Posted on 11/11/2006 2:42:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
Surely you're not suggesting conservatives got anywhere near 100% of their agenda? Here in California it would be hard to argue that they even got 10% of their agenda with the detestable Ahnold and Duf in control of the party.
Now I supported McClintock. But I do understand why some conservatives would have voted for Arnold (though he is far too Liberal for me), as they believe CA has become far too Liberal a state for a conservative to win. They may be right. I am not familiar enough with CA to make that call.
People have differences of opinion regarding political and voting strategies. Generally, it doesn't make them anymore or less conservative. It's someone's stand on the issues that defines their brand of conservatism. At least that's the way I see it.
Looks like a conservative to me. However, as far as death penalty goes, I would be for public hangings. Build a gallows in front of the courthouse, sell tickets, (good revenue booster). or is that too radical?
How did you get that from my explantion of Reagan's definition of a radical conservative? Nice change of topic, btw.
With the political situation in CA today, I would not expect that conservatives would get anything close to 100% (which incidentally I don't expect to get ANYWHERE), and wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 30%.
A lot of people held their nose and voted for Ahnold. He repaid them by telling voters that he voted for and supported Democrats and by openly attacking the Republican Lt. Governor candidate days before the election.
Sounds good to me as long as we model the judicial process on how Texas handles it... you kill someone, we kill you back and don't wait 50 years to do it.
Public hangings sound good... or maybe televising them? :-)
You argued that a "radical conservative" wouldn't settle for anything less than 100%. Since we didn't get anywhere near 100%, who can your definition be applied to? Do we use tea leaves?
I will read it. Thank you very much!
on televising them.
I was going to mention that, but only if they showed a reinactment of their crime so the people didn't start feeling sorry for them.
Did you read reply #43?
You are creating an argument where there was only a question.
JimRob made his decision a day or so before the recall election and posted that decision on FR for all to see. He didn't run around FR trashing those of us who opposed Arnold, and he wasn't outspoken in his support of the liberal Schwarzenegger either. He was for McClintock up until the end, and expressed that opinion on several occasions.
People have a right to vote for whoever they choose to. However, since FR is a rightwing forum, advancing conservatism and opposing liberalism, I see no good reason to hold back criticism of liberals, moderates and centrists. Especially those who go out of their way to promote anything but conservatism. Simple as that.
Well, just as I thought, you are a...a..Conservative with a capital C, lol!
Tamzee seems to believe that anyone who isn't a complete sellout is a "radical conservative".
Excellent point, the press fawning endlessly over Tookie was nauseating and deliberately deceptive. I like your idea, similar to "Unsolved Crimes" but with a really happy ending....
Thank you for the explanation.
exactly
Some are lemmings some are traitors.. but ALL perform sedition..
That's about the size of it :-)
Which is why I'm so determined not to see the country continue to lurch left away from us by blowing elections out of tiny-tent-ism in blue states.
I know and understand most of the reasoning. I believe I would have voted for McClintock but cannot be certain. Republican Liberals like Arnold will stab you in the back every time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.