I spent most of my lunch hour trying to get through to Larry Elder's radio show. Larry is a self-described "Republitarian" and wanted to know how many people are going to hold their nose, and vote for McCain. Plenty of people called in and said they would rather stay home, or vote RP.
Larry argued that the stakes were simply too high in Iraq and the War on Terror to allow a Democrat into the White House.
If we HAVE to vote for the candidate who is strongest on the War on Terror, where does that leave us?
It's pretty fair to assume Republicans will always be tougher on the War on Terror, which means we MUST always vote for the republican who has the greatest chance of winning. Even if we don't agree.
The War on Terror has no terms of victory. We will never see a president stand behind the podium on a prime-time press conference, and announce victory in, and the conclusion of, the war on terror. If we caught OBL tomorrow, the war on terror would go on. If all current terrorist chatter stopped, they'd just start looking harder. We will likely never see the end of the war on terror, which means we will likely never see the end of Republicans arguing that the war on terror is the most important issue facing America, and that we MUST vote for them or else the terrorists win. Arguing we must hold our noses because of the war on terror is completely moot considering it allows no chance for change.
Might as well argue we must only vote for winnable Republicans because it is dire that Republicans win. Most Republicans aren't "My party, right or wrong!" but they seem to be becoming "My party, or else the Democrats win." I can only hope the Republican leadership wore out that card last election.
I thought Larry was beyond this kind of cheap trick, especially when he is hard on callers who compromised on the immigration issue to vote for Bush. I still think that deviation from the constitution and conservatism will do more damage to this country than Al "Suicide bombers wanted; inquire within" Qaeda could ever do.