The actual conservatives involved in political debate can be counted on one’s fingers.

The radical right-wingism of Bush (and the entire GOP) was hugely popular right up until they lost the ’06 election; *then* the cry ‘he’s not a conservative’ went up.

A simple analysis, yes, but is it wrong?

Moreover, I really don’t get your complaint. Conservatives did overlook their dislike of McCain and supported him. It was the oh-so reasonable “moderate” weasels, like David Brooks–the guys who in February had been urging the GOP to pick McCain–who bailed on him in 2008.

Translation: I’m about to insult you, and..

that’s a lot of BS….

…there it is.

If you’re going to say I’m lying you should have some proof other than contrary opinions.

1. If being a self-righteous a-hole were truly disqualifiying…95% of conservative politicians and pundits would have to find new jobs.

Yes, but they’re not treacherous. They don’t go around claiming to be “mavericks” at the expense of their colleagues for the sake of approving NYT editorials. McCain has been doing that since the late 90s (when he was backing a full invasion of Serbia for the Clintons), playing up his support for the rotten McCain-Feingold abomination, and putting down conservatives for the sake of pleasing his pals on the Straight Talk express. Only a fool would go to the mat for this guy.

2. What “treachery” of McCain compares to Palin and company sabotaging a Republican Congressional candidate and handing the Democrats another vote for advancing their liberal agenda?

Uh, all of them, as they all pertain to legislation that will have a tremendous impact on my life. I don’t like Palin’s conservatism myself, but her intervention dealt with one backbencher in a special election. That candidate was arguably to the left of the Democrat. She would have advanced the liberal agenda just as eagerly, as her own baldfaced treachery made clear when–after getting nearly $1,000,000 from the GOP–she quit the race and backed the Democrat. As far as sins go, this isn’t much of one.

3. Do you even understand why campaign finance reform became a litmus test for conservatism and how ridiculous it is?

It became a litmus test because it imposes onerous restrictions on free speech. It affect advocacy groups and can even reach to local referenda. It’s an extremely important issue, and it’s exactly why McCain deserves to be loathed by any one supporting free expression.

On campaign finance reform and amnesty, McCain is no different than George W. Bush.

I’m not going to defend Bush, as I opposed the man starting in 2002. However, Bush wasn’t nearly as grating on those issues as was McCain. While he could stigmatize his adversaries as immoral (as in the case of the Iraq War), he rarely did it to his own party. McCain made his name doing just that. You’re just not going to win a lot of love that way.

Considering that the day after McCain won the 2000 New Hampshire primary, Rush Limbaugh went on the air and acted like Fidel Castro had actually won, it’s a bit ridiculous to get all bent out of shape over McCain’s failure to toe the party line on this or that issue.

First, my name isn’t Rush Limbaugh. If you want argue with Rush, go call his show. I’m sure he’d be happy to take you. At any rate, what Rush does does not excuse McCain’s behavior, which had long before grated conservatives, and since you admit he doesn’t really “toe the line” what sort of reason is there for any conservative to get worked up on his behalf?

BTW, FYI, as if it matters, my main objection to McCain has been his hyperintensive desire to intervene in every effin’ conflict in the world. Quite frankly, I couldn’t give a **** why he’s hated. I’m simply glad he is, and I’m glad he lost in 2008. As bad as Obama is, McCain would have been a disaster, as his reaction to the Georgian crisis showed.

1. If being a self-righteous a-hole were truly disqualifiying…95% of conservative politicians and pundits would have to find new jobs.

2. What “treachery” of McCain compares to Palin and company sabotaging a Republican Congressional candidate and handing the Democrats another vote for advancing their liberal agenda?

3. Do you even understand why campaign finance reform became a litmus test for conservatism and how ridiculous it is?

4. On campaign finance reform and amnesty, McCain is no different than George W. Bush. I’m not sure what McCain has ever done on judicial nominations that deserves any serious scorn. And any conservative who gets more riled up over cap-and-trade than over warrantless wiretaps, horribly botched wars and the biggest expansion in entitlements in a couple of generations (the Medicare drug bill that McCain voted against) doesn’t deserve to call themselves a conservative.

5. Considering that the day after McCain won the 2000 New Hampshire primary, Rush Limbaugh went on the air and acted like Fidel Castro had actually won, it’s a bit ridiculous to get all bent out of shape over McCain’s failure to toe the party line on this or that issue.

The fact is that the day before that New Hampshire primary, McCain would have been a perfectly acceptable candidate for the vast majority of conservatives. That he’s now unacceptable, while little about McCain has actually changed, says a lot about how the emotional and intellectual health of the Right has degenerated.

Mike

Because he’s a self-righteous, treacherous a–hole. It’s that simple.

Conservatives dislike him for his tendency to grandstand at their expense on issues like McCain-Feingold, Amnesty, Cap’n'Trade and judicial nominations. Yes, he makes sure to punch the right numbers for his legislative scorecards–as any Republican from Arizona would have to–but he has a nasty habit of turning on the crucial issues and doing so with maximum villainization of his own side–claiming to be the “reasonable” and “honorable” person, implying that other Republicans are unreasonable and dishonorable. You don’t win friends and influence people doing that.

As for the Crist/Rubio race, what’s riled up so many isn’t so much Crist’s politics, as it was Cornyn and the NRSC’s attempt to bigfoot a contested primary. This is the parallel to Scozzafava. You have the leadership trying to shoehorn their own candidate into office based on their peculiar likes or dislikes. That’s understandable to a degree, but there are limits.

You know, out of all the issues, failures, mistakes and contradictions that conservatism has to work out…the hatred and suspicion of John McCain is probably one of the least discussed but most important of them all.

Not because McCain is all that important, but because how the frequently irrational anger and disgust at McCain was generated and how it’s been cemented into right-wing DNA. Here’s a pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, pro-military, anti-government spending conservative who’s been made persona non grata in conservatism and for what? Because he beat George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.

Mike

Open Republican-possible seats is where the sizzle is. The latest ingenue is the source of endless speculation. And the general election outcome doesn’t actually affect the cause much at all, it produces just another freshman. But the outcome of Republican primaries is marker of the cause’s strength in the media/culture/ideology wars.

There aren’t many (if any) Ron Pauls out there waiting for their shot at the big time. Do you have any examples of the right way to do it?