

I have always voted Republican since I had my eyes open. The one exception was Huffington vs Feinstein in 1992. I could not vote for Huffington. I didn't vote for Feinstein. I threw my vote away on a third party candidate I can't even remember.

Events since, I think, have validated my decision.

I agree that too many Republicans are too purist here. They even did this to Matt Fong. He could have won but they spread word he was pro-abortion.

[FairOpinion]

"I would never vote for Bustamante or encourage anyone to vote for him. "

===

A Mcclintock vote is a proxy for a Bustamante vote.

By voting for Mcclintock you will be voting for Bustamante, just as surely, as if you punched the ballot by Bustamante's name.


The choice is Schwarzenegger or Bustamante. If you are not voting for Schwarzenegger, you ARE voting for Bustamante, all rationalizations nonwithstanding.