Of course they are and there’s an excellent argument here detailing it. Via Say Uncle.

Last month, there were numerous blog postings about “How I will never vote for John McCain.” Most of these focused on how the “Republican Party has abandoned me,” or some other perceived grievance. Let me find my tiny violin.

I supported the Republican Party through the 90s as the party of small government, balanced budgets, and gun rights. But the party didn’t so much abandon me as it hated me from the beginning.

What is the Republican position on Gay Marriage? Why? Prejudice. Oh, they talk a good game, but if you look up the arguments used to justify the laws forbidding miscegenation of the races, they are same arguments.

What is the Republican position on gays in the military? Why? Prejudice. That junk about “unit cohesion” is EXACTLY the same argument used to justify segregation in the ranks before Truman’s decision.

Deb’s thoughts on the Republican party and support for a specific religion are likewise spot on. If an American wishes to form a religious congregation around the belief that giant alien space-octopi masters will soon land on earth and suck the rectums out of all unbelievers, well, they should be free to do so as long as their belief does not harm or restrict my unbelief.

I would, however, disagree with this:

Either Clinton or Obama will work to institute more gun control, starting with registration and microstamping, and everything else, probably including a new “assault weapons” ban. But the holier-than-thou folks will say “it isn’t my fault” for voting for “brand X” candidate. They will be very happy to proclaim how they didn’t compromise. Not just on their first principles, but they didn’t compromise on anything. Of course politics is compromise, but they don’t care. They just want to proclaim their righteousness.

Just because I don’t believe any candidate in the upcoming election is palatable, does not mean I need to be forced to compromise all of my principles in order to simply vote against Hillary or Obama. I find the argument wholly ridiculous when framed this way. I’ve got a ton of patience for political candidates because I have to - they’re generally all assholes. I’m willing to forgive a lot in order to find common ground. Oddly enough, it’s always the voters who are made to compromise. But that’s a different thought for a different day. I will vote for a candidate with which I disagree on some major issues.

I do not vote for candidates who shit on our Constitution. Period.

Unfortunately for supporters of the two major political parties, every candidate left has at one time shat upon or indicated that they would be more than satisfied to shit upon our great Constitution. Voting is a reward for a candidate who manages a position that people support. If you want to use it as a penalty for being less of a gun-grabbing nanny statist than the other first-amendment shredding nanny statist, go right ahead and compromise. When forced to choose between swallowing down a bucket of crap, or a different bucket of crap, I’ll simply say, “No thank you,” with the knowledge that regardless of what choice ends up happening, I’m going to be spending the next four years fighting fights that I shouldn’t have to.

So please, people. Stop with the soapbox speeches about “righteous indignation” and a refusal to vote for a “maverick” authoritarian asshole. If you spent half the time you spend blathering about how annoyed you are with people who you disagree with on learning about your local candidates and who you should be supporting in your own county or state that can actually make a difference, we’d all be better for it.

But there I go lecturing you. Sorry ’bout that. So regardless of my disdain for the “lesser of two evils” argument, Deb does make some excellent points and it’s well worth a read!