"Although it is not on the agenda and I suspect a goodly number of CPAC members would deny it, the biggest issue facing this crowd is whether to embrace McCain, who has been the subject of vitriolic attacks by Coulter, among other right-wing demagogues, over not being conservative enough.
As I have written early and often, as the presumptive nominee, McCain cannot win the November election without at least the tacit support of CPACers."
You know, I like to think of myself as a Conservative-ish sort of person - but apparently that particular C-Word has become as slimy, slippery and difficult to apply as that other Big Cee word (the one with the very same litmus tests, it seems); "Christian."
Now, there are ways in which I think McCain is far too willing to compromise Conservatism; but all my caviats have to do with intrusive big government and foreign warfare - aside from being more of a flip-flopper than Kerry ever was.
As far as I am concerned, it's the very antithesis of Conservatism to pee in a cup for ANYONE, much less kneel holding it before self-appointed arbiters of Conservatism, such as Coulter and Malkin to delicately taste.
The only proper response to such a request is to pee on their shoes. Getting elected at the price of the ability to do anything consistent with any identifiable set of values - much less personal honor or integrity - is a price no Real Conservative - or indeed, any person of conscience - will abide. Of course, this will not put you in a place of power - but if you HAD to sell your concience and your own freedom, you won't really be in a place of power. You will simply be a shill - and not even a well-paid shill by modern standards.
Coulter, for one, makes more money for far less effort than even George Bush gets by with.
As the contest comes down to sussing out which candidate of all presented on each side has the most ... erm ... flexibility; the most room for interpretation of intent in their rhetoric, the less interested I am in throwing away my vote by voting.
Increasingly, as the field narrows, excluding those with principle in favor of those with corporate support and not even particularly well-hidden sponsorships, I'm losing interest. Well, the only way to vote "none of the above" is to not vote at all. That is the only way to deny a plurality to everyone who participated.
As I'm on the topic of the meaningless of the duties of citizenship, let me advocate a constitutional amendment that would require that 25% of the affected population must vote with a minimum of 90% confidence in the accuracy of the tally for the election to be valid.
If elections fail three times - a constitutional convention is called and the federal government is put in abeyance.
Yeah, wishful thinking.