The evidence is public, for all the world to see.

Now, if you have something intelligent to say, you’re welcome to do so. If you insist on demonstrating what a moron you are, I won’t approve the comment.

“a soft on crime socialist who spits in the faces of crime victims”

and

MCSHAMNESTYMCCAIN!

Just because one is in all caps and a silly name doesn’t change the fact that both are divisive and ideological.

As I said before, you are guilty of the same conduct you are condemning.

If you want to disagree, fine. If you want to spew over the top crap and make an idiot of yourself, that’s not fine.

I don’t believe the attacks about his fiscal policies are correct.

That’s like saying you don’t believe water is wet. The data are the data. You can believe his lies all you like. If we’re going to have a soft on crime socialist who spits in the faces of crime victims, let it be a Democrat. That’s not acceptable for a Republican.

Maybe you knew everything about all of them from the beginning. I didn’t and I tend to think aloud during the the sorting out process.

I hope you don’t mean us to discount ideology altogether in an attempt to be pragmatic and not like the LP dreamers. There’s a balance.

In short, you are guilty of the very thing about which you are complaining.

You candidate of choice is my second choice (and had been my first choice before and right after he announced), and if he had shown even a slight inkling of really being interested in winning before this past week, I might have stuck with him.

I am fortunate to live in a state (Texas) in which I do not have to worry about aiding a Democrat if I choose to cast a protest vote in November.

If I lived in any state where it will be close, I’d be willing to vote for 4 of the 5 main Republican Candidates (I don’t count Paul as a main candidate). The 5th one, I don’t trust one bit, and no, I won’t vote for him under any circumstances.

As for not having a “right” to create a litmus test–says who? I have a couple. My candidates *cannot* be socialists and *must* be friends of the 1st Amendment.

I agree with you about the distinction between an executive and an absolute monarch, but disagree that we shouldn’t debate amongst ourselves. After all, the Dems have no debate and are all in lockstep–is that how you want the Republicans to be as well?

So, I guess I’m one of those execrable and repugnant conservatives who are fracturing the right. So be it. I’m not going to defect to the Green or Libertarian Parties, because neither reflects my own values. Then again, neither do Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani, or McCain. I am as staunch a conservative as anybody, but I will not vote for any of those people. I am compelled, if the Party insists on fielding a liberal candidate, to vote for the Democratic nominee. I’ve wasted my vote on “conservatives” previously, only to be disappointed by their liberal actions. If I’m going to hire a liberal, why not go for some intellectual honesty and just…elect the liberal? RINOs don’t deserve my vote.

Conversely, I think “voting for whoever gets the nomination” is the blindest ideology in which one can engage. There is no viable option for a protest vote other than voting for the opposition, otheer than staying home and refusing the obligation to participate in the election process. That won’t do. I’ll make well-informed votes for my congressmen, but I will not vote for the Republican presidential nominee unless he is thoroughly conservative and honest. Thompson is the only man running who is suitable–to me–and the only man that I will vote for. I am not blindly ideological, but I am principled.