Hey, did you know that McCain is a war hero? Yeah, he is.

Does any McCainiac go three sentences without reminding us?

Hey, did you know that McCain has a good anti-abortion record? Yeah, he sure does.

Hey, did you know that McCain is a conservative? No, really. He really, really is.

From what I gather from listening to McCain supporters, he has ten great things going for him:

1. He's a courageous POW.
2. He's a war hero.
3. He has a perfect anti-abortion record.
4. He's a courageous POW.
5. He's a war hero.
6. He has a perfect anti-abortion record.
7. He's a courageous POW.
8. He's a war hero.
9. He has a perfect anti-abortion record.
10. Oh, and by the way, me MUST be a conservative, because he keeps calling himself one.

McCain has made himself a media darling by attacking and confounding his "fellow conservatives" (he MUST be a conservative, because he keeps calling himself one - now) as he insists on calling them now that he is the candidate presumptive and is desperately hoping that the base won't abandon him in November the way he has abandoned them for years.

McCain has made an image for himself by "reaching across the aisle" to Democrats. The question remains, will he now reach back across to conservatives?

Today I read the following from a fellow blogger (forgive me, I've lost the link):

Are there any voters out there that have attained complete perfection? I warrant there is not a single one. If you are not perfect, then please do not condemn John McCain, as he is a good man, and would make a fine president.

Let me see if I've got this straight - because I'm not perfect, I'm not allowed to criticize McCain?

I've read this and other writings telling me I can't be critical of the Arizona Maverick because he's a war hero, a POW, a man of principal who won't merely toe the party line, etc., etc.

Maybe McCain is a good man (maybe). Maybe he would make a good president ( I doubt it ). Maybe he is a war hero  and blah blah blah whatever else wonderful things you want to say about him. But I tire of the endless parade of McCain supporters who talk like the man is beyond cricism. He isn't.

McCain has spent his entire politicial career deliberately alienating, harassing, maligning, and cutting the legs out from under the very people he now repetively calls his "fellow conservatives". He should expect a little backlash.

Support the man if you feel he deserves it. Hold your nose and vote for him (while holding his feet to the fire) if you think that's best. But please, please, please, don't expect that the those whom McCain has frustrated and criticized for years to close their eyes to years of abuse and silence the well-earned criticism he's getting.

According to Janice Shaw Crouse's column The Pushy Pundits Forced Romney Out, he (and others) did.

Pardon my sudden ineloquence, but HUH? Romney lost because many of America's most highly respected conservative voices supported him? I am a fairly frequent reader of Crouse's column, and I mean no disrepect, but seriously, does this strike anyone as logical?

Crouse states "They forgot all about their role as analysts and commentators and became advocates". Since when has Rush Limbaugh pretended to be anything less than an ardent advocate of conservatism. By what definition is advocate an inappropriate role for a commentator.

But according to Crouse, its the pundits' fault Romney lost because they promoted him too ardently. So, it wasn't because McCain is a media darling who's fawned over in the press? And it wasn't because McCain was voted for by many who were not self-identified as conservatives, or in many cases, even Republicans? And it wasn't because thanks to years of "big-tent" recruitment, the Republican party is simply not as conservative as once it was?

According to Crouse, apparently not.

Attention Pundits and Politicians: Have you learned anything from 2006? The upcoming election season may answer this question. Please let that answer be 'yes'. What exactly have I hoped they learned?

For the politicians this should be obvious. Republicans lost big in 2006 for a variety of reasons, some under their control, some not, but of those they can be faulted for, the most obvious ones are the appearance of corruption and their absolute failure to act like conservatives. Whether they have learned their lesson (namely that if the conservative base is unhappy with you, you will lose) is hard to tell, since being out of power, there's only so much wrong (or right) they can do.

But for the pundits, please pay attention: If you are trying to enlist conservative to get out and vote for candidates that disappoint them or even disgust them (I won't mention any names, but his initials are John McCain - oops) then telling them that "hey, we know the Republicans are lousy, but at least they're better than the Dems" is NOT going to work. It didn't motivate them in 2006, and it won't motivate them in 2008. You've got to do better than 'the lesser of two evils'.

'Better than the Dems' didn't keep Republicans in power. It will not restore them to power or retain the White House in 2008. Either the party will shape up or the conservative base will ship out. Don't bother telling us they're cutting off their noses. To do so is demeaning, belittline, patronizing, and unproductive.

Some smarter approaches can be found in Michelle Malkin's Quo vadis, conservatives? and Cliff May's Conservatives on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.

Want us to vote? Give us a reason. A good one. Reagan won partly because he inspired confidence. Republican candidates and conservative columnist need to do the same.