[Owen]

You have been a McClintock supporter. I recall the McCain events of 2000. McCain, I think, earned some considerable points with how hard he campaigned for Bush. Note how talk of him switching parties has faded to nothingness. He did the good soldier thing.

You are certainly not obligated to endorse Arnold while McClintock is still in the race -- but my point here is much broader and frankly, I don't have an answer.

We are defining conservatism today by litmus tests du jour -- abortion, gun control, Iraq. How would we label a person's philosophy from say, 75 years ago were he to arrive on the scene today and know nothing whatsoever of these issues. Is there not a broader definition of leanings that goes beyond the current litmus tests? And if so, can not an individual come down on the wrong side of an occasional litmus test and still be conservative?

[Sabertooth]

You have been a McClintock supporter. I recall the McCain events of 2000. McCain, I think, earned some considerable points with how hard he campaigned for Bush.

Yeah, I saw McCain at a Bush rally in Burbank in October of 2000. He gets props for loyalty to the nominee.

We are defining conservatism today by litmus tests du jour -- abortion, gun control, Iraq. How would we label a person's philosophy from say, 75 years ago were he to arrive on the scene today and know nothing whatsoever of these issues. Is there not a broader definition of leanings that goes beyond the current litmus tests? And if so, can not an individual come down on the wrong side of an occasional litmus test and still be conservative?

I read a biography of Patrick Henry a while back, called "A Son of Thunder." I was struck, in the reading, of how much our current politics recapitulates the rift between the Federalists and the Antifederalists.

Labels are fluid, and compromise can be good, but I think it's also good for voters to have trip wire issues, if done so judiciously.

I'm attracted to ideas and methods that make politicians fearful of their constituents.