What will a M^cCain nomination bring? I see a very Deomcratic public image to the point of corruption. Well, Harry Truman said "Given a choice between a fake Repbulican and a real Republican, the American people will choose the real thing" in response to claims that his Deomcrat policies were too hard-line. Well M^cCain is quite open to the charges of being a RINO which means Republican in Name Only. which means a fake Republican, therefore more like a Democrat and a fake Democrat.

He will be a minority president if he wins at all and he displays too much of a penchant for supporting Democratic ideas of the worst sort. This and his desire to keep in the good graces of the liberal media; dance with the one who brung you, will ensure his signature on every piece of bad legislation that comes down the pike: Hello Kyoto: Hello universal health care and Goodbye Southwestern US. However, He does hang tough on Iraq, which, if you like to see US troops being killed for no good reaons and with no end in sight is just your thing.

Given this outlook, I plan to vote for whoever the Democrats put up.

Why?

First; it is my nature to respond sharply to betrayal, especially to betrayal that makes me wonder if the betrayer is a few planes short of a carrier or is not playing with a full deck. Second; I agree with Truman. Real is better than fake. Metaphysically what is true is true, what is fake is false. Epistemologically the true expands our range of awareness, accepting the false contracts it. As to the superiority of which, Ayn Rand made an eloquent statement; "when an organism is attacked from beyond its range of awareness, it dies": End of Story. Ethically: In any choice between true and fake, which is good and which is evil? As a psychohistorian. I observe that the substitution of false for true is a key component of mental illness except that in the case of the mentally ill, it is not voluntary because it is not controllable. Historically, this substitution is the key element of superstition and superstition marks the beginning of decline. Practically, as Glen Beck and Michelle Malkin put it Can you trust M^cCain?

My answer is 'No". Now I can trust Hilary to be Hilary and Obama to be Obama and they have the scarlet L for "Liberal" on their forehead so they will be under scrutiny.

Also, we must purge the Republican party of the phoney conservatives. This election will finish off the Evangelicals as a force in politics, consigning them to the three "b"'s: Backward, Bigoted and Beaten, hopefully for good and all until they can advance to the post-Wright Brothers world. So if M^cCain goes down that will restore the principled approach to the Republican party. It is said that M^cCain can "reach across to the other side". Two things. They are the "other side" as in the Nazis, Communists and Al Qeada were and are the "other side". Did Reagan "reach out to the other side"? or did he attract people from the other side to him? When you "reach out to the other side" (the opposite side from yours) you validate their mindset, ideals and beilefs at the expense of your own side's. That is, you say that the enemy's system is true and those whose name you claim have the false ones. At least Obama and Hilary can't stab me in the back. M^cCain-Feingold has already empowered George Soros as well as the Swift Boat Vets, which is fast becoming the term for lying (as it, in fact, is) So no good has come to the conservatives of M^cCain right out of the box. An interesting sidelight here is that the Democrats will probably pay the Republicans back for the (not too) Swifties by finding former soldiers who have an axe to grind with M^cCain. Speaking of "reaching out to the other side" it is now said that M^cCain will or should "consciously reach out to the conservatives", one of whom he claims to be. Now, if he were in fact on the right, he would not have to "reach out" as in "reach out to the otuer side", so the conservatives must be, to him, the real "other side" as in Nazis, Communists and Al Qaeda.....Hmmmm; you don't suppose?....Nah, can't be...erm...can it?

As far as Huckabee, Do you really wnat someon who takes literally and believes the six-day creation story to have his finger withinin 1,000 miles of the nuclear trigger? What if he gets the notion that the End Time is at hand and wants to make a mushroom for Michael? Not me!

Now you ask me "What is to be gained by defeating M^cCain?" Look at the list again. Any two of those positions and by itself going Green automatically disqualifies one from being conservative or libertarian. Now if the person holding those positions becomes President under the Republican banner, he infects the Party with them. How can Republicans defend freedom of speech having M^cCain (As in M^cCain-Feingold) at the top? How can the Republicans oppose the Greens if their President is himself, by his public demeanor, one of them? How can the Republicans stand in opposition to illegal immigration with M^cCain-Kennedy (note the lead name) probably on a fast trac? Who knows what other Democratic ideas will get play from this clown?

But you say to me "You are supporting the Democratic campaign? How are they any better?" Let me answer:

1. There is no meaningful difference between what the Democrats and Republicans are offereing up given the actions to-date: class warfare (look at the sneering way M^cCain attacked Romney for being able to "buy and sell businesses"), Pro-illegal immigrant amniesty, opposition to drilling for oil in ANWR, Gore's whacko stuff and taxes. In fact M^c was ready to leave the Republicans to join the Democrats. Any differences are minor and of no concern to anyone with an IQ larger than that of a size 10 sandal.
2. The Dems at least state their ideas and beliefs openly and clearly which gives them metaphysical clarity moral superiority. The rightness or wrongness of these ideas is irrelevent sonce both parties are supporting them: One open and one somewhat secretly. The honest one gets the edge. When this state of affaires occurred back in the 1960's amd '70's, it was called "me too'ism".
3. There are things that I support that are not conservative: Roe v Wade, Removal of "under God" from the pledge of allegeience: Freedom of religion necessitates a stricty and purely secuar polity, and an end to the Iraq war post haste (It's already lost and was when no significant threat from Saddam Hussein was shown to be factual since which it's been the mission of the week, goal of the day and sruge of the hour, much like the child caught with his hand in the cookie jar coming up with one lame excuse after the other as each gets shattered to flinders by the adult who did the catching).
4. The Republicans have presided over the largest expansion of government since the Great Society in the last 8 years.
5. A McCain victory would infect the Republican Party with the same toxic ideas that are mainstays of the Democratic Party. By implicitly accepting these postions, the Conservative/liberal fight is taken off the table by the Republican Party: They've compromised their principles, which is a total surrender because it is the surrender of the basic identiy of the Republican Party. For one thing, as a minority president, and knowing to whom he is beholden, M^cCain will sign whatever the Dems send his way. Also, having come to power under these liberal ideas, The Republicans can never again advocate the ideas that are incompatible with these archtypical ideas of libralism, hence this is the ultimate and final repudiation of Reagan and what brought Republicans to victory in the first place as well as a reversion to the "me-too'ism" that marked it as the minority party for the quarter century prior to Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign.
6. M^cCAin is a Trojan Horse; a RINO and therefore a fake and therefore a lie! A lie is a willful denial of reality and by extension of the whole of the universe. It is also a deliberate contraction of one's range of awareness. Recall my earlier Ayn Rand quote and add this Rebecca Howe (Cheers) quote "It means I'm too stupid to live".

And there's one more thing M^cCain's old harridan of a mother said that, according to Michelle Malkin and other reports "Conservatives will have to hold their noses and vote for John". Anyone who accepts and yields to that sort of castration is fit only to kneel and be defecated upon: Just in case Howie Carr, Rush Limbaugh, Hanity et al are listening (or not listening as the case may be in which case they won't know what the [bleep] hit them). Aside from all of that, These guys did the kind of attack job on M^cCain that:

• To now support him makes them look very suspect in the credibility department (although Carr has done so many flip-flops, he makes john Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar) as well as like spanked children. As the Portuguese say: come rõe com pão; eating snot with bread: Meaning to thoroughly humiliate and discredit oneself for a few small scraps.
• M^cCain would be within his rights to say "Go pound sand. I won without you, in fact, despite you, so you obviously bring nothing to the table that I need"

Now you may say "But M^cCain is the lesser of two evils". That might, at best be true, but this self abnegation of its core principles, in the face of a Democrat Party that is holding true to it's own core beliefs makes the Republican Party the greatest of all evils.

One also must consider this. What are M^ccain's chances of winning the final?

• The only reason Bush the Elder won in '88 was by claiming the Reagan mantle. It is next to impossible for a party to win three consecutive terms. Besides which, does M^cCain seem in any way, shape or form Like Reagan?
• If you had a disagrement with a family member about family matters and he went out and got the neighbors and some of your enemies and brought them into the house to support his side, how would you feel about him doing that; that is, what part of your anatomy would that go up sideways and then epand to 20 times its original size? Well this is what M^cCain did. Now what will he do after having alienated his family members, when the strangers and enemies go back to being strangers and enemies? It's about "don't trash the base" If 10% of that base stays home (does not go out to vote) M^cCain is out the airlock in a leaky spacesuit.
• There is a simple phrase; 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates. How will this obviously old man look next to a vibrant Obama or at least a non-white-heaired Hilary? Does "dog track" do it for you?
• You know the Democrats are going to trot out the Keating 5. Remember Hilary was found innocent of Whitewater and M^cCain was judged to be guilty by the Senate Ethicks Committee so she wins that on the face of it.