Choices :
1. become part of the vast right wing undervote (skip Mccain and vote for the best newcomers)
2.Stay home.
3.form a third party as in conservative (c) after their names.
4.drift away from politics as a solution.
5.sell your priciples, enable RINOism, guarantee permenant snubbism, become the GOP version of black guaranteed votes and vote because ____ is the lesser of two evils.

Your insults in calling our principled choice “tantrums” and threatening us with fear (gay marriage the law of the land?)reeks of the very liberal techniques that solid conservatism abhors.

I for one will stay with principle and integrity over the slow but just as deadly poison of capitulation of my very deep beliefs in order to win.

People can vote, or not vote, for whoever they want to. And, if they don’t think there is an appreciable difference between the two candidates, then they have every right not to vote.

Besides, your concerns are overwrought. Let’s review:

1. Gay marriage the law of the land. A little surprised to see you playing this card, although I am sure you will just say you are throwing out Dobson’s fears for him. Anyway, the next president will have absolutely nothing to say about gay marriage being the law of the land. Marriage is a state issue and, short of a constitutional amendment which has no chance of passage, won’t be decided by the federal government.

2. Stem cell research. You have a point here, but I really don’t care about this issue one way or another.

3. Unilateral abandonment in Iraq. Ain’t gonna happen. Europe and some of the arab countries posture about our involvment, but if we announced a withdrawl, they would be begging us to stay. Besides, I don’t think that a Dem President really wants to be seen as the reason Iraq descended into chaos after being relatively passive.

4. Conservative judges. A decent point here, but no pro-life judge is going ot make it thru the confirmation process to replace Ginsburg or Stevens, not with a Democrat congress.

5. Reimposition of the fairness doctrine? I won’t pretend to be an expert in this, but I would think that the Republicans could just start threatening to impose it on drama TV and movies and the calls for the fairness doctrine would get quiet really quick.

Anyway, let me ask you this. Which president passed more conservative legislation - WJC or GWB? Clinton, and it isn’t close - welfare reform and NAFTA more than made up for the brady bill and the ‘93 budget agreement. Has Bush even passed anything that offsets NCLB and prescription drugs? I don’t think taxcuts make up for those two. Bush has been a disasterous conservative, and we have another one almost just like him lined up to take his place in McCain. If McCain becomes President, doing all the crap like amnesty he would do in the name of conservativism and the Republican party, we will be in the wilderness for the next 3-4 cycles.

It is far better to sit on our hands at home then to elect someone who is almost openly hostile to the conservative movement, yet will still be seen by much of the country as carrying the banner of conservatism. I don’t expect ideological perfection - Reagan in Reality is much less than Reagan in our memories after all. But I do not expect to have a second Republican president in a row who claims to be a conservative while breaking almost all of its principles.

I guess you can bask in the sweet glow of your own self righteousness, railing at those who stayed home while the Republican party gets trounced in November. I’ll be counting the chickens that are coming home to roost.

Indeed. I was at the store earlier today, and a small child started screaming at the top of his lungs, “NOW MOMMY! I WANT IT NOW!” The parallel was impossible to miss.

Contrary to what many think, I think we’re at one of those rare moments where people are going to vote for whom they honesty think will better govern the country. Incredibly, the way we’re forced to make this choice is by being proffered two admittedly regretable but nevertheless distinguishable candidates, one who probably won’t wreck the country (or at least won’t do it deliberately), and the other who absolutely, positively will use every possibly means to wreck the country.

And I hope to never have to partake in such a selection again for a long time, if ever.

We live in a time where you can’t afford a “conscience” if you truly love this country and don’t want to see Hilbama ruin it for decades to come.
From my POV, it appears that this country’s top-of-the-world greatness is already in intensive care, and that 18th-century physicians are on the case and practicing bloodletting.

The concept that supporting a McCain somehow allows us the comfort of knowing we will compromise our freedoms at a slower rate than by voting for Hillary seems to be at best illusionary.

I for one would rather see Osama than McCain. I’d rather have an honest Marxist than a closet one. As McCain has said he has disagreements with conservatives. And I don’t expect him to either listen to us or provide lip service in the future.

My check goes to Osama.

I refuse to stand idly by. I will fight on and yet some conservatives are perfectly happy to just roll over and die because they didn’t get their way….

LL

The most-important part is that we do not stay home. Whether it is McCain or Hillbama, the absolute worst thing that can happen is the ‘Rats (whether they have the “D” or “R” behind their name) maintain or grow their control of Congress. Trying to get a conservative Congress is now my main goal for November.

I even agree in part with the “hold the nose” analysis, especially with regard to the War on Terror. My big question on that is, would McCain get unconditional surrender out of the Islamists in 4 (I doubt it would be years? That’s essentially how long we will have if we’re lucky; if we’re unlucky, it’s 11 months.

However, those who are saying to suck it up lose me when they say that McCain will nominate better judges than Hillbama. We will likely have “like-for-like” replacements out of McCain, especially if the ‘Rats maintain control of the Senate. Remember the Gang of 14? Its entire purpose was to attempt to stop the replacement of liberal judges with conservative ones. As for who Hillbama will put on the bench, we know it will be liberals all the way; the thing is it is likely only 2 liberals will leave SCOTUS by January 2013, so at least at the SCOTUS level, that is not much of a threat.

Even the remainder of McCain’s limited upside is wholly dependent on a Congress that is not controlled by what I call the bipartisan Party-In-Government. Arguably the two biggest policy successes of the last 16 years, the (temporary) stopping of HillaryCare and the reformation of welfare, came about because of Congress over the objections of the President.

I have come off my “never” position, even though I have a laundry list of reasons to have gone to the “never” that haven’t been addressed. I’ve been convinced to move to See-Dub’s current position of wait on McCain. I’m a bit more interested in Congress now.

It’s funny, Rick. You thump your chest “I am hardly a ‘party loyalist.’ I am loyal to the United States of America…” I’m sure in your own mind dumping your Republican Party membership solidifies this. However, your arguments sound an awful lot like the stale old team sports politics many Americans, including myself, have grown tired of.

I particularly note your quote “…if you truly love this country and don’t want to see Hilbama ruin it for decades to come.” It reminds me of the tired ‘liberals hate America’ hyperventilation preached by the far-right (e.g., talk radio, Fox News, etc.) that has pretty much become a joke.

The right-wing demogogues I mentioned in my previous comment, despite holding a huge megaphone, have had no significant effect in the primaries. Personally, as an American, I view that as a positive turn. Hopefully, the Republican Party will be pulled from the clutches of extremists and returned to the mainstream.