You have not argued with the facts that I posted. You have merely characterized them as an emotional attack. You want to define your position your way to comfort yourself by ignoring the facts. Let's see if argument by analogy will work.
1) If, in 1972, one supported and voted for George McGovern, it is reasonable to conclude that the voter was "anti-war" and, given the evidence as to McGovern, anti-American;
2) If, in 1964, one supported Barry Goldwater, it is reasonable to conclude that the voter disbelieved the notion that Barry was itching to start World War III (a nationwide string of abortion mills, perhaps, but not World War III);
3) If, in 1992, one supported the Arkansas Antichrist, whatever one's reason for doing so, such a voter would be voting to support abortion. No equivocations or rationalizations are necessary, desirable or effective. Voting for Clinton in 1992 was supporting abortion even if the voter said: "I only wanted to encourage other Arkansas poor boys to go to Yale;"
4) If, 1n 2000, one voted for Dubya, such a voter may well have been tired of eight years of rationalization for serial rapes and many murders known as Arkancides;
5) People who claim to be Republican who support Arnold Schwarzenegger are supporting: abortion, homosexual marriage with tax subsidies, gun control, higher taxes for education, spending schemes for education and retention of racial quota tools, because Arnold supports all of those things in spades. Such voters do not want to hear what they are supporting because they think they are nicer people than that, but, nice or not, that is what they are supporting.
6) You then resort to the suggestion that by telling the truth about Arnold, the conservatives (the actual ones) are trying to elect a Democrat who is less conservative. Not even a nice try. Those who vote for McClintock are voting for McClintock. Those who vote for Arnold, for Cruz, for Doofus are voting for Arnold, for Cruz or for Doofus and for their common policies in favor of abortion, tax-subsidized lavender canoodling; adoption of innocent children by homosexuals; gun control, tax increases and spending increases. ArnieCruzaDoofus are interchangeable parts.
You can put all the lipstick you want to put on a pig but it is still a pig. Reality is still reality. A is still A. Your subjective spin to protect your own eyeball bleeding desire for some imagined modest mere monetary relief does not transform Arnold into anything but the social issues barbarian that he is and always has been. It also does not make him a conservative on money matters any more than do his transparent invocations of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman.
Likewise, calling my post false does not make it false.
Bill Simon ought to have known better. He has humiliated himself and should limit himself to appointed positions having to do with money since that is what he seems to care about if he can bottom feed to support Schwarzenkennedy.
As to rhetoric, I don't think you or Arnold's other supporters would be likely to respond any better if I had said: "You know, that Arnold may have the support of some respectable conservatives, but, golly gosh darn, I just don't feel comfortable with Arnold. Perhaps we can find someone a smidgeon more conservative. Are you really sure that Arnold is sound on warrants and debentures??? Very few understand the critical importance of such matters as we do, dear. Please pass the watercress sandwiches and a spot of tea."
The actual conservatives and actual Republicans will have to clean up after the surrender monkeys, as usual, after the disaster. That you have chosen the path of surrender on the issues that count by supporting the man who intends to Kennedyize the Republican Party of California is on your conscience not mine. When the evils occur (in the event he is elected), wallow in them. You will have richly earned the right to wallow in the evils you have spawned.
Define a "conservative" victory in another way????? A few abortions discouraged but not denied? A denial or two of claims for lavender "partnership" benefits? Well, give the conservative boys a penny, we have soccer moms to play smoochie with, and lavenders, and abortionists and their clientele and public school teachers and other solid Arnie Republicans. "We don't NEED no STEENKING RIGHT WING NUTS."
I am a Roman Catholic and so is Bill Simon who, until now, has acted like one. Arnold, Cruz and Doofus all CLAIM to be Catholic. Doofus has been ordered by Bishop Wiegand of Sacramento NOT to receive the Holy Eucharist in that diocese because of his support for abortion. It's not much, but it is a start. The Catholic Church (the one in the Vatican) says that NO Catholic may support a candidate who supports abortion because to do so is to be morally complicit in the abortions that follow. If you don't agree, then argue with JP II and Cardinal Ratzinger. Bill Simon needs to go to confession. He ought to take a long hot shower first to cleanse his body before he gets his soul cleansed.
Abortion kills babies. Gun control results in the grabbing of guns. Q.E.D. The "beat the servants" language to which you object comes from the sainted Ann Coulter's book Slander. In supporting Arnold, if she does, Ann is making her only mistake to date and will surely repent, particularly if the droid is elected. She is nearly perfect. You and Arnold and Simon and the California GOP's lickspittle "leadership" are not.
That is nice of you to pat my head and claim to "appreciate" my passion but you do not. If Arnold is elected, his supporters (more than any Demonrat honest enough to admit Demonrat status and not pose as Republicans) will feel the white hot political sting of the passion of the actually conservative. In the middle of the road there are only yellow streaks and armadilloes.
If Arnie is elected, perhaps the official gubernatorial portrait can be painted using the Mapplethorpe/Arnie photos as a model. It is in line with an ArnieCruzaDoofus Gollivornia.
Ooooops, there I go again being soooooooo insensitive! It hurts some people to be told the truth. I really should be kinder to them.
Nah!
It is as if you have examined the several conservative perspectives on this election – and as well the others you cite in an attempt to rationalize your conclusions – through the wrong end of a very powerful refractive telescope.
My point, simply, is this: Many decent, honorable, intelligent and occasionally wise people – most often political moderates of any party, but including many conservatives – determine who wins their vote through thoughtful analysis of a wide variety of positions, potential outcomes, and long- and short-range costs and benefits of their decision. It is easy, especially in an emotional state of mind, to be blind to the legitimacy of differences in opinion and to their effectiveness in advancing conservative principles in a country of several hundred million people.
To quote a wiser man than me: “It is better to do good than to feel good” in this world. In a perfect world there would be no question of compromise on principle. In our imperfect world, despite that we'd like to feel good by standing firm on our principles, we occasionally need to think and act differently in the short term in order to accomplish our longer-range goals.
I am not asking for agreement from you, nor am I attempting to change your positions on issues. What I am asking is for you to respect that conservatives who disagree with you are not necessarily RINOs, and most are not any of your other vile characterizations.
I know that my appeal to logic is a long-shot given your emotional state of mind your more recent posts continue to demonstrate.
I wish you good health and a rapid return to logical thinking.