[Def Conservative]

Kathleen is out to lunch.

First, Rush, Ann and Glen are no more self appointed spokesmen than she is...they’re all conservative media types.

Second, are we gonna be waving the bloody shirt as the Dems did for Kerry in 04? Military service wasn’t enough of a selling point for Kerry, George H. Bush or Dole. If that’s gonna be the campaign theme for those who wanna make us feel bad for going against McCain they should stop it now.

Third, the Clinton fear tactic does not work anymore. Most people can look to the Clinton years and see a congress that fought liberal policies and then look to the Bush years and watch a congress that loss seat after seat after supporting liberal policies in the name of party unity.

[TornadoAlley3]

Kathleen, eat me.

[neverdem]

The GOP needs a brokered convention in 2008

Arise, Ye Favorite Sons

[mtbopfuyn]

As you say, there may be no difference between the three on their views, but there is a difference in the sheeple’s views. In 4 years with a RINORAT, the sheeple will merely pile on more hatred of the party. In 4 years with a RAT making those same decisions, the sheeple and the GOP may possibly wake up and vote for a real conservative in ‘12.

[Molly K.]

The author thinks that the “stay-true-to your-conservative-principles-no-matter-what” argument is not very convincing.

However.... I am not sure that the author has correctly understood the position of many of the so-called “suicide voters.”

My take on it is that they are arguing that:
1. The Clinton presidency would cause less damage, because conservative republicans would be actively fighting against her proposals. So her liberal policies wouldn’t get through.
2. The McCain presidency would cause MORE damage, because the conservative republicans would not be actively fighting against a fellow republican. So his liberal policies (not amnesty-because-you-pay-$, global warming policies, etc.) would pass.

As for me... I tend to think that McCain’s presidency would cause less damage, so most likely I will be voting for him.
(I reserve the right to change my mind!!!!)

[live+let_live]

Kamakazi Republicans?

It starts out that you are misinformed.
Then you are having a childish tantrum.
Then you are mentally unstable.
Finally you are dangerous.

By November, the establishment will be in pure terrified panic that we serfs are in revolt.

Prepare to be cast as the evil ones.

PS: whodatorg wants to add “McCain Derangement Syndrome” to my list. I think it should go between ‘childish tantrum’ and ‘mentally unstable’, but I’m willing to listen to others’ opinions on its position.

[oblomov]

Yawn. Another lecture from one of my so-called conservative betters.

Look here, Kathleen. Just because my name isn’t known in the Georgetown or Manhattan cocktail party circuits doesn’t mean that I don’t have influence in my corner of the world, or a deep education in history or political philosophy.

My loyalty is to conservative principle, not the GOP.

If you want my vote, you’ll need to do better than to harangue, insult, and condescend.

At this point I see no reason not to let the Dems take the blame for the economic tough love coming our way. It was socialism that got us into the mess, not free market capitalism. Why let the faux-capitalist party get tarred with the brush?

[NittanyLion]

When some people have greater access to "free speech" by virtue of their deeper pockets, then one could fairly argue that less prosperous people are denied free speech.

WTH? That has to be one of the dumbest things Parker's ever written.

[o_zarkman44]

Bi-Partisanship is nothing more than caving to liberal demands. McCain says he can work across the aisle. In other words, he is a compromiser.
Nowhere in the definition of “conservative” is there anything mentioned about compromise. So conservative principles are not based on compromising to a leftist, socialist, progressive agenda. Neither is an election of a pseudo conservative.

[syriacus]

McCain isn’t the GOP nominee, yet.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Compromise is:
getting rid of your principles a little bit at a time.
- Patrick Lear

[facedown]

Alternatively, McCain's maverick lawmaking might be viewed as principled compromise -- or at least an earnest attempt to inject humane ethics into the mix.

Then again, it might be viewed as grandstanding for the Beltway Bunch.

[Jewels1091]

most of the people who made comments here just prove her point..

[abclily]

Rush Limbaugh is not a perfect conservative. Glenn Beck is not a perfect conservative. Ann Coulter is not a perfect conservative. But they won’t vote for McCain, because he is not a perfect conservative? Where do these elitist conservative talkers come off? These conservative talkers are acting much the same as left-wing, liberal, cry babies.

[Biblebelter]

McCain's enemies see him as having abandoned those principles with the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, which limited political speech, and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that would allow for gradual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria.

This is a key sentence. I did not wake up and decide one day that McCain or Jorge Bush took a position that required me to make them my enemy. No conservative really has ANY enemies if Teddy Kennedy is not Public Enemy Number One on your enemies list. McCain is my enemy not because I disagree with him but because it seems on the ISSUES which I care a lot about he is always sleeping with the conservative's Public Enemy Number One Teddy Kennedy. It ain't about disagreement or ideological purity, it is about the treachery of sleeping with Public Enemy Number One.

[kittymyrib]

Spoken as a Republican, not a conservative. There are principles that are not negotiable. One of them is national sovereignty vs. open borders. McCain will grant amnesty to illegals, pushing through the law he and Kennedy proposed. I will never vote for him. Let Hillary win and implement amnesty. She’ll be doing it without my vote. This is what I’ve learned after eight years of George Bush.

[Cicero]

We accepted some bad stuff from Bush because he also gave us some good stuff. Not only that, but the alternatives were McCain and Gore, who were both far worse.

But McCain will offer us, and our country, virtually nothing.

This is like having Nelson Rockefeller come back from the dead, after decades of work building the conservative coalition and giving victory to the Republicans.

They started screwing with the base in the 2006 election, and now apparently they aren’t really even TRYING to pretend that they care what we think or want.

You don’t reward people for treating you with abuse and contempt. It will only encourge them to keep doing it.

[farmer18th]

Same old, same old.

Here's the sorry lament of the cowardly "lesser of two evils" voter.

Picture a small framed man on a piano bench with a plaid shirt and a golfing picture of Gerald Ford on the wall.
"Well, you know I really have some very severe reservations about John McCain," he says, timidly. "He voted against the Bush Tax cuts twice and he publicly ridiculed some of the P.O.W. families and he cheated on his wife and he voted for Ruth Gader Ginsburg and I have two hunting rifles I bought at a gun show and I'm scared he would want to take those away from me, but..."

At this point his lip begins to tremble..

I'm just so FRIGHTENED of Hilllary Clinton....

[JasonC]

She is entirely right.

[penowa]

"It isn't necessary to love everything McCain has done to vote for him should he be the nominee. But it isn't possible to argue that there's no difference between McCain and Clinton (or Barack Obama), as some Republicans insist."

You can ignore the fact that McCain is a wholly owned subsidiary of Soros et.al., to make the argument that he's the lesser of two evils, but once you realize the guys behind the curtain are so brazen they no longer care if you think this is a faux election on a par with Saddam's, it will be hard to pull that lever for McCain.