First, can we agree that, as a candidate, McCain isn’t wildly popular among conservative voters and isn’t drawing hordes of cross-over voters from the Democrats? For those who disagree and want to tout McCain’s many virtues, stop reading here, it doesn’t get any better. But, unlike the celebrated Roman, I have neither come to praise McCain nor to bury him.

Second, can we agree that McCain has the albatross of President Bush around his neck, not his fault to be sure, but also not something he can capitalize on without further alienating conservative voters. He can’t promise conservatives he will continue Bush’s policies and leadership momentum; many conservatives disagree with Bush’s policies and would ask “what momentum?”. He can’t disavow Bush’s conduct of the war (McCain’s military record is one of his primary strengths) and he certainly can’t pull over Democratic voters by merely promising more of the same in Iraq. Recall that Democrats running against Bush in 2000 all prayed that Bill Clinton would stay far away from actively “supporting” their campaigns.

Once it’s indisputably clear that McCain is the Republican candidate, the MSM will turn on him and start the normal sniper tactics; everything from his age and last prostrate exam to his voting record will be analyzed in minute detail and McCain will be found wanting in every category. Conservatives, who are unimpressed with him now, will rally to his defense out of sheer spite and return the favor with attacks on Clinton or Obama, particularly in regard to suitability as commander in chief. But, it will be 7 years since 9/11, too long to frighten undecided and potential cross-over voters with fears of another terrorist catastrophe.

Unless Clinton or Obama self-destruct during the campaign, which is highly unlikely with the MSM flying top cover, the polls will swing toward a likely Democratic Party victory. But, what if it’s a high margin, rather than a very close victory? What if conservatives do vote Republican but with resignation, maybe even a fatalistic “what the hell else can we do” attitude? What if conservatives display no enthusiasm for McCain, don’t spend their hard earned money supporting Republicans, don’t argue viciously with those attacking McCain; basically, what if we stand silently side by side within the Republican lines, faces blank and shoulders slumped? How do you convince the undecided voters when you aren’t convinced yourself?

One frequent boogeyman argument is “Think what will happen if Hillary or Obama is elected.” Yes, a Democrat as president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices for instance, but have you noticed that commentators assume conservatives have the muscle to prevent that just by voting for McCain? If there are more of “them” than “us”, how will voting and then losing assure conservative Justices are nominated? Heck, even voting and winning doesn’t assure that. Remember, the only current Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democrat is Ginsburg. And, recently retired liberal Justice O’Connor was nominated by Reagan. Only 1 out of the 9 serving Justices nominated by a Democrat is a strong argument for voting Republican? Why?

If the Democrat margin of victory looks to be high, the big money contributors will take out insurance by donating heavily to the Democrats and the tsunami will begin to gather speed in its rush toward the Republican beaches . If the day after the election shows a massacre of McCain and his Republican coatholders, then what? Well, the world won’t stop spinning and the Democrats will get their 4 to 8 years to thoroughly screw up and then anger the voting public. And, there will be much wringing of hands and extremely boring analysis of what went wrong. Be assured that non-voting or turncoat conservatives will be blamed for the loss, everyone from Ann Coulter to several frequent commenters on this website.

But what should we think of an election aftermath where Republican apologists fix the blame rather than fixing the problem? As George Patton said: “Americans hate to lose”. So, what do we do with losers who don’t make the grade, apologize to them for our many shortcomings as voters or send them down the road?

We can’t elect “principles” it’s true, but what if we can’t elect candidates either? Will the Republican pragmatists speak up with a “plan” for what to do after the deluge? And being pragmatists ourselves, should we continue to listen to authors and assorted “experts” who couldn’t lead us to victory? As consummate pragmatists, should there be any room in our philosophy for forgiveness and second chances?

One desirable “after the loss” action would be to weed the losers and their mouthpieces from conservative ranks. If McCain loses big time, our first strategic action should be to fix the blame on Republicans. But that’s not fair to the Republicans you say – hey, I thought we were being pragmatists here.

Your argument basically comes down to two things:

1) McCain isn’t that good.
2) The Democrats aren’t that bad.

On both counts you are wrong.

McCain wants to win the war; Clinton and Obama want to retreat. If you cannot see the substantive difference here it is because you choose not to.

Domestically, let’s just take one all important issue, how many Supreme Court Justices will retire and otherwise leave the court in the next 4 to 8 years? Are you willing to give up the court for the next generation? Do you think that will help us heal our culture?

You can pretend to be, “at a loss to see how McCain would be any better than either Democrat,” but your inability to face the truth doesn’t change it. Do you think that Clinton or Obama would have voted for Robert Bork? The difference between McCain and the alternatives is so vast that you must be willfully blind to miss it. Consider these numbers:

American Conservative Union rating for McCain: 82
American Conservative Union rating for Clinton: 9
American Conservative Union rating for Obama: 8

Now, I know, people will say, “That is McCain’s lifetime ranking, it’s been lower in recent years…” So what?! That is just more willful blindness. Even if his ranking fell to 50 (which it never has) that would still be more than five times the ranking of the alterative. If that is not a substantial difference, what is?

Your overall tone (like so many conservatives I have heard and read recently) is very troubling to me. You are so dismissive of McCain’s wartime experience, as if it was just something he did that doesn’t tell us anything about him. How many people do you know who have spent more than a half a decade as a POW under hellish conditions? Have you stopped for even a moment to think of the magnitude of what he has been through? Honestly, doesn’t that tell us something about his moral character? How can you be so quick to say:

“Having been in the military is not a certification for military competence. Just look at John Kerry and Gen. Wesley (read Wussley) Clarke. Indeed, Reagan made Army training films during WWII and never left the CONUS, but he “got it” when it came to the military.”

You act as if all military vets are created equal and, worse still, you pretend that they are equally unimportant. If you had to pick between a POW who kept his faith in America and refused to leave without his fellow Americans, or some guy who didn’t serve, who would you pick? Is it really unimportant to you that McCain served and served honorably? Is it really unimportant to you that he has decades of experience in military oversight? Is it really unimportant to you that he has repeatedly visited our troops, who love him? Take a breath and think about what you are saying, please!

BTW it took Reagan many years of hard thought before he “got it” on a number of issues. The man was a hard-core Dem during and after WW II. Check out this radio address he gave in 48 for Truman:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M

Maybe if he had spent a little time in the military he would have come around faster; it certainly wouldn’t have hurt his intellectual growth. It should also be noted that Truman (in many ways a very different kind of Democrat) was the first Cold War President. He was the one who decided to take the Soviet threat seriously and take a stand against it. Was this partly due to the fact that he was a WW I vet? Once again, seeing combat certainly didn’t hurt his ability to judge the worst parts of humanity.

Lastly, if you aren’t too upset with me after all that, please take a look at this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4xtIOO6N-Oc

Best,
JKL

Your argument is based on two points, namely: "…his national security understanding is high." and "He has a moral center."

Really? What evidence do you have that McCain gets it when it comes to military matters? Why, because he was in the Navy and got shot down and spent time in a POW camp? Do you know if he understands how to fight and win a counter-insurgency? Can you look me in the eye and say that McCain will fund the F-22, the A-35, ABM weapons, and replace nearly the entire inventory of combat vehicles in the Army and Marine Corps?

Do you suppose or assert that McCain will take an independent, America-first foreign policy with the Europeans and Chinese? Do you want to look me in the eye and say that McCain will close the borders to illegal immigration? What about his stance on the North American Union and the transnational highway from Mexico to Canada? Think he'll just say no?

Having been in the military is not a certification for military competence. Just look at John Kerry and Gen. Wesley (read Wussley) Clarke. Indeed, Reagan made Army training films during WWII and never left the CONUS, but he "got it" when it came to the military.

McCain has a moral center? Please, don't make me laugh! What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Have you read his autobiography? It is nothing but a self-serving, patting-myself-on-the-back exercise into myth making. He has banked off his time as a POW for personal gain. Do you have any idea how reprehensible that is? His opposition to the Constitutional guarantees for life, free speech, and to keep and bear arms, which he has taken repeated oaths to uphold, is a clear indication that he is an oathbreaker. His word is not his bond.

McCain is nearly as vacuous as Obama. He admitted he doesn't understand even simple economic concepts in a debate and resorts to "am not, are too" responses when challenged. Frankly, I'm at a loss to see how McCain would be any better than either Democrat.

Lastly, as I've said in other posts, I do not accept the doom and gloom scenarios for the next 4 years. We survived Carter and LBJ and FDR and Wilson. We'll survive again. What we are less likely to survive is not the idiot in the White House, but the social corrosion of our toxic culture. Turn the culture around and the White House will follow.

Regards.

The president of United States is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Putting a person of unknown character in control of the nuclear release codes is idiotic to the extreme. Jimmy Carter nearly destroyed the United States with unilateral disarmament when a 600 pound Soviet guerilla was being backed against an economic wall. We are lucky to be alive and chancing that sort of situation again is going down a perilous road.

Senator Obama is a far left liberal with possible Islamic leanings. As president, Obama undoubtedly would have United States catastrophically withdraw from the Middle East. The result will be an unfettered Iran and greatly enhanced Islamic terrorist factions. Four years hence we could very well find ourselves facing a nuclear armed New Persian Empire controlling the Middle East. Conservatives cannot let this happen just because they don’t like Senator McCain.

Senator Hillary Clinton is embittered, utterly corrupt with socialist leanings. She is however a pragmatist and it is doubtful she would let the Middle East fall into Iranian hands. She would cause the country immeasurable harm but at a level that the United States could probably recover from after four disastrous years. A President Obama could leave a legacy that is unrecoverable.

A President McCain could cause the Republican Party perhaps near fatal harm. However, a President McCain resultant damage to the country would be more likely transitory and recoverable. Senator McCain is a scary fellow, pig headed with faulty fundamental concepts. However his national security understanding is high. He has a moral center. His weaknesses are in areas that congressional Republicans should be able to mitigate or block from becoming law. The country may stay on “the wrong path” but at least it will be safe.

These are dangerous times were apathy can be fatal.

A couple of specific points…

I do have the right to complain if I sit this one out (as I did in 1996). And I'm not talking about my rights to free speech. I mean that I am morally justified. I have had no hand in making the Republican Party what it has become. On the contrary, since I was old enough to vote, I have cast for the most conservative candidates in the primaries. I have joined every important conservative political action group that you can think of. I've contributed money and volunteered my time. I even express my ultra-conservative views in public on forums like this one. So, you better believe I have the right (moral justification) to complain. Since I'm not responsible, since I represent rectitude, then yes, I can complain.

Second, you assert that we can't influence events and the Party from the outside.

Wrong again. I can, I will, and I do. Look, I'm a Christian Conservative who is also a combat veteran. Do you have any idea how much of an outsider that makes me in American society? I'm used to viewing myself and my ideals as insurgent. My point being that Conservatism is a movement, a type of religion if you will, that transcends party. In fact, Conservatives already have considerable organization outside the Republican umbrella, an example would be the largest political lobbying group, the Christian Coalition. We do not depend on the Republican Party for a voice in politics. Surely, the various Conservative lobby and action groups represent us far more effectively in government than most Republican politicians do.

Ultimately, politicians, regardless of Party, are by overwhelming percentage, a bunch of self-aggrandizing, gutless followers (with notable exceptions) who only go as far as the public morays will allow and quickly change tack with public sentiment. Following that theory, politicians can be brought to heal by focusing on winning the hearts and minds of the American people to conservative values. I would argue that it is not only far more effective than playing the margins of election year calculus, but the only means of saving our culture from the abyss of Post-Modernism. But, by voting for the likes of McCain, you only reinforce the very notion of the homebuilder over a barrel that you decried. Liberals like McCain will see that all they have to do is be the lesser of two evils and appeal themselves to the inattentive, ill-informed, uncaring masses in "the center", because they can count on Conservatives making the same decision you did.

There is no logic or benefit to being a member of a party that does not represent our ideals and so we lose nothing by bolting. We are already disenfranchised, so how is it to our disadvantage to torpedo the people who have torpedoed us? Likewise, we should start thinking of ourselves as Conservatives with an agenda rather than a group within a political party. The party system has failed us and we need either the concede being marginalized within that party system or start acting like insurgents with a message to convey.

I urge you to reconsider your commitment to vote for McCain and sit this one out.

Regards.

Four years of a President McCain could very well do enormous damage to the national Republican Party and the country as a whole. His knowledge of economics seems nonexistent. He has bought off on the manmade Global Warming nonsense and seems to support an open border policy. His only positive point is his national security credentials.

Unfortunately Commander in Chief McCain worries me too. While in the Navy I meet some of the returned Vietnam POWs and worked directly for one of them. All of them ranged from totally nuts to generally unstable. It is a sad fact that years of torture warps the brain. A President McCain with the nuclear codes scares the hell out of me.

On the other hand we are at war and a President Obama means surrender and a greatly motivated Islamic radicals. Iraq and probably all of the Middle East will become an Iranian Empire and gas will be $20 at the pump and the Western economy will slip into depression.

A President Clinton will not be as bad. However we would experience more sordid corruption and socialism attempts. Undoubtedly our military will have women placed in direct combat roles and homosexuals will be given open acceptance. Both of those things will be difficult to roll back.

It is a difficult decision to determine who is better out of a horrible group of candidates. My gut feel is to buy an old Titan 1 missile complex and hunker down until all this nastiness works it self out.

In lieu of that I’ll have to vote for candidate McCain and hold my nose and hope for the best.

I will vote, and actively work for the election of, any candidate that is willing to sign an agreement that illegal aliens may not have:

1. sanctuary,
2. taxpayer funded benefits,
3. anchor baby citizenship,
4. drivers licenses
5. police no ask policy,
6. day worker centers,
7. legal services,
8. chain migration,
9. amnesty
10. Language support other than ENGLISH.

If no candidates for an elected position will sign the agreement
THEN I will vote for a write-in candidate.

I also will not contribute to non-signers campaigns AND I will return their campaign material marked as REFUSED RETURN TO SENDER.