(1) The New York Times' (and Mother Jones') endorsement of McCain is bad enough. Rush Limbaugh explains further:
The New York Times, by the way, yesterday, hold onto your coffee cup or your steering wheel if you haven't heard this. After months of pondering, the New York Times announced its endorsements for the Democrats and Republicans, and here they are. There was no surprise who they endorsed for the Democrats, and there was not much surprise about who they endorsed for our side. They endorsed Hillary on the Democrat side and they endorsed McCain. So this is a serious, serious question. A serious number of liberal newspapers have endorsed John McCain. I ask myself -- I'm not even asking you to think about this -- I'm thinking to myself here, and I happen to be verbalizing thoughts. What in the world am I supposed to think when liberal newspapers endorse McCain as the Republican, when I know for a fact they're not going to vote for him? When I know for a fact that when it comes to November, whenever they issue their final endorsements, they're going to endorse Hillary or whoever the Democrat is? So what is the game plan here? What is the gambit? What are these liberal papers trying to do? Are they trying to be consistent?
(2) McCain opposes border enforcement and supports amnesty, despite his protestations to the contrary. A leading McCain staffer considers Mexico and the U.S. to be part of one region instead of separate countries.
(4) McCain's slander of the Swift Boat vets in 2004.
(5) McCain's attempts to undermine the judicial nomination process in 2005. The Supreme Court is supposedly the reason of last resort trotted out by moderates for conservative voters to support some RINO in the general election. "At least we will control the Supreme Court if President Dole [Bush I etc.] wins," they say. When McCain undermines the nomination process so that conservatives have a harder time being confirmed, he nullifies that election year bargain-with-the-devil.
(6) He describes himself as a "deficit-hawk," which is MSM/DNC code for "supports higher taxes."
(7) McCain is among the least electable Republican candidates. Bill Clinton has promised a virtual love-fest if the nominees are McCain and Hillary. Which means if McCain is nominated, he will fail to attack and expose Hillary's record. Which means he will lose. [Of course, we all know what a liar Bill Clinton is. The exact opposite may well be the case.]
The Republican base will abandon McCain in the general election. We know this to be the case. We should stop trying to bully the Republican base into supporting unpalatable nominees and, instead, nominate someone who comes close to supporting a basic, simple Republican agenda. It doesn't take rocket science or mindreading to predict who the base will support. All we want is someone who will:
1) Build the wall
2) oppose abortion
3) fight the war
4) cut taxes
5) cut spending
6) support conservative judicial nominees
(Had GWB done ## 1 and 5, we might not have lost Congress in 2006.) If a candidate barely gets half of these issues right (and even those only if the spin is right), they will not get the support of the base in the general election, no matter how many primaries said candidate wins by default because the conservative vote is split. All the phony NY Times endorsements in the world won't help in that case.
It is easier for the Republican establishment and the pundits to endorse and support a viable nominee than it would be to change the basic values of millions of Republicans across the country.