My Wake-Up Call for the Election

I've forgotten the details, but some time ago I caught an egregious error of fact by David Frum and I've ignored him since.

It didn't break my heart to read that Limbaugh is criticizing him for 'watering down conservatism'. Frum responded:

It is Rush, not me, who has repeatedly mused that he would prefer to see Republicans lose this election if McCain were nominated. So who is the advocate of "surrender" here? And since Obama has pledged early and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, it’s not just an election that Limbaugh equably contemplates losing – it is a war.
[boldface mine--gs]

My instincts are libertarian rather than conservative. My opinion of Bush, the late Republican Congress, and the GOP is harsh, especially in view of the party's blasé reaction to the 2006 election. I believe the Republicans richly deserve to get creamed in November.

But Frum's point stopped me in my tracks and has me thinking twice.

It's not just about an election that a corrupt incompetent political party deserves to lose. It's about America losing a war.
*******************
Addendum. Bill Quick's retort to Frum is valid too:

... the surrender of the GOP to the forces of liberalism and the marginalizing of conservatism as a political force. That is what you, and all the rest of the establishment power-brokers are all about, with your support of John McCain, who no more protects against the loss of Iraq than does your former boss George Bush, who refuses to even attempt to win the War on Islamofascism, and whose failed and feckless policies, which have given us a nuclear North Korea, an entirely untouched terrorist Saudi Arabian regime, a Syria at open war with us and our allies, and will give us a nuclear Iran, are a monumental example of pre-emptive surrender.

The Iraq operation has never made sense to me. If the enemy is Islamofascism, why attack a secular regime? Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, wrong enemy.

But IMO losing would gravely compound the error.