Replies

So what you’re saying is, “Unless I get my way (e.g. get a non-RINO conservative), I don’t want it” — WHICH MEANS YOU’RE SAYING YOU WOULDN’T VOTE FOR A BOXER OPPONENT AND THEREFORE YOU’D RATHER HAVE BOXER.

For twenty-five years, I went along with the "support the nominee" policy. Then came the Simon election. I have never seen such a screw job on the part of the Party in my life. Since that time, the CAGOP has refused to support a single conservative nominee for statewide office, not one. I'm not doing Charlie Brown any more. Got it?

Be realistic for a change. (I live in Calif and anything we can do to get rid of that moronic Boxer, the better).

In light of the content of that last post, do you see how ridiculous you look to me? For a change? I did that one for twenty-five years! I've had it with the complete lack of "moderate" reciprocity. No more.

My family has five generations in California. I've done more than just about anybody on this forum to roll back leftist policy, having written two books, deferred at least $1.25 million in income, and spent buckets of money in the proving that conservative policies can do a better job of environmental management. For you to say that without checking me out shows you to be shallow, lazy, and arrogant. Why should I listen to you?

One more thing from this "moron." Why should I support a corporate globalist RINO, who is worth tens of millions, when the NRSC is pouring millions into her campaign while it craps on Christine O'Donnell?

Do you need any more poignant example of why the contract of mutual support that constitutes a political party has been violated by its own leadership? At that point, the contract is void until that leadership has been replaced.

I didn’t intend for this to deteriorate into a name-calling exercise as you have done by calling me “shallow, lazy, and arrogant” when I just asked you to be realistic.

Just answer the question:

“Assuming one of these two will be your next Senator from California, which one would you choose:

Boxer ________

Fiorina _______

If you choose to NOT vote for Fiorina (as a vote against Boxer) our of so-called principle, well, then you’re allowing someone much worse to win (Boxer).

What’s so hard to understand about this?

I’m not being arrogant or lazy in this analysis. This is the cold reality.

Then notion that somehow if you vote for a non-RINO as a “protest vote,” yet that non-RINO has zero chance of winning in California, you do the right thing and that is to vote for the RINO over the Marxist.

Perhaps this is an issue of stubborn pride (in your case), but in life and in business, we have to make practical choices, given the realities at hand.

I can only assume from your suggestion that people don’t vote for Fiorina is that you wouldn’t mind having Boxer do another term. Or you find that LESS objectionable than Fiorina.

That’s sad, dude, because that kind of stubbornness (the so-called “protest vote”) is partly what helped allow the usurper, President Narcissus in the WH.