Look.

If John McCain didn't seem to take such great delight in combating conservative members of his own party, there probably wouldn't be much of an issue with him.

In reality, with the exception of a few close encounters of the liberal kind, McCain has been largely conservative. He's definitely there on defense and foreign policy, and he has been there on abortion, though he favors stem cell research. He's as about as conservative as it gets with earmarks and pork barrel speeding, despite the two no votes against Bush tax cuts. If he had used his current line about no spending cuts in the bills to justify the no votes then, instead of the class warfare rhetoric of his esteemed left-leaning colleagues, there wouldn't be an issue there, either.

Maybe it's just that I don't know very many 70-year-olds, but the ones I do know are not very vain. They're on the other side of life, where climbing corporate ladders or scoring points, or proving themselves right isn't really their goal. So, why is it that whenever anyone talks about McCain, his poking a finger in the eye of conservatism is always associated with looking good before his liberal peers?

Doesn't sound much like a battle-tested, prisoner of war to me.

Especially one from the Vietnam era. In general, we've treated our veterans better before and after that war. Thanks to some of those liberal friends of his, who stirred the anti-war sentiment at home and then grew up to be the establishment they railed against, the soldiers, ever the pawns, never the deciders, were reviled and castigated.

While many are not happy with our fighting men and women being in Iraq, the hysteria surrounding the soldiers and their roles has not been the same as it was during the Vietnam War. There, the liberals won out, much to the shame and degradation of a country, and a generation. Make love not war might have been a more benign slogan, maybe even a more powerful one, for everyone, had it not been held up by the jeering, sneering fanatics of spoiled, smug children.

You'd think McCain wouldn't forget that. Or at least, not to the extent that he would turn his back on any supporter, anyone who would remember him as sacrificing for his country. The liberals aren't particularly known for that, despite having their own prominent veterans of that war. Yet, McCain has done so, angrily, with open hostility.

One might shake their head at McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman, and one might question just what he was thinking in co-sponsoring them, but it's the blatant disregard at times for the conservative cause that makes it sting so. He is one of us and so he should be one of us. There's nothing wrong with speaking your mind. There's nothing wrong with correcting us when we're wrong. But we're not wrong on the essence of campaign finance reform, immigration or global warming. He could stick to his guns by spending more time and energy on government waste and earmarks, rather than helping the left out with some of their pet causes.

So, fighting his own instead of his enemies is one thing.

That leads to his judgment. Fighting your friends, especially when they're right, is just plain stupid. Sponsoring bills that show a disconnect from the will of the American people, or at the very least, a misunderstanding of just how deep conservative principles should go, shows a lack of judgment. He might get the war right, but what about other things? Despite the fact that fighting terrorism is the defining issue of our time, there's plenty of other things that can tank in the process, if proper judgment is not being used.

So, for me, it's less about the bills and the fact they represent liberal thinking than it is the "I know better than you because I got this gut feeling and you better follow or else," mentality.

That sounds like George W. Bush to me.

Last time I checked, he wasn't being as highly regarded as Ronald Reagan, not even among conservatives.

So, we can argue all you want about what's going to be better for the country, a complete left turn with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or a less angled lean leftward, but either way, you're heading left.

The argument that allowing Obama or Clinton to get elected, so that the Democrats get blamed for whatever happens is appealing, as long as it is enough to finally convince enough fence sitters and naysayers that conservatism is the way to go, while not irreparably damaging the country. If the country goes down the tubes in the meantime, conservatives will only have themselves to blame.

Death by slow boil, like the frog, doesn't seem as appealing. There's no catalyzing event, no rallying around the standard bearer. If nothing goes particular wrong as the left turn takes place, then change of any kind becomes the enemy.

Besides, many people, including those of our own movement, are at a loss as to what conservatism is, since there have been too many flavors of it resembling liberalism. Compassionate conservatism means more spending and more government waste on programs and policies that people, in their own homes and communities should be taking care of. Personal responsibility has been replaced by the Nanny state.

It is definitely possible to be compassionate and be conservative. You don't apply it on the federal government level, though, and I'm not really all that crazy with it on the state level, either.

So, don't tell me to accept John McCain as he is. Don't tell me his brand of conservatism is good enough. Good enough is Ronald Reagan. Best is someone else yet to come, but unless McCain presides differently than he legislates, it won't be him. And frankly, that would be more damaging for the cause of conservatism than four years of Obama or Hillary.

The fact of the matter is, any president is unlikely to ruin the country so much that it can't be redeemed. There are too many checks and balances in place. However, enough liberal governing might be enough to wake up the lukewarm conservatives, or those who think they can rely on just one or two of the conservative coalition. It takes all three to have a winning combination, in an election, and in a president.

So, if conservatives are going to get over anything, it's going to be over their primary conservative concern, to vote for the candidate who is the best conservative overall, not for the one who they identify with the most.

I was never keen on voting for someone who reminded me of a fellow employee. I want someone who's smarter than me, who knows how to make decisions, not belly ache and then invite me to drink his problems away.

I also don't want a bully who thinks he knows better. That's been done, from both sides of the aisle.

While the Democrat presidential candidates had their last debate yesterday, the Republican presidential candidates, those still in the race and a couple who are not, have been making news, but not necessarily in a positive way.

While the flap over the New York Times John McCain article is dying down somewhat, there is speculation that the Times does indeed have more and for whatever reasons is waiting to reveal it.

Meanwhile, coverage of McCain on the campaign trail is waning, because he doesn't have a viable contender. Supposedly, Huckabee is supposed to be doing that, but his coverage is also disappearing despite his reoccurring appearances on television. The debate of who made Huckabee between spoof artist Stephen Colbert and late late night talk show host Conan O'Brien may have been settled, but he was most recently on Saturday Night Live where, in the sketch, he didn't know when it was time to leave. Apparently, he's spending the money which finally started coming in, because as a sparring partner, he hasn't been much of one.

Then there was the interview with Josh Romney, who is contemplating a run for US Congress. He was asked if his father, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would rejoin the race if somehow McCain's campaign crashed and burned over the allegations of sex and corruption with a Washington lobbyist. The younger Romney said it was possible, but unlikely, his father would come back, but then stories emerged everywhere talking about the "possibility" of the elder Romney's return. More responsible journalism, I suppose.

There is a need to keep this exciting and at the forefront, apparently. With the surge working in Iraq, with Iran out of the news for the time being, and no other major threat on the horizon (remember all of the plagues from a year or so go--what's happened to Bird Flu and Mad Cow?) except for global warming, trying to spice up the nearly determined Republican primary and the clarifying Democrat primary would seem to be what some find newsworthy.

Don't know how many other people know this, but I just found out Janet Huckabee's maiden name is McCain. I haven't found anything that suggests that she and Senator McCain are somehow related, but boy, would that explain things. Even when trying to contrast himself with Senator McCain, Huckabee was nothing but congenial. Such couldn't be said with regards to Romney, who seemed to draw the ire of everyone, not just Huckabee.

Things have been downright tame over the last couple of weeks for the Republicans, whereas the Democrats have been all over the map as the Hillary Clinton campaign does everything they can to derail the Barack Obama express. If something doesn't happen to change things, it will be a McCain vs. Obama in the general election.

While conservatives have their differences with McCain or a few fronts, they will be virtually opposite on every issue with Obama. The Democrats don't seem to care about substance or experience. They want someone they can like, who can win based on style. They want change, regardless of what it is.

Coming under Jihad rule would definitely be change. So would higher taxes. So would a liberal Supreme Court, which has been steadily becoming constructionist.

Can a 72-year old straight talker with 20-plus years in the US Senate defeat a 46-year old with charm and grace who has yet to finish his first term in the Senate?

You would think experience and substance would win out over style. What in this election cycle has gone exactly according to plan. The inevitability of McCain apparently was true. The inevitability of Clinton isn't as evident, but she and her husband are attributed with enough underhandedness that she might yet steal the day.