To clarify, it's the fundies (as in fundamentalist) that are upset by plan B. Christian, Islamic, etc, it's always the various fundies that are in a tizzy to control sex. Those folks are about as conservative as Hugo Chavez.

It's like claiming that the family research council speaks for all of the families and family members out there.

Using an unfortunate phrase: "Don't throw away the baby with the bath water." Painting all conservatives and all christians with the same broad brush only serves to alienate. Instead, try to distinguish friend from foe. Those people are a bunch of reactionary fundamentalists trying to hijack the conservative label. Call 'em fundamentists illustrate who they really are and what they stand for.

Labels are important. Control the labels and you control the dialog. The neocons have done so to their great advantage. You play into the fundies hand when you call them conservative. You allow them to camouflage themselves within a larger much saner demographic.

John Randolf seems to be the only one having a real clue about mccain's collapse. GG responded to him asking for proof. Sad, because GG's post had anecdotal evidence, but nothing concrete. Anecdotes are all that is needed to rebut anecdotes. John Randolf seems to be speaking as a conservative. I certainly am.

Regarding GG's posting, it looks like another troll wherein GG, a liberal, tells other liberals what the GOP base thinks. The other liberals then pile on with agreement. Sorry to bust a hole in your echo chamber.

Fundamentally though, GG is wrong. GOP voters are a much less homogeneous than most liberals realize. Most don't even like bush, but dislike him less than they dislike the dem candidates. However, many liberals are trying to foment an "us versus them" mentality by proscribing a litany of dislikes to all conservatives. Sigh, I guess they learned that rovian lesson well.

As for mccain, he had a following because he appeared to stand against bush on many issues. He appeared to support civil rights and to be a sane voice regarding torture and unlawful detention. He also pissed off a lot of the bushies. Then, within the last few years, he became the administrations water carrier. The bushies still don't like him and he lost credibility with the rest of us.

"where are the strong anti-war candidates in the GOP field"

Maybe they're hanging out with the dem ones?

You say:

It is getting more difficult to define what the actual GOP base really is these days. The GOP base is fragmenting but war and immigration, xenophopia if you will, seem to be pretty constant

and are partly correct. The GOP base is pretty much the mirror of the dem base. The gop base is mostly folks that really really distrust the dems. The dem base is mostly folks that really really distrust the gop.

The fragmentation you see is that more and more conservatives are distrusting the GOP more than we distrust the dems. Hell, what would you do if your political party swore fealty to an evil moronic criminal? You probably wouldn't ditch 'em immediately, but may once they convince you that they won't rescind rescind that oath.

As for war, xenophobia, immigration ... Each of those is important to some repubs but not to others. Just as not every dem is a hemp wearing vegan pacifist, not every repub is a war mongering isolationist hypocritically trying to spread democracy to the unwilling.

Huh? Are you a independent leaning republican too? A GOP base denizen? Do you hang out with 'em? Sorry for thinking you were a left wing nut incapable of understanding the factions within the GOP.

what made him think a crippling wound would keep him from being sent back? Now, if he'd gotten the other man to hump him ...

Hippie liberal democrats on weed. ... your Democratic stereotype ("the extreme left") simply doesn't exist outside of college ...

You really need to go to better parties.

Please don't take this as baiting. I'm trying to stand in your shoes and understand your viewpoint.

I scanned the polling results (linked in the article) that you refer to as support for your statements. You're correct in saying the bulk of the GOP supports bush's iraq adventure. Sad but true.

I did not see anything, however, to support your contention that mccain's war support is not what doomed him. Other than, of course, some stuff from a few right wingnut blogs and fox news.

Please, what am I missing?

You've the support of people I respect. I had dismissed you as a sanctimonious crank or 19 year old troll. Sorry.

You claimed to understand how the GOP base thinks/feels. It came across to me as more liberal echo chamber noise. Regardless, please expound. Is your expertise based on study? social interaction? trolling national review?

I'm a conservative and sometimes think I understand the GOP base factions. I can talk to most of 'em for extended periods. Except for evangelicals. They get that shine in their eyes that says "RUN"!

Here's what I have:

The fundies cleave to one of their own. Generally not smart.

The neocon's are willing to do any evil in support of the neocon good. Pschopaths. Often brilliant, usually lying.

Bushies unwaveringly support the president as long as he's named bush. Generally not smart.

Big business pushes its agenda on both sides of the aisle. Average intelligence but ruthless and focused.

Conservatives are upset by the GOP, but really don't want to be bossed around by liberals. mostly average intelligence.

Libertarians are no longer in bed with the GOP, but are hiding under the bed choking on dust bunnies. Idealistic, mostly average intelligence.

Fiscal conservatives think the dems would find ways to spend even more money are even more frivolous causes. mostly average intelligence.

Please poke holes in my understanding - that is if you can do it from the lectern and not the pulpit.