A: Because I’m pro free speech even in cases where it does not directly affect me. Just like I’m pro lower taxes, even on brackets above mine, etc. etc. It’s a principle, not a bought vote.

But a lot of the base (like me) will stay home with McCain. Actually I’m thinking about staying home regardless. Still so pissed at George Bush.

You’re all wrong, btw; it’s #2. Already started with his immigration stance.

There are so many awful things to say in answer to this that my head’s asplodin.

That’s the talking point, yes; but why would someone who is neither rich nor a politician object to it and feel so strongly about it? Isn’t it another wingnut mystery?

If money is speech, limiting money is limiting speech.

No, sorry, that’s just not true. Here, as in so many other areas, McCain has effectively created a “maverick” image for himself that is completely at odds with the facts. And the media has been only too happy to help.

And that, of course, is the answer to the broader question here. For the McCain haters on the right, it’s all about perception. What McCain has done, the actual votes he’s cast and so forth, are irrelevant—it’s that he’s always managed to carve out this “independent” image for himself even while siding with the conservative base on almost every issue. As movement conservatism in the US shed all pretenses of consistency and coherence in favor of a cult of personality around Bush, McCain refused to play along. Of course it drove them bonkers.

He voted against Bush’s tax cuts.
Sure, but from a ‘keep the budget balanced’ POV. Here in Europe at least that’s easy to spin as a plus for conservatives, not a con.

He was pro campaign finance reform.
Why would people oppose this, at least openly? I can understand how party apparatchiks dislike this, but why would pundits on the web care about it?

While pro-war he was a strong critic of Bush’s handling of the war.
By now, that can hardly count against him. Sounds like pretty much the best position to appeal to hawkish people at this stage.

He is against torture.
I’ll leave this one.

He is for amnesty.
I thought Bush was too? Perhaps I am mistaken

Somewhat environmentally friendly. Admits global warming is an issue.
I understand why this might hurt his image

So, altogether I am still a bit in the dark. I see why they might prefer someone else, but he still appears as a very reasonable candidate, form a conservative point of view. Apparently he just doesn’t fit in or something.

The best strategy may be for her to run to the RIGHT of McCain to avoid having the conservative base rally around him as the anti-Hillary.

She could come out and say, John and I have the same positions but I’m the better leader.

Which not that suprisingly is McCain yeeeech, but hey he does have a lifetime ACU rating of 83%, he is good on Iraq, he isn’t Hilary, he is electable, and hey he isn’t Hilary, and did I mention he isn’t Hilary or Obama?

And the answer in a landside is

Folks closer to me will sport this type of bumper sticker

Vote America in 08. Vote McCain.

While the NRO guys look like they will have this type of bumper sticker.

With a big red circle and line

Hilary = Hitler = Fascism.

The scare will be Hilary instead of terrorists.

Or maybe Hilary in bed with the terrorists?

Will it work? Probably not. And they know it. But McCain is this year’s Bob Dole. They figure they’re gonna lose, might as well throw whoever out there, then lay low for four or eight years. As Digby has written so eloquently, the way they work it doesn’t matter all that much whether they’re in charge.