to find new ways of bringing low-information conservative voters into the fold.

Love the way he understands humility: "low-information", "into the fold". If I didn't think he meant well, I'd tell him to f**k off.

Hard to say, it might be more of a technical term than a put down. Not everyone is a policy wonk. Or wants to be. Their reasons for wanting to vote may still be valid, however.

Someone who thinks (correctly) that Democrats are the surrender party and can't countenance that may not be hugely interested in policy minutiae. The question is how to build bridges to those folks while acknowledging that, hey, they have their own life, politics plays a tiny role in it, and their need for information about the inside baseball is low.

I'd use a different term than Patrick did, but in the context of his article it doesn't seem rude - as it surely would in another context.

Let's see how well McCain does. I suspect despite the probability of facing a completely unqualified candidate McCain will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because there is no substitute for principle.

I do not trust McCain nor have any confidence in him. But we are seeing a political leadership and class that is completely out of touch with the public. The outcome isn't hard to predict.

What amuses me the most is having fooled conservatives once by threatening us with "but Bush's opponent is so much worse" we saw we'd get to the same destination only slower. Now McCain trots out the same tired strategy and fails to provide one reason to vote for him. Eight years of Bushies have tranished the brand name and I see conservatives defending my interests, not McCain faux conservatives but people who stood up to McCain and his ilk during the amnesty fights.

If the GOP continues its big government policies it will return to the wilderness where it was before Reagan. Why vote for a wanna be big government spender when you can vote for the real thing?