I don't think I argued Palin is the future of the party. Quite the contrary.

On a prior post, I noted that the fabled Republican crack-up is finally starting to occur. Wealthy pro-choicers I know are voting Obama in part out of spite toward Palin. If that happens, and we get left-leaning Supreme Court replacements from President Obama for Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter, there will be a wilderness all right for evangelicals. They may be so dispirited, they will have no desire to leave the wilderness, or march toward the promised land of Republican restoration. The fight to overtun Roe will effectively be over. Subtract that point from the likes of Huckabee, and you have a Democratic agenda.

With Obama in charge, those same moderate country clubbers are going to be in a world of hurt. Not only will their taxes spike exponentially, their social security benefits will be means tested out, their workers will join unions under the ballot act (thus reducing profits), and they'll see lots of exec compensation restrictions. They weep now for wolves being shot from helicopters. Just wait and see how it feels when they themselves are the wolf and their new friends from Chicago come knocking at their door for assistance.

My point is that moderate Republicans need to be team players, or they aren't going to have any allies the next time around, when they need it most.

One more thing. The task for McCain to hold the evangelical base was much harder than liberals might think. Romney would have been a disaster - huge anti-Mormon sentiment. James Dobson made clear he would not endorse a Romney ticket.

Many pro-lifers put McCain last on their list of Republicans this year, even below pro-choice Rudy, in part because of McCain-Feingold, which many interpreted to be aimed at anti-abortion ads (in fact, the first Supreme Court case on it involved the Wisconsin Right to Life), and in part based on his smug attitude in 2000, suggesting to the likes of Richard Cohen that he was pro-life only because he had to be. McCain was at serious risk of losing the evangelical base this year, and with it the election.

He really had only two choices: the new governor of Minnesota, or new governor of Alaska. He picked, by far, the more exciting of the two. Obama was ready to tear into Minnesota's governor as an empty suit Quayle, and the same type of drama would have unfolded. '88 redux. We got Sarah instead, and I'm glad for it.

Not sure I like the name "troll," but you asked for a McCain supporter's defense of his candidate, sans attack on Obama. Here goes.

1. Oops, gotta start with Obama. He and Pelosi favor tax "cuts" for 95% of the country, including 40% who pay no taxes. It's dangerous, in my opinion, for a democracy to openly bid on the give-away of other peoples' money. And, there is no public "need" here, like with farm subsidies or emergency welfare relief. Just "fairness." People going back to John Adams worried about this sort of thing; it was one reason we got an electoral college instead of direct vote and a veto for the monarch/president. It's a leap beyond progressive taxation . . . toward a late Roman empire bread and circus mentality, in my view.

2. Hyde Amendment. Barack wants to federally fund abortions for the first time, and vowed his first act as president would be to sign a bill which, if I understand correctly, would revert back to legality of partial birth abortion and supercede state laws banning late term abortions. I oppose such measures, as does McCain.

3. War and peace. McCain is a bit like Andrew Jackson, another unlettered hot head. One reason the country did not break apart thirty years sooner than it did is that the port collectors in Charleston took seriously Jackson's threat to personally kill them if they did not enforce the federal tariff, like in the duels of his youth.

Eisenhower kept the peace through strength. Kennedy put the world in constant peril through his disastrous novice judgment at the Bay of Pigs, and his ill advised Vienna summit. I respect Kennedy for recovering, and being a fast learner, but it was perilous all the same.

I think the world would be more dangerous under Obama, because the likes of Putin would see him as a new Jimmy Carter and start the tanks rolling to test his resolve. And, like Carter, Obama is conflicted. Jimmy liked the Michael Manleys of the world, yet was in charge of a staunchly rightist Cold War country. Obama too is conflicted - just look at Jesse Jackson's comment yesterday about Barack's latent desire to kick the "Zionists" out of Washington. (Those familiar with the south side of Chicago will instantly recognize this as an all too common sentiment). Yet, he's going to be in charge of a pro-Israel, anti-Arab middle eastern policy. His stomach will be in knots over it. In turn, so will ours.

McCain, like Jackson and Eisenhower, would do a better job with preventative peace.