Conservative Republicans need to stage a coup d'etat or revolution at the convention.  McCain is not suitable for President; maybe he can talk to Obama and be the democrat VP candidate (like he wanted to do in the last election).
Today in the news, RINO John McCain has offered $300,000,000.00 of your-hard earned dollars to anyone who can "build a better battery".  It doesn't matter that someone who builds a better battery can sell them for BILLIONS of dollars, LIBERAL McCain wants to give him or her your money as well; even if you never want or need that battery, you just bought one.
Then he gives more of your money away as "incentives to increase use of domestic and foreign alcohol-based fuels such as ethanol."  He is throwing more of your hard-earned dollars into a failed technology.  Ethanol raises the price of gasoline, reduces gas mileage, uses more oil based fuels that it saves, and, worse, raises the price of grains so that everything increases from breakfast cereals to dinner steak and chicken for those who live in America, and reducing or eliminating meals all together in poorer countries.  All this in an effort to stop man-made(up) global warming.
Every few weeks I start to think, "I really should vote for McCain because Obama is such a threat to everything Americans hold dear."  Then McCain brings me to my senses and makes me realize there is not that much of a difference between them.  Obama could actually win in November by sitting at home this election cycle and let McCain continue to push away conservatives like a hyprocondriac trying to avoid peoples' germs.  In November, McCain will be like the lone polar bear sitting on the left-wing ice berg wondering where his support disappeared to.
They say that one of the differences between McCain and Obama is taxes.  McCain originally opposed the Bush Tax Cut, but claims he has reformed.  Didn't we hear that from Bush Sr.?  "Read my lips" Bush??  Don't listen to what he promises today, look at what he did in the past: he voted to limit freedom of speech; he opposed the Bush tax cuts; he opposed securing the borders and wanted amnesty for illegal aliens; like Obama, he is arrogant and abusive; he endorses big government; McCain believes in man-made global warming - especially at the expense of Americans; the list is endless.
My only hope now is that he selects a very conservative VP running mate and gets elected...
     ... then dies before he takes office.

This guy makes me sick and is a disgrace to Regean Republicans.  Maybe there is some loophole in the convention procedures that will allow Republicans to say, "oops, we didn't really want to nominate this liberal wacko ... do-over."

McCain attacks Guantanamo Ruling
What ever happened to the "Balance of Power" guaranteed in the Constitution?  It appears that there is no balance, but the ultimate decision maker is the Supreme Court.  Unaccountable Judges is not what the framers of the Constitution intended.  When this decision was first released, my response was a simple, Bush should ignore it.  My democrat friend was aghast - after all it was "The Supreme Court".  Bush would be impeached for such an action.  "Maybe", I said, "but it is supposed to be a balance of power" between the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches.  It is no longer a balance, but ruling by judicial fiat.  George Bush should have just said no, then let Congress find members who agreed with this judicial fiat and bring orders of impeachment then find 2/3s of the Senate uphold it.   It would have been a liberating shot heard throughout the halls of government everywhere - ensuring a return to a real "balance of power".
My democrat friend looked noticebly shaken that someone would insist on a balance of power; thus threatening the core of Democrat power for the past fifty years.

Every morning I slug (hitchhike) to the Pentagon and get on the Metro to downtown DC. On Mondays, there is usually a group of people outside the Metro stop wanting the U.S. to quit the war. They usually have banners saying things like "Thou shalt not kill."
I am sure there are disagreements about this, but the Bible, while opposing murder, supports whole heartedly the defense of a nation. The finest example I know of is taken from the New Testament. Luke, Chapter 3, verse 14 says, "Soldiers also asked him [John the Baptist] , 'And what is it that we should do?' He told them, 'Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.' (New American Bible)  [Also note that later in the Bible, Jesus says John the Baptist, "there has been none greater than John the Baptist" (Mat. 11:11).]
Here was an opportunity for God to say, "Soldiers, DO NOT KILL." Instead He says (through His prophet), "be satisfied with your wages." Pretty anticlimactic, if you ask me.
So, you soldiers out there, go ahead and kill all those terrorists out there before they blow up your wives and children (or my wife and children). It makes sense that if we stop killing them, we are allowing them to kill innocent people. My addition to that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill, nor allow others to kill either." Allowing others to kill innocents is tantamount to killing them yourself.

Consider this...
The Rio Grand river in South Texas, the border with Mexico, winds along changing positions like Hillary Clinton answering a question about drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Between Falcon Dam (the last dam on the river before the Gulf) and the mouth of the Rio Grande, the river travels about 275 miles. This distance by road is about 146 miles and "as the crow flies" (which, down there, are actually boat-tailed grackles) it is about 130 miles. There are several places where the river curves so wickedly that two bends are less than 50 feet apart for a 1 mile stretch of river.
Question...
Do you build a fence right along the river ... all 275 miles of it? Do you cut corners and spend half the money and build a straighter fence? If you build a straighter fence, what happens to the US land between the fence and the river? To whom does it belong? And what do you do when the river decides to change course around the fence (which it is wont to do)? To whom does the fence belong then? (hint: the land that shifts to the south side of the river then belongs to Mexico by treaty.)
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of border security. I am just pointing out the obvious here. (Obvious to me, anyway.)