Ok, so you want McCain to lose. His opponent will be the DEM. So we want the DEM to win. Inescapable, irrefutable. Why not just say so?
Because it's not true. I don't want a Dem to win. I don't want McCain to win either. But it would be true to say I think it would be better, given that choice, if the Dem won. But I won't vote for either. I consider my vote to be for whom it is cast never against anyone. That is the truth of it.
Here is your logic in its bare bones:
Unless I support evil, then I support evil.
So, to put a face on it: If I were alive in 1938 Germany, you would argue that unless I support Stalin, by default I am supporting Hitler.
You ask conservatives to turn their backs and betray the very core of conservatism, which itself rightly expresses and upholds the precepts of the US Constitution. And for what reason? So we will not elect a man who is himself anathema to the very precepts you ask us to betray by selecting his rival.
To wit: You have chosen to support John McCain, a man whose political beliefs are anathema to the Constitution. This contradiction is impossible for your conscience to reconcile. So, therefore your conscience needs to be free of the constant reminder that you are willing to betray the core principles you claim here to stand for. To accomplish this feat you must cause others to make the same compromise, and thus not suffer the rebuke of your conscience when you look in the mirror. All will be right if you but only corrupt your accusers.
This tactic typifies the essence of liberal thought. Liberals attempt to remake society to mirror their own debased life, and thus in so doing, remove the contradiction and condemnation of their conscience by corrupting all else around them.
You have been exposed, my friend.