Okay, I'll buy that...

This was a good response. You explained your position very clearly, without declaring mine to be worthless, "Chicken Little" dribble, which you have done in the past.

I have no issues with your "comprehensive plan" at all, and would applaud any candidate that chose to show the khutspah to implement it. This INCLUDES drilling in ANWAR and off the Pacific Coast... and frankly anywhere in the US that we can find viable alternative sources of crude oil and natural gas.

My questions about drilling in ANWAR have always been that, even if we started punching holes tomorrow, we would not see a measurable amount of crude hitting our existing refineries for at least 5 years, and it would be 8 to 10 years before it was flowing at capacity. That is NOT a solution that is going to change the paradigm of American crude oil consumption in and of itself... but it is part of a broader solution.

What I still find distressing, though, is your continued disdain for simple environmentalism because you feel it ALL equates to "Algorian" panic-mongering (I like that phrase... Algorian). Why shouldn't McCain attempt to appeal to moderates like those that support Arnold in CA? He has ZERO chance of winning CA in the general election, but everything he does will be carried nation-wide to every TV and media outlet that moderates everywhere will see... and it WILL make a difference in states like SD, NE, WY, TN, maybe even FL, OH and PA... which are big states.

In an ideal world, McCain should be able to DEPEND on the GOP base vote simply because of the alternative candidate (whichever one wins the Convention)... but you have too many pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity bitching about the "three Democratic candidates" for President. How is that going to help keep even a moderate GOP agenda in the White House? Which is more damaging to the future of this country... a "green-friendly" Republican or the winner of the Obama/Hillary conflict? ANY Republican that had chosen to run on a strictly "neo-conservative" platform would have been seen as simply four more years of Bush by the general population, and Bush's name is anathema to the GOP right now... period.

I am right next to you in singing the laments about the "liberal" gains in the Congress over the last four years... but this is the impression I get: It isn't the "liberals" that are winning seats right now... it is moderates. I don't have all the numbers in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the newly-elected Representatives in the House (Dems, anyway) are like Carney and Casey (yes, I know he's a Senator) and are far more pro-life and pro-military than actual liberals like Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, or Dean. The last "class" of Congressman sworn in had the largest number of combat veterans since 1956... surely THAT must tell us something about the kind of people we have running for office, even if they are Democrats.

Okay, I got on a bit of a ramble here, so let me reel it in...

I understand the "conservative's" fear of watering-down the agenda of the Right simply to gain another four years in the White House... but that might very well be the path the conservatives HAVE to follow. Unpalatable or otherwise, this is the price that will have to be paid for 8 years of bad press and bad policy via the Bush Administration. Bush made decisions and followed policy that alienated vast segments of the society... and did next to nothing to correct the problem. His failures in foreign policy alienated BOTH sides of the aisle, as much as his domestic habits alienated GOP voters and his national security actions alienated the far-left.

My point? If McCain can't count on the GOP base, then he can't win. If he can count on the GOP base, then he needs to court the moderate center of of the Democratic party that is leery of the very liberal agendas of both Obama and Clinton... and that segment of the party is far bigger than most of the Democratic leadership is willing to admit. Why would environmental concern equate to weakness, given the scenario I have laid out here? Why would a focus on alternative resource development, in the face of the failures of the status quo, be seen as "pandering"? Arnold may not be a conservative... but he is a Republican. He supports 80% of the party line, and the 20% he fights doesn't effect issues like national security or defense or the war on terror.

You can't fight and win a bloody, expensive and protracted war abroad and expect NO domestic impact at home... but that was what Bush and Co. promised. As the nation watched them fail to deliver on that promise, the voices of the Deans, Pelosis and Gores of the nation got louder and louder, to the point where Cindy Sheehan is now seen as a viable candidate for public office in Pelosi's district simply because of her anti-Bush position... not because of her stated political goals and ambitions. THIS is the climate that Bush has created for the GOP to campaign in.

Anyone else that claims this country needs hard-corps "classical liberalism" in a candidate needs to write-in Ron Paul's name on the ballot and quit bitching.