I know for sure it couldn't possibly be me, this time, because I haven't been here for a couple of days. 
For anyone ready for some possible convincing, or at least food for thought, Just click the following:
Newt Declares A Conservative Declaration of Independence
Poking my thumb in the eye of conservatives
A couple more links in the next comment...
Republican Apostate?
America's imperfect servant.
I probably found it easy to jump on the bandwagon, because I didn't emotionally invest in any of these candidates; even though McCain's frustrated me over the years as well.
Wordsmith:
I saw the Newt one over at Mike's. Thats the kind of article that I can handle and he makes some good points.
What about me...?...? 
Wordsmith:
LOL 
You make some good point too, as always 
!! But thats a given.
Dee, Wordsmith's got a point. I don't invest emotionally in politicians either.You take it all a bit too personally - don't you think? We're only electing them not marrying them.
Well, I do understand Dee's feelings of devastation. She worked hard to actively campaign, physically, for her nominee. I had not.
I didn't invest in any of these candidates; but in 2004, I had that "sick" feeling, when I was at work, nowhere near the media channels, and the kids at my gym were all coming in singing about how Kerry was "winning". I felt ill. Lousy liberal kids....*grumble*
I think I'd feel some of the same feeling should Obama win. It's a feeling that the rest of the country must have lost its mind. I know that it's how many liberals felt when they could not believe George Bush won reelection.
Dee,
I can understand your frustration but on the outside looking in (from a Liberal perspective) because I don't think folk should be expected to automatically fall in line just because the establishment has crowned someone. But not to worry Dee, come August they will turn their focus to my fellow Liberals and I'll get to spend 3 months hearing that I'm a traitor and a mindless Liberal. It's part of the game.
HI Dee,
I agree. It's difficult to drink the McCain Kool Aid after all he has done over the past 8 years. I've been discussing this with Dan T., to no avail, at my site and there seems to be some underlying accusation that if we don't drink the Kool Aid, then there is something wrong with us.
ON the other side of the aisle, I fear the Kool Aid is much worse. I've seen too many articles about Obama's "presence" blah, blah, blah. He's empty, yet people are worshipping the guy. Can we just keep all the Mexicans and send our politicians back to Mexico???
Blessings
Dee, I can totally understand how you feel, as I imagine, so can James. If Hillary somehow wins this thing, still a real possibility, I know we'll both be pretty dispirited. I for one will not under any circumstances vote for her. So the choice for me will be no vote, or McCain, who I supported against Bush in 2000.
Here's is what I am not understanding, and perhaps Wordsmith, or someone can help. To get legislation passed, someone has to work across the aisle. Jonah Goldberg, who has been cited by many when he was critical of McCain wrote what I think is a pretty balanced article in the USA Today.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2...d-
conserva.html
His central point is that many of the people who are angry with McCain, should have the same issues with Bush, who conservatives love.
It is an interesting take on things, from a conservative. I agree that McCain is a little arrogant, but I think anyone who desires to be President will have a fair degree of arrogance, perhaps his shows too much.
A couple of thoughts:
First, the reason McCain will get the nomination is because the GOP has drifted away from conservatism, even with Presidents we like. A perfect example occurred with McCain-Feingold. President Bush said he thought it was probably unconstitutional, then he signed it! This is why I refer to him as Conservatism Lite.
Second, the best thing we can do is keep the pressure on McCain as long as possible. He can waver on issues, as was proven on immigration, when he changed positions when conservatives rose up screaming about it. It's up to the remaining primary states (including Ohio) to give him very slim victories, or in the case of small states, losses to Huckabee. To that end I'm seriously considering voting for (ick) the Huckster. But in the end, we're probably going to have to eat the excrement sandwich that is McCain.
Can we just keep all the Mexicans and send our politicians back to Mexico???
Timothy: Sounds like a great plan.
It is a bit too early for anyone to suggest that we fall in line behind McCain. The reasons why I dislike and distrust McCain are real and longstanding. To suggest that I must now abandon all of my ideals and principles and vote for the man who has taken such delight in spitting on the party in which he continues to only file for election in is quite insulting.
I'm like you Dee. I will probably cast a vote for him in November but then I will be violently and wretchedly ill afterwards for the next 4 years. This man should not be President of the United States. Heck, this man should not be a United States Senator - at least not a Republican United States Senator.
If you are there already and able to say you support McCain then that is all good. But please allow those of us who aren't the time to get there. It is not an easy journey.
Dee,
Here is a suggestion for your distress.
Just relax and accept the fact we will have Obama/Clinton in the Whitehouse for the next 8 years.
I am not happy about it either, but that is what we will have to live with.
There. There.
Stop crying and have a drink of this kool-aide.
It is really tasty. ; )
Dee, I created some images you can use for your pest control.
And I would be upset if Hillary ends up winning the nomination especially if there is some funny business behind it.
Dee,
I know exactly how you feel my blood boils at the thought of John McCain. His favorite hobby has been the past few years pissing off Conservatives.
But, for me, I’ve come to the decision that I can’t live with myself if I did nothing and helped Hillary or Obama into the Oval office. Where with a Democratic controlled House & Senate, they could high tail it out of Iraq, change the strategy in the war on terror to a defensive one, potentially shift the Supreme court back towards the left for the next generation. Raise our taxes and bring us socialized Health care.
I’m not looking at it as SUPPORTING McCain, I’m looking at it as OPPOSING the liberal-to soft socialist views of Hillary and Obama.
http://www.rightwingrebel.com/?p=314
I have seen little of McCain speaking on any Conservative issues since the CPAC convention and have even seen pundits on foxnews saying that he should be left alone to gather in support from the Liberals and Moderates.
So the GOP issues are going to go more left (global warming, mandatory health care, supporting teacher unions) either this is a brillant way to win the White House or it's just that the GOP is being effected more by national polls and not listening to the Base voters.
I don't have any idea what will our position in 4 years, but we are in serious need of leadership now.
McCain isn't a Conservative, at best he won't get much accomplished for the Demo's, but we have to have people that will challenge the GOP to stick to the values that will help the country.
This election is about short term goals on both sides, no one is talking about the future and that is how we end up in the hole.
I think the debates between and Obama (presumably) are going to be pretty telling. We'll see just how different the candidates and the presidency will be under either. Until then, I have absolutely no joy in supporting McCain. I don't agree with him on several issues which are very important to me and I don't like his attitude either. So, I'm just gonna sit back and watch and I'll decide later if I'll vote for him or not.
correction above "I think the debates between "McCain" and Obama ...
Dee, once again you nailed it. I have so much contempt built up over the last eight years for McCain that I can't turn around and in good conscience vote for him.
The only possible way I will vote for him is if he chooses Romney as VP. McCain could then serve one term and then it would be Romney's turn.
I can certainly understand Republican's animosity towards McCain, given his crimes against The Party.
He's reasonable.
He's rational.
He thinks about the issues and then makes up his own mind and makes his own decisions based on what he thinks is best for America.
He understands that the only way to effectively govern in a two party system is to find areas of common interest and reach a compromise where both sides get something they want, knowing that neither side gets everything they want.
He doesn't drink the GOP kool aid that says The Republican Party is like the Catholic Church and George W. Bush is the infallible Pope.
He sees Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck and all the rest as the self-serving, self promoting, windbags they are. He isn't intimidated by them.
He knows that James Dobson, Pat Robertson, James Kennedy, Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell are (or in some cases, were) all nuttier than a fruitcake.
The guy endured 5 years of torture in a Vietnamese prison camp, turning down early release in favor of lower ranking prisoners who had been there longer.
Amazingly, the disdain of bloggers and religous zealots doesn't have any more effect on him than his Communist Viet Cong tormenters did.
He remains his own man.
No wonder the Republicans hate him so much.
I don't think it's reasonable or rational to grant amnesty to illegals so they can come over here and take our jobs, and more likely steal our identities and collect welfare.
Republicans hate him because he has stabbed us in the back for eight years because he holds a grudge against president Bush. He hasn't done what is in the best interest of the country, he has done what he thought would screw over the party because he thinks we were too stupid to vote for him in 2000.
He thumbed his nose at us and now he wants our vote, I say what comes around goes around.
Steve, I am sorry, but that reads like so much McCain Derangement Syndrome to me. Seriously. There's a lot to be angry at McCain over; but to have to project motive that
he has stabbed us in the back for eight years because he holds a grudge against president Bush. He hasn't done what is in the best interest of the country,
Is just devoid of anything other than emotionalism. He campaigned hard for President Bush in 2000 and in 2004. He supports the President on 91 to 92% of the issues. You may not like what he does; but to say he does what he does to purposefully hurt the party or hurt the country is just McCDS rancor!
Wordsmith:
First of all thanks for saying this earlier: "Well, I do understand Dee's feelings of devastation." I appreciate that and it means a lot to me.
But second, I would have to disagree with you on your response to Steve. Steve hits it right on the money. I get that you don't see it the same way but its how many of us do see it.
McCain may have campaigned for Bush but there were NUMEROUS times that he undermined Bush in huge ways. It is commendable that Bush is so forgiving but he is the leader of the Republican party.
McCain abandoned Bush on tax cuts as 1 of only 2 Republican senators that did so, he pulled the rug out from under Bush and ALL CONSERVATIVES by orchestrating the gang of 14 (from which we are still dealing with the ramifications of to this day, there are still good judges that aren't even being allowed on the floor for an up or down vote because of how McCain sabotaged the constitutional option that would've stopped the filibustering of judges), he rammed McCain-Feingold through and Bush didn't like it but signed it mistakenly thinking that the Supreme Court would overturn it (not smart on his part), he undermined Bush's efforts on the war on terror with his views on Gitmo and torture and the list goes on.
I think it is a lot more than 8% and the problem is the issues that he disagreed with Bush and us on have had HUGE CONSEQUENCES.
I think the 'time and emotional investment' factor is a big part of what you are feeling. A long time ago over here we formed the Progress Party, and stood candidates, worked very hard knowing we had little chance of getting anyone elected.
When the last booth closed I went back to the candidates place for a few beers while we watched the results, and was so exhausted I was asleep about a minute after I sat down. (I didn't even get a beer.)
When Fred opted out I supported McCain when most of you went with Romney who I quite liked from the time I checked him out when he first announced. None of you seemed bitter.
Dee, nobody has a right to be bitter towards you, they have no claim over you. It has always been the case that some of the idiot supporters of candidates can act like spoiled brats when most of the opposing supporters can get along very well together.
I hope it happens over there like here, where supporters of opposing candidates working the polling booths can get along really well, after all we understand each other because we are doing the same thing, just for different people.
I have some fairly good friends, and several friendly acquaintances that I met through opposing their ideas. We can be friends because we only fought with ideas, we never ever let it get personal.
There was once an incident that appealed to my sense of irony, where I ridiculed the policies of a Liberal politician in the press, and ended up having coffee with him a week later while we waited for a deputation I had brought down to see him to get their case sorted. If vilification had come into it that would never have happened.
Here's something postive about McCain: he despises Islamist-enabler Grover Norquist. In my view, Grover, married to a muslima (It's forbidden for an infidel to be married to a muslima!) has held too much sway over GWB.
Am I happy about McCain. NO WAY! But I'll put on my gas mask and vote for him--against the Dem nominee, be it Hitlery or Obama.
Hi Dee
As with you I'm not happy with McCain. It seems like he did everything in his power to annoy us conservatives over the past 8 years. I remember it too.
And he does have a huge obligation to make it up to us by adopting many or most of our causes. And STICKING with them. We'll be watching over the coming months.
Thing is a Clinton or Obama presidency would be a disaster. Conservatives need to understand that most of what they would do if elected is not reverseable.
Bottom line whether we like it or not we've got to get McCain elected. Much as I can't believe I'm saying it, I'm going to go out and campaign for him.
Dee, it's late and I'm not sure if I'll get to everything in one go around, to be thorough.
McCain abandoned Bush on tax cuts as 1 of only 2 Republican senators that did so,
This is one of those issues where the whole story and context is important. From Kevin Stach of the Wall Street Journal:
In 2001, with the bitter primary battle still fresh, Mr. McCain voted against the final Bush tax-cut package. Why would he deviate from a pro-growth, tax-cutting position, built up over 17 years in Congress and dozens of votes, even after running on a tax-cut plan himself in 2000?
Mr. McCain's protest that he wanted spending cuts to accompany the Bush tax cuts has persuaded few conservatives. But what is not remembered is that, two weeks earlier, Mr. McCain voted to approve the final version of the Budget Resolution -- the blueprint used by congressional committees for spending and tax bills -- which included $1.35 trillion in tax cuts (the Bush proposal) coupled with a $661 billion cap on discretionary spending. When the promised spending cap never materialized, Mr. McCain denounced the wasteful earmarks and pork-barrel spending that he felt jeopardized the budget, and lodged the now famous protest vote against the tax cuts.
To not recognize the reason why, is to distort his record when it comes to tax cuts. In his 25 years serving in the Senate, he has never voted for a tax increase. And he has pledged to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Nothing in his record should indicate he is untrustworthy on this.
he pulled the rug out from under Bush and ALL CONSERVATIVES by orchestrating the gang of 14
Which I think he was wrong on, in going against party solidarity.
(from which we are still dealing with the ramifications of to this day, there are still good judges that aren't even being allowed on the floor for an up or down vote because of how McCain sabotaged the constitutional option that would've stopped the filibustering of judges),
I think Medved actually has an arguable defense on this:
John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to win- not to block -the Confirmation of Conservative Judges, and his efforts succeeded in the Senate.
This group of seven Republicans and Seven Democrats (representing a full 14% of the US Senate, obviously) ultimately broke the logjam that had delayed confirmation of some of the most conservative nominees of President Bush. Because of McCain’s leadership, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito won Supreme Court confirmation without filibuster from the Democrats. He also secured the previously blocked confirmations of Appellate Judges William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Brett Kavanaugh, previously filibustered by Democrats. At the same time, McCain and his “gang” managed to protect the right to filibuster – an important tool with obvious value now that Republicans find themselves in the minority. McCain has never opposed a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court; unlike some of his prominent fellow Republicans, he actively supported the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. His disagreement with Senate Republican leader Bill Frist on the “Gang of Fourteen” issues involved questions of tactics, not the goal of securing a judiciary that honors the principles of strict construction.
Trent Lott, staunch conservative record, talks about how he has fought McCain on issues like this; and how the end result sometimes proves that McCain was right, and they- his fellow Republican Senators- were wrong.
I have a mixed take on it, but have no desire to get any further into this.
he rammed McCain-Feingold through and Bush didn't like it but signed it mistakenly thinking that the Supreme Court would overturn it (not smart on his part),
It was a stupid piece of useless legislation. But please tell me all the harm it has actually incurred? And then, if it is so destructive, why no one wants to revisit it and repeal it?
For more, I welcome readers to check out my post, which also includes McCain's introduction of legislation to protect talk radio against the fairness doctrine.
he undermined Bush's efforts on the war on terror
McCain has been a staunch supporter of the war- which is why he's also offered criticism when he's believed the war to be mismanaged.
He campaigned heavily for Bush in 2004, supporting the war.
He staked his political neck out on the surge, at a time when it very well looked like Iraq was lost, and public opinion was abysmal.
with his views on Gitmo and torture and the list goes on.
These are minutia issues, in a way. I've disagreed with McCain on these issues; but since when is disagreement on details an excuse for disowning a person's conservative credentials? Is President Bush a conservative traitor, simply because he and McCain share the same desire for achieving comprehensive immigration reform and not abide in the status quo situation we are in? Why can't conservatives have disagreements without disowning one another as conservative apostates?
As far as the torture issue, he was not one of the five Republicans who sided with Democrats yesterday.
He does have a unique perspective on torture, you know. I truly feel that people are dismissive of his experience, in the same manner that lefties often give the obligatory "I support the troops" when they really don't. What I mean by this, is that people are too lazy to actually read his personal account, or try and imagine what that was like to have been a POW for 5 and a half years in Vietnamese camp. It's ok to disagree with him on the waterboarding issue; but one should at least respect where he's coming from.
Wordsmith:
I appreciate your thoroughness in responding to all of those but I am very aware of the context of all of them and I still stand by all of them. I know he why he didn't vote for the tax cuts but it wasn't a valid reason for me. You work on getting rid of the pork and the spending someway else.
The gang of 14 allowed a very few judges through but left it open for the Democrats to continue filibustering judges which is still going on as we speak.
Also, I want to note that McCain does not have an 80% conservative rating as his advocates keep saying. His most recent rating is 65% which only 4 very liberal Republicans scored worse. McCain has gotten progressively more liberal as the years have gone on and all while he knew he was going to eventually run for President. Not impressive.
Forgive me Dee for I have sinned; it's been a while since I confessed my sins against the party. I know there are 10 Commandments in the GOP. I think #1 is never say an ill word against Ronald Reagan, I forgot the second, and third has to do with never saying the phrase "3rd Party Candidate". I must confess I have been dreaming of a true-GOP candidate and I'm sorry; I'm just not ready to fall on my sword for McCain. I know we all covenanted to "vote for the best in the polls and support who's left in the general election" but I am sick over this one? The Nixon-like Clinton's scare me; that's only 1/2 motivation. At least floundering Bob Dole attempted to pander to us conservatives. I will do my best to not fantasize about a 3rd-party candidate. What's the contrition for that sin in the GOP?
Praise the Lord and pass the Maalox! chip.
Wordsmith:
I appreciate your thoroughness in responding to all of those but I am very aware of the context of all of them and I still stand by all of them. I know he why he didn't vote for the tax cuts but it wasn't a valid reason for me. You work on getting rid of the pork and the spending someway else.
I do believe that in many cases, Party solidarity is important. But people on the right have been appalled by the lack of fiscal discipline coming from Republicans; and people on the left have been able to ridicule us as no better than big-spending liberals. So you have someone like McCain who wants to be fiscally conservative, and gets grief for it. Ok.
What I don't like, is the simplistic talking point, "McCain opposed Bush tax cuts" without explaining details and motives. It paints a rather misleading picture.
The gang of 14 allowed a very few judges through but left it open for the Democrats to continue filibustering judges which is still going on as we speak.
Again, I had problems with him not sticking to Party solidarity on this. But McCain's motives weren't to prevent Bush's appointments from going through. If we had gone the route of ending the option of filibusters, our side now would be disarmed of such an option, under a future Democratic President- which is a good chance of happening in '08 with 2 and up to 5 Supreme Court Justices potentially retiring under the next President's term(s). And given how anti-McCain conservatives are talking, it bloody well looks awful likely to happen Obama will be the one to appoint justices that will shape this country for the next few decades.
McCain bought us a compromise with Democrats, yes.
And if conservatives had come to bat in '06, maybe we wouldn't find ourselves in the predicament of appointment hold ups by majority Democrat rule in Congress.
Also, I want to note that McCain does not have an 80% conservative rating as his advocates keep saying. His most recent rating is 65% which only 4 very liberal Republicans scored worse. McCain has gotten progressively more liberal as the years have gone on and all while he knew he was going to eventually run for President. Not impressive.
Dee, all I can think is that you didn't bother to read my 2nd link in the first comment on this post. I covered all of this rather thoroughly, even linking to an American Thinker piece that makes the claim you are making.
I don't think McCain is moving further to the left, each year. Look at the past 10 years, and you will find his numbers going up and down, as do other Senators' records. His lifetime rating is 82.3%. Fred Thompson's is something like 86%. Not a lot of difference.
Just going by the last 7 years, you can give him a "C" rating at 74%. Fine. But this is a far cry from the abysmal 24% to 56% rating of RINOs like Voinovich, Chafee, Snowe, and Specter.
As I said, my piece is rather thorough on the topic.
Wordsmith:
I never said that McCain's motives on the gang of 14 were to prevent Bush's judges. And my problem isn't even with him not having party solidarity. What I took HUGE ISSUE with him on is that Conservatives had finally come up with the "constitutional option" and we had the votes to get it passed which would prevent all future filibuster of judges. I can't tell you how excited I was during that time that finally after years of Democrats denying good judges even a vote on the floor of the senate we would finally be able to stop them.
First, we had waited years to get Bush in to even get good judges and then the Democrats pulled out all the stops and were filibustering judges. It was finally all going to come to an end and many of us were so hopeful and then at the last minute McCain pulled the rug out from under us. I cannot tell you how upset and disappointed I was at how all that work and effort was just thrown down the toilet with that one compromise.
I understand that you are defending him because you think he is the lesser of 2 evils. The problem is me and many others aren't even sure he is even that. He constantly pulls stunts like the gang of 14. So you never know when you can trust him on an issue or not. Because of his history I do not view him as having integrity or being trustworthy. Once that is out the window it is all a crap shoot on how he is going to govern.
His record has been up and down with no consistency. So maybe he will cut taxes or maybe he will veto tax cuts, depending on what mood he is in. Maybe he will compromise with Democrats (which seems to be his favorite thing to do). He compromised with Lieberman, Feingold, Kennedy and the gang of 14. I don't see what gain conservatives got out of any of those compromises, those were give aways to liberals.
Most likely he will be better on the war on terror and MAYBE he will pick slightly better supreme court justices than Obama. Thats a gamble that I guess many of us conservatives are going to be forced to take. But I'm not happy about it because I wouldn't be surprised at all if once he's elected he doesn't hesitate to stab us in the back once again. Thats just not something I can get excited about.
What I took HUGE ISSUE with him on is that Conservatives had finally come up with the "constitutional option" and we had the votes to get it passed which would prevent all future filibuster of judges. I can't tell you how excited I was during that time that finally after years of Democrats denying good judges even a vote on the floor of the senate we would finally be able to stop them.
I felt that way too; but like Trent Lott, I now have second thoughts, that perhaps McCain was right, and the rest of us were wrong. He helped to preserve a Senate tradition that, now with Democrats controlling the Senate, is being used by Republicans to defend Bush policy. McCain had the foresight of knowing a Republican minority would one day become a reality, and we would want the option of filibustering. We are now in that minority.
So you never know when you can trust him on an issue or not. Because of his history I do not view him as having integrity or being trustworthy.
Ok, let's say he is "untrustworthy". I'd rather gamble on my chances on Mr. Untrustworthy than with Mr. and Mrs. Trustworth-for-sure-not-conservatives.
His record has been up and down with no consistency. So maybe he will cut taxes or maybe he will veto tax cuts, depending on what mood he is in. Maybe he will compromise with Democrats (which seems to be his favorite thing to do). He compromised with Lieberman, Feingold, Kennedy and the gang of 14. I don't see what gain conservatives got out of any of those compromises, those were give aways to liberals.
It got us Alito, Roberts, Brown, Owen, etc. Some of the MOST CONSERVATIVE of the judges out there. I think we got the better end of the deal. Like Reagan, who compromised with Democrats, to get 80% of what he wanted, leaving Democrats with 20% of what they wanted.
I really don't understand this "his record has been up and down with no consistency" charge. I think he's been very consistent at being who he is. This includes the recent bill on the waterboarding issue, which McCain voted against. I explained on Rivka's blog why he has been consistent with voting against the measure, while still maintaining his stance on the torture issue.
Most likely he will be better on the war on terror and MAYBE he will pick slightly better supreme court justices than Obama. Thats a gamble that I guess many of us conservatives are going to be forced to take. But I'm not happy about it because I wouldn't be surprised at all if once he's elected he doesn't hesitate to stab us in the back once again. Thats just not something I can get excited about.
On SCOTUS and on the war, I don't think it's a gamble at all! I'll stake my reputation on that.
Of course on SCOTUS, we've had those who we thought would be good conservative judges turn out not to be so. That's not the fault of Reagan, or Bush Sr. or whatever other Republican President. It happens.
But McCain's record, free of distortions, has been to support good, conservative judges like Bork.
On the war, he's been very, very strong. He doesn't talk about it much but his son Jimmy was just over there, serving in Iraq; and his other son Jack is also in the military, serving.
So he does have a personal stake in this, and war critics can't charge him with not worrying about America's sons and daughters.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to try and convince you otherwise, Dee. I know this hasn't been fun for either of us. It's like a civil war going on.
Remember how you and I both stopped listening to (actually, I still listen to her) people like Peggy Noonan and Laura Ingraham? People from the right who have been relentless in bringing down our President? In a similar way, I feel like some of the rhetoric and emotion over McCain, is clouded by the emotionalism. I now see in Ann Coulter some of the criticism about her that liberals have been complaining about for years. She does distort and bend certain facts.
Oh, and since this is your blog, you get the last word.
I don't want to wear out my welcome by being such an annoying gnat as to not know when to pack it in.
Commenting by HaloScan
