This reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with someone who was most likely also a Bob Barr voter. He was going on and on about how he hadn't voted for the Republicans in 25 years and calling me a hack because I had voted for a few. (Though, as I took pains to point out, the only Republican presidential candidate I voted for who won was in 2000, and that year G.W.Bush lost New York state. I chose "none of these candidates" as an option in 2004.)

I was arguing that being such a purist wasn't doing him any good because now we have Obama and a Democrat-controlled congress, and if a third, more libertarian party (albeit, a somewhat viable one) were to arise in 2012, it would probably do the same thing that Perot's candidacy did in the 1990s and throw the election to Obama again.

This particular fellow was also enraged about the Iraq war. He went on and on about how Bush and Cheney should be tried for treason. Whenever I'd say anything in defense of the rationale for being there, he'd go into a fit of blaming Israel and saying anyone who defended the war had blood on their hands. (Never mind, of course, I wasn't active in deciding anything about it, my vote hadn't elected Bush, and my representative in congress at the time was a Democrat who I believe voted against the authorization bill.)

I voted for Palin, myself. I claim this proudly, as it annoys all the correct people.

I think the idea here is, it's not so much about being "right all the time" as it is about encouraging and reinforcing undesirable behaviors by rewarding them with a vote. A politician doesn't give two damns whether that vote is "grudging" or not, so long as they get it.

Those who hew to principles judge correctly that subordinating those principles to a win once indicates they'll reliably continue to do so, and those concerns will never again carry the same weight.

If a politician can ignore the concerns of those principled people and carry a win without them, then fine, that means the world's moved on without that voting bloc, and they'll wither and die. And it may be that we've done so much as a nation to encourage a society of needy, incompetent, dependent little sheeple that this is precisely the void we're faced with.

But if he (or she) can't...then they'd better damn well listen, regardless of the media's barbs about courting the vote of the culturally unpalatable.

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that a truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.

Words to live by from R.A. Heinlein. He usually got technological advances wrong, but he always, always, always got people right.

I voted against Obama. I thought he was going to be dangerous, very dangerous. I didn't/don't like McCain, he spent the previous 8 years spitting in my eye to make the NY Times happy after all, but the alternative was worse.

Another quote from I'm not sure who

The difference between "bad" and "worse" is always much more stark than that between "good" and "better"

We're seeing that. The only consolation is that, while Obama is as bad as I expected, McCain wouldn't have been much better and the GOP wouldn't have learned anything.

The GOP needs to understand that they're losing elections by being squishes (turnout was low last election, most people weren't all that interested in the choice between a crap sandwich and punch in the mouth), they have to stop listening to the NY Times telling them that they have to act more like Dems to win elections.

They spent the last election warning me how bad it would be if Obama were elected. McCain's whole campaign was geared to get people to vote against Obama instead of for McCain and most people don't vote against.

What does all that mean? It means I don't know if I agree with your point. The GOP didn't learn after losing in 2006 (remember the Permanent GOP Majority? Good times), then, they called me a racist because I want to enforce our laws (Immigration laws) and tried to help Bush pass that piece of crap amnesty. T
We're Americans, we don't like taking crap from our "betters".
Especially since that sonomobatch ain't been born yet.

I voted for McCain. I hated it. He's a squishy statist, evidenced by McCain-Feingold.

But I thought Obama would be worse. So far, I have no reason whatsoever to regret the vote I cast--something that the 52% of Obama supporters will, I fear, have ample opportunity to do over the next 3 1/2 years.

The only redeeming feature of the Republican 2008 ticket was Sarah Palin. I'm not completely convinced that she's the Savior of the Conservative Cause, but she's all we have right now. I'd feel better if she had another four or eight years of seasoning on the national stage, but I repeat: she's all we have right now.

For 2010, in the primaries, I will vote for the challenger, and hope my vote will not be canceled by a culture-jamming Democrat party neofascist.

In the general election, I will vote for the less statist of the two main candidates, and hope my vote will not be canceled by an ACORN zombie voter.

I fear for my country.

So let me get this straight: "extra-chromosome" right-wingers (myself included) are supposed to hold our collective nose and vote for the so-called lesser of two evils RINOs with a smile and give them the margin of victory while those same RINOs deliberately hand the margin of victory to the Dems on important issue after issue when it is clutch time? Been there and done that!

NO MORE!!!

We tried that "big tent" and "11th Commandment" stuff and it destroyed the Republican Party by turning it into "whatever the Democrats want less 10% Party".

The left-wing of the Republican Party never learns and can never be trusted. Don't let the door hit them in their behinds on the way out.

The Art of War is definitely a people thing. There are many ways to play it. Some times losing battles is the key to winning wars as long as losing sets you up for the final win. The Alamo and the retreat of the Texas Army set the stage for San Jacinto.

I voted for Palin and thought that a win for MP would put her on track for 2016. Now she is on track for a possible run at 2012.

In any case - win or lose putting Palin on the national stage was an act of genius by a very squishy squishy.

I was a Libertarian for a long time. Now I'm a libertarian-Republican. And my Rep. (Don Manzullo) votes my way on fiscal issues. so I'm moderately happy. I wish he got the drug war (total waste) but I take what I can get until I can get something better.

I voted for Bob Barr, but I live in California. I knew that Obama was going to get California's electoral votes, and that my vote wouldn't change that. (I also knew that if something weird actually put California into play, McCain would win a landslide without CA.) By adding my vote to Barr's column, I sent a message that I wanted much less government than even McCain would contemplate, much less Obama.

But if I lived in a state where the election was potentially close, I'd have voted for McCain, because it's the guy who gets the most votes, not the guy who gets the majority.

Why are conservatives wrong? Why aren't the wishy-washy, moderate, no-ideology John McCain supporters wrong?

Bob Barr and Sarah Palin didn't lose the election for McCain - McCain did.

The presidential debates last year were stunning. Obama would drone on and on about all the things government would do for us. In my head, I kept hearing Reagan saying "there you go again." He would have destroyed Obama with the simple ideas of small government and freedom.

Instead I saw McCain reply with different big government proposals of his own. Why vote for a liberal Republican when a liberal Democrat is available? McCain had already conceded the core argument.

To all the people who think Republicans can only be elected if they are "moderate" - you are wrong. You were wrong in 1932, 1976, 1996, and in 2008. How many more times to you need to be wrong before you stop blaming it on conservatives?