"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

Sounds about right to me.  So Sayeth the El Rushbo who some, Bob Dole for example, have been trying to convince to come home to the GOP.  What these folks fail to realize is that the GOP "home" is a duplex, wherein one side houses the GOP and the other it's conservative philosophy.  The philosophy remains constant but the various occupants will do whatever it takes to prolong their career.  If, as in the case of John McCain, trashing that philosophy for political gain becomes necessary he will not, nor has he, hesitated to do so.  

Way back in August of 2006 I wrote....

The problem I see with this "it's your turn" mentality is that it is exactly what screwed the GOP with Bob Dole in 96 and to some extent, the Democrats with Gore in 2000...I fear if we rely on this tradition with McCain it will come back to bite us.

Sure enough the establishment GOP seems perfectly willing to give McCain his turn, and just as surely he will go by the way of Dole in 1996.  Some cite "electability" as a the main reason to vote McCain.  This is about as strong an argument as I could make to limit the vote only to those who could actually name both of their Senators and party affiliations, along with their House Rep just to winnow it down a bit further. 

The only reason McCain does so well in the national polls is because he's been in the headlines for 20 years.  It's nothing more than a name recognition test that might as well read: which of these people could beat Hillary Clinton in November 1) Smith 2) Jones  3) Johnson  4) Romney  5) McCain.  Hmm let me think, well,  the first three could be anyone, I've never heard of the fourth guy but McCain rings a bell.  In fact I think he's actually in politics so yeah that's the guy who can beat Clinton.  Doesn't the fact that multiple polls showing more than 50% would never cast a vote for Hillary Clinton prove anyone could beat her?  In any blind test people will opt for the familiar. 

And

...McCain-Feingold is so egregious it's impossible to overlook and therefore, ultimately unforgivable.  There is one remote possibility I could endorse McCain however, the highly unlikely possibility that he renounces McCain Feingold.  I'll not be holding my breath.

There's a sliver of a chance I could support McCain, or at  least there might be.  He flipped on immigration, flipped on Bush tax cuts, flipped on religious right, his new best friends, why not flip on free speech Senator?  You seem to be have a talent for it.


And
... So far I like what I see in Mitt Romney ... Tall, good looking, extremely articulate, knowledgeable, executive experience in both private and public sectors.  There's a lot to like there but I am sure the scrutiny will expose any defects soon enough. Lord knows that if his campaign picks up any steam we can rely on the good old mainstream media to fabricate some. 

Extraordinarily prescient?  Naw, I'm just an armchair pundit, but if it was that easy for ME to see it why is McCain doing so well?

Here's the deal, and probably the root of my disappointment that Romney hasn't caught on in a larger way; in all of my discussions with friends from across the spectrum there is a frustrating consensus that the job of running for President is so debasing that no real talent wants to put themself through the meat grinder process of getting the job.  I just have this deep seated feeling that Mitt Romeny is the exception to that rule.  Granted, he is the devil we don't know but the idea that he is neither a political careerist or Washington insider is enough for me to want to give him a shot.  That he is wealthy enough to be bribe-proof doesn't hurt either.  The devil we know scares me more than the devil we don't.  

It ain't that complicated.  The longer we settle for careerists the longer we maintain the status quo and perpetuate the ruling class.  The longer we maintain that ruling class the more we can expect government by the highest bidder and the victors getting the spoils.  In other words, politics as usual.

Until a critical mass gets this we are simply proving the cliché of insanity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  The only difference we can expect from a McCain Clinton match up is the massive growth of cynicism.  Don't expect careerists to do anything about it because cynicism works to there advantage.  In this regard there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the parties.  In any monopoly, or more specifically in this case any entrenched duopoly, the prime directive is self-perpetuation.  Philosophy and principle are always among the first casualties.  

But hey, baseball survived the strikers, the catholic church will survive it's pedophile problem.  Hopefully, conservatism will survive this latest batch of careerists.