At Jackfest this summer, the ML and MOP got into it a bit with the Plame affair. The MOP saw it as a major scandal that could be leveraged into Democratic gains. The ML was already following the “technically, he didn’t break the law mode.”

I came down with the opinion that it just didn’t matter. Without the sexiness of orally fixated interns, the scandal would not hold the average tv news viewer’s attention. I didn’t agree with the ML’s glib assessment, but foresaw that average Republicans’ position of moral rectitude was easily suspended when the accused was one of their own.

It has now been revealed that in addition to Karl Rover, Scoter Libby was also talknig to the press about Ms. Plame. These fellows are professional, capable guys, so I find it hard to believe that they were both randomly off the reservation at the same time. This was definitely a political payback.

I’m not sure of the “techincal” legality of the leaks. It would be hard to call Plame an active “covert operative,” but I guess that is up to the CIA to define. But it seems to me that Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is,” has become the Republican Party’s line of defense.

DeLay’s indictment has renewed the chorus of political hypocrisy. Democrats who defended Clinton’s smarmy techincal defenses are now shocked - shocked I tell you - to discover DeLay’s crimes. (Second concession of the day to the Maximum Leader: we aren’t hearing much from Dems in Congress, perhaps because they are guilty, albeit on a smaller scale, of similiar misdeeds.)

Republicans are now jumping on the “DeLay is being prosecuted by a partisan prosecutor! Indictments mean nothing! It’s a vast left wing conspiracy!” bandwagon. Sound familiar? All those fellows who screamed for moral rectitude are so full of crap that their eyes are brown. A hat tip does go out to our friend Professor Jawa, who has refused to “drink the kool-aid” and is bearing the wrath of conservative bloggers.

One has to wonder…

If the Republicans apply moral principles only to the opposition,
Raise non-defense spending by 29% and pack 6000 pork projects into the budget, spending money like Ted Kennedy in a liquor store,
Won’t keep campaign promises to their core constituency (see my Meiers post below),
Shift power toward the unitary rather than the confederate side of the geographic power spectrum,
Deny individual liberty outside the economic realm,

Why ought Conservatives to support them?

If you are a conservative, please explain in the comments why you support a non-conservative president. Is it simply a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils (with Kerry playing the part of Lucifer)?