[unseen1]

sorry didn't realize you were too stupid to see past your McCain hatred. Logic seems to fail you. vote for the lesser of two evils and call it a vote for a “real conservative” if you like. I choose to go into a campaign with eyes wide open not blinded by hatred for one or the other candidates so bad I do not see the negatives of each.

To you JD walks on water and turns dirt into bread and wine. While McCain is the son of Satan. believe what you want. To me there isn't much difference between the two.

however, there is a major difference between McCain and Palin. yet you want to link the two and somehow you think THAT (tearing down Palin) will advance the conservative agenda.

yeah because a Jr. senator form a small state has more power and opportunity to advance the conservative agenda than a president of the United States or even a national leader of a movement.

Palin does more to advance the conservative agenda with one facebook post than JD has done his entire campaign for Senate. Most people in the country have never even heard of the guy. He is a small fish in a small pond. So your “logic” says to kill and gut the big fish in the big pond to ensure the small fish in the small pond wins. Gotcha

[DoughtyOne]

sorry didn't realize you were too stupid to see past your McCain hatred.

When McCain goes back to Arizona to live on his ranch, I could care less about the man as long as he keeps his Leftist nose out of our party.

Logic seems to fail you.

And this from the person that has been exposed to this http://www.hotr.us/data/mccainagain.html and came away thinking McCain was the best candidate to represent the Republican party.

If you were right, we should have been running Ted Kennedy, Russel Feingold, John Kerry, and other Leftists all along.  Why you'd be voting for them because they were no more leftist than our guys.  LOL

vote for the lesser of two evils and call it a vote for a “real conservative” if you like.

There you go again.  You criticize my logic, then claim that there is not difference between John McCain and J. D. Hayworth.  I asked you to post a list of the things J. D. was guilty of, and so far you've come up with one thing you didn't like.  One.  You mentioned another, but J. D. was never charged with any crime, much less convicted of one.  You're desperate to defend McCain.  You can't.  His actions are indefensible.

I choose to go into a campaign with eyes wide open not blinded by hatred for one or the other candidates so bad I do not see the negatives of each.

I have worked fairly hard to develop the record of John McCain, so people like you could see what he has been up to.  I have provided a link to it.  You have chosen to ignore that list, so you could claim that John McCain is no worse than J. D. Hayworth.  And when I asked you to provide a similar list of what J. D. had done was wrong, you provided two things that J. D. had done wrong, but one of them was unsupportable, basically a smear of J. D.

Who has been keeping their eyes shut, so as not to see what their candidate has been up to.  Tell me.

To you JD walks on water and turns dirt into bread and wine.

I have never said that J. D. was perfect, so this comment of yours is delusional.  I have watched J. D. make statements over the years, and when I observed him he was on the right side of the issues.  I believe you have mentioned one thing he did that I disagreed with, but other than that, I don't remember anything else.  You have the floor bud.  Tell me what J. D. has done that is so bad, as to make him just another John McCain.  I'm waiting.

While McCain is the son of Satan. believe what you want. To me there isn't much difference between the two.

This is what McCain has done with his 28 years in Congress and the Senate.  It doesn't qualify him as the son of Satan, but it comes pretty close.  LOL

As for there not being much difference between the two of them, well I think folks can figure that one out for themselves.  They've been exposed to the same data you have.

however, there is a major difference between McCain and Palin. yet you want to link the two and somehow you think THAT (tearing down Palin) will advance the conservative agenda.

My problem with Palin is that I didn't link the two.  She did by choice.

I didn't have a problem with her joining  McCain to moderate him in 2008.  I have a very big problem with her endorsing him to return to the U. S. Senater, in part based on his lifetime of achievement, when I see what that achievement entailed.  I have a hard time with her appearing on FoxNews Channel proping him up.  I have a very hard time realizing she has had adds running for him for months on the Conservative talk radio stations in Arizona freezing J. D. Hayworth out, in the minds of people who should be focusing solely on Hayworth.

She's supposed to stand for Conservative principles.  That's what she claims to be, a Conservative.  Here's another person who claims to be a Conservative, then backs McCain, Fiorina, and another person back east who are consummate Liberals or worse.  Some people who claim to be Conservatives talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.  John McCain is one of them.  Is Sarah another?  Frankly, that is my concern.  How does a "Conservative" stomach backing a man with McCain's record, unless they actually think the man is a Conservative?  I can't.

yeah because a Jr. senator form a small state has more power and opportunity to advance the conservative agenda than a president of the United States or even a national leader of a movement.

You have touched on the seniority of McCain several times during our exchanges.  If McCain was a good man, you would have basis to do so.  McCain's record is clear.  So would I rather send a man with McCain's record that has seniority and lots of power, or a man with J. D. Hayworth's record and less seniority.

Give me the sound foot-soldier every time.  A general leading in the wrong direction is of no help to our cause.  In fact, he's a major hinderance.

Palin does more to advance the conservative agenda with one facebook post than JD has done his entire campaign for Senate.

When Sarah speaks of good things, I think she does a good job.  But when Sarah backs bad people, she undercuts the party, Conservatism, and our efforts to turn things around.  Sarah is pretty much a mixed bag right now.  She is helping to get people elected who will oppose her own agenda should she be elected president.  To be fair, not all of them, but too many of them.  And that's only if she is truly a Conservative.  If she truly doesn't understand what John McCain is, she will be sitting in the Oval Office implementing his agenda.  That's a very real possibility, now that Sarah has tiped her hand, and made it clear she backs John McCain's sordid history.  She does.  I don't.  She has said it.  I haven't.

Most people in the country have never even heard of the guy.

He's running in Arizona.  The people of Arizona have heard of him.  Most people are not aware of John McCain full sordid history.  And so most people have at this point decided to back who Palin is backing.  That is unfortunate.

He is a small fish in a small pond.

He is a small healthy fish in a pond that is the same size as the one unhealthy John McCain is swimming in.  Arizona doesn't shrink or expand depending on who is the Senator.  Only Conservatism does.

The healthy advocacy and votes are the important thing.  John's advocacy is for Leftist ideals.  J. D.'s advocacy is for Conservative ideals.  Look at John's record.  He has at one point or another betrayed every belief Conservatives have.  You simly cannot point to a similar record for Hayworth.  And your slander that he is no different than John McCain is false.

So your “logic” says to kill and gut the big fish in the big pond to ensure the small fish in the small pond wins.

My logic says that putting a Ted Kennedy Conservative back into office after seeing what he has been up to, is just plain idiotic when you have a solid Reagan Conservative to replace him with.

Gotcha

I'm sure you believe you did.