[Huck]

Pathetic evasion. Not surprising. Another one in denial. It’s real simple: either you want McCain to win or you want him to lose. If you want him to lose, you want the DEM to win. It’s perfect, irrefutable logic.

[Petronski]

It’s real simple: either you want McCain to win or you want him to lose.

Simply not true.

[Mojave]

It’s real simple: either you want McCain to win or you want him to lose.

It’s real simple: either you support McCain's agenda or you don't.

[TigersEye]

It's a child's logic. You have no comprehension of cause and effect. "What you sow so shall ye reap." If you vote for McCain you are voting for his policies to be implemented with your approval and the conservative/Republican brand on it. The result is that McCain's liberal policies will be viewed by all as "conservative/Republican" policies and any Republican Congress critter who opposes it will be marginalized, as has been going on for some time now, as extremist. The Republican Party will therefore back all of his liberal policies and look for even more liberal candidates for the future. Look at the progression we have had...

GHWB
GWB
McCain

Think how far left the next Republican Pres. candidate will be.

[supercat]

It’s real simple: either you want McCain to win or you want him to lose. If you want him to lose, you want the DEM to win. It’s perfect, irrefutable logic.

There's a difference between saying "I'd rather have X than Y" and saying "I want X". The latter implies a positive desire; given a choice of X or nothing, one would prefer X. By contrast, the latter has no such implication. It may well be that, given the option of having neither X nor Y, one would opt for that.

If I could somehow spend $10,000 and make Fred Thompson be President of the U.S., I would. I'd even be willing to spend that for Romney if the alternative was one of the current three. But if I had to spend $0.10 to choose the winner among McCain, Hillary, and Obama, I'd probably keep my dime.