I think that you misunderstand the issues here. There are those on both sides who have more affinity for the Tridentine rite, or the Latin Mass, which is a seperate controversy. The disagreement is between those who accept the authority of the Pope and the Holy See, and those who do not. It seems more appropriate to refer to the second group as 'Protestants', since they 'protest' the Pope's authority.
No, actually I understand the issues quite well. When I reverted to Catholicism, a particularly devoted Catholic friend of mine had, at that point, wandered dangerously close to the point of schism, thanks to borderline-sedevacantist associations. Although he wouldn't come right out and say it, I could tell that he was barely remaining in faithful obedience to the Magisterium.
That said, unless I'm mis-reading this article, the author unequivocally states that he is faithful to the Pope. What he questions is a perceived bias within the Church so-called orthodox leadership (both beneath the Pope and within the laity) in its denunciation of Traditionalist Catholics, while generally ignoring or downplaying what he believes is one example of a real, dangerous, and legitimate schism of the Church, namely the CPA. (And actually, I think he's spot on in that asseessment, at least -- there should be cries of outrage for the atrocity of that disgusting abomination that purports to be Catholicism, under the name of the CPA). I disagree with him about his perceived victim status as a Tridentine-rite loving Catholic -- although I think the reason is not some concerted effort handed down from Vatican heirarchy, rather its peculiar to American Catholic bishops in general. It's no secret that orthodoxy is at a premium in many seminaries today.