Many conservatives find ourselves a mix of more than one, but my major observation is that Democrats & the left seem more enamored with Mccain than Republicans & conservatives. I see the “maverick” title bestowed on him as bullshit. Where some see maverick, I see R.I.N.O.!
I’m going to bed. But I’ll retire with this: If JM is the Republican candidate in 2008 I will not vote for him under any circumstance.
Who would you rather vote for?
My post is my cite? I know you’re fond of those endless slicing and dicing of the polticial landscape, but we don’t live in a parliamentary democracy, so they’rer really only of academic interest in the US, if you ask me. We have 2 parties, and they appeal to two broadly defined political constituents.
So you and Micheal Lind can go take a hike as far as I’m concerned. 
But they are also of direct relevance to the OP. After all, conservatives are getting exactly what they want, for a given (and entirely defensible) definition of “conservative.”
And the one you linked is duplicative of this one:
Which was started by a discerning poster whose brilliance is an inspiration to us all. And yes, ladies, he’s single…
[yoda]
On a petard of my own, I am hoisted.
[/yoda]
Well done.
BTW, John – a parliamentary system is not the same thing as multiparty (proportional-representation-based) system!
In fact, PR probably would work much better in separation-of-power systems such as we have in the U.S. – where the executive is elected separately, thus there is no need to assemble a legislative majority or coalition to “form a government.”
Newsweek reported that Kerry offered it and SecDefense to McCain who flatly turned him down. I couldn’t find a link, however.
You’re right. But we don’t have that kind of system either, so my point still stands.
I think that as with communism, there are certain inherent contradictions in the Republican conservative movement.
For example, traditional conservatives who favor less government intrusion into the lives of citizenry are forced to ally themselves with Christian conservatives who favor promoting a single religion, injecting that religion into public life, limiting who a citizen can marry, limiting sexual behavior, and censoring media.
Also, the movement seems to be trapped in a tax-cut and spend cycle. While small government is the heart of the movement, since the 80s they have been promoting tax cuts for upper income citizens, but then to counter charges of favoring the rich, Republicans then push through expensive social programs (such as Bush’s prescription drug program) that expand government and run up deficits.
Finally, the movement espouses small government, but also favors a large military. A standing military is the quintessential government agency and in promoting a large military, they are ensuring the need for the creation of large bureaucracies and huge government spending programs that undermine their desire for small government.
Yeah, those democrats. It’s not demonization to state they want bigger government as an end in itself no matter what the program, it’s demonstrably true :dubious:
(OTOH, he does demonize less than most politicians, which may or may not be saying something, not having paid attention to him in awhile.)
Notice that that quote “demonizes” both parties. But I’d hardly call that “demonizing” anyway. I never said he was a boy scout. 
As a tax-and-spend, bomb-throwing leftie, I gotta’ object to the demonization of the Democrats as a party that deliberately pursues the growth of government. We don’t. We do, however, believe that, as a civilized society, we owe it to our fellow humans to be compassionate and, especially in this land of super-sized meals and RVs, generous to those who are unable to help themselves. It’s a religion thing for most of us. And seeing as how most of our fellow Americans are too busy gassing up their SUVs and guzzling their lattes to give a moment’s thought to the problem of homelessness … well, it falls to the government. Unless the conservatives actually do get what they want, in which case, the homeless would be locked up en masse for vagrancy … oh, wait, that’d mean they’d be supported by the government. Nah, leave 'em there on the streets.
As for Ward Churchill, he’s the jaw-jacking idiot my beloved University of Colorado saw fit to hire as an “ethnic studies” professor. (I’ve always wondered: Does “ethnic studies” include studies of contributions made to American history by Italians, Turks and Kurds?) Anyway, this hate-spewing plagarist compared executives killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 with Adolph Eichmann. Looks like CU is finally going to find its academic testicles and fire the S.O.B., but for academic misconduct, not for his hate speech, which apparently is protected. Kind of like sending Capone to prison for tax evasion.
No, it’s really just quite ordinary everybody-does-it rhetorical mischaracterization/hyperbole. “Demonizing” the Dems is the kind of thing Limbaugh or Coulter does.
Would you mind so demonstrating, then?
If McCain is the candidate, I will probably just vote for a 3rd party or write in my own name. I cannot see myself voting for a Dem., and I cannot in good conscience endorse JM by giving my vote to him. Probably will be a moot point: I don’t believe he’ll survive a primary, and my vote hasn’t counted here since 1984 anyway!
That’s not what he asked 
Let me put it another way: Who would you like to see as the Pub presidential nominee in 2008?