Replies

This California race is about much more than California. This is about changing the entire face of the Republican Party for years to come.

In the long term, it is about the sure death of the Republican Party if social conservartives are marginalized and and rejected.

In the short term, it is about the sure loss of the White House in 2004. Karl Rove had better pay close attention. Bush cannot win without the votes of the social conservatives that Arnold and the Log Cabin Republicans despise.

And make no mistake about it: social conservatives WILL stay home on election day if their only choice is to vote for a social liberal Republican or a social liberal Democrat.

Social conservatives are the life-force of the Republican Party. Only they truly appreciate and understand the truth that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are mutually exclusive.

Lots of issues tied up in this article, some true some not.

Let me just address a couple:
WRT conservative, maybe we agree, with fiscal conservatism all else follows the conservative path. This is often said while there are no absolutes...

But the word libertarian covers a lot of ground at least in the "thought forming for many press".

The father of libertarian ideas was Friedrich Hayek -- Rush renewed Hayek's fame by advertizing his book, The Road to Serfdom,certainly worth the read. (eg "why the worst get to the top.")

But so are all of Hayek's collected works, re: fiscal conservatism worth reading.

Often, I see that the Von Mises institute gathers and muddies Hayek. The reason they represent Hayek's ideals -- no started out that way, is known but not a nice story.

So for me, libertarianism means Hayek -- but we can no longer state it. Liberal hedonism seems to have taken over the word.

But we also cannot lump into a dish conservatism and religion. Hayek received a nobel prize for his work and so did a man whose work he admired called Rudolf Euchen (in around 1910), a German fiscal conservative. Euchen wrote "Konnen wir noch Kristin sein" (sp) wrt to socialism which he wrote, destroys the human spirit.

The article posted here mixes true and untrue and then states conclusions on false premises...

Look Kevin. I've been there. In 2000 I felt the same way you do. People voiced the same opinion we did and they left the party and voted for others. Where did that get us?

I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but until the debate is somehow made more sellable, you and I have no power at all.

I left the party in 2000. I voted for Buchanan. Did that accomplish what you thought it would?

I don't want Bustamante in there. If McClintock were able to surpass Schwarzenegger in polls, I'd vote for him. I've said so here till my fingers are sore. I can't change reality bud. Niether can you.

If Bustamate gets in, there is going to be a figurative bloodbath on conservative values that you could have only dreamed of in your worst nightmares. Why can't you see that?

Bush cannot win without the votes of the social conservatives that Arnold and the Log Cabin Republicans despise.

I don't know any of them that "Despise" socal conservatives. Social conservatives only use that word again, and again, and again, and again, because it's obviously the way they feel about them. They can't understand what it's like to NOT feel that way.

In the long term, it is about the sure death of the Republican Party if social conservartives are marginalized and and rejected.

Whenever I run into a liberal, I'm asked why I like Bush. I say, "I don't. He's too liberal for me."

The Republican Party has been marching Leftward for a long time now. I'd say it's more Left than the Democratic Party of forty years ago. So perhaps it's time we true conservatives let it die and throw our collective support behind a new party with real conservative principles.