The American Conservative (a publication for conservative Republicans) has split its endorsement six ways, for a quick glimpse into why, read these 7 articles from their Nov. 8th issue:

"Coming Home"  (Bush) - http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
"Kerry's The One" - http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
"Old Right Nader"  - http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover2.html
"Constitutionally Correct Peroutka"  - http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover3.html
"Libertarian Resistance" (Baradnik) - http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover4.html
"The Right To Remain Silent" (abstention) -  http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover5.html
"The Real Deal" (summary - endorses Peroutka) - http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/taki.html

Or you can navigate to each of these articles from the yellow-highlighted "Sneak Peek" section on their front  page:  http://www.amconmag.com/index.html

Its been a long day and I'm tired, so I'm not going to read each of these (I bet Max will) but I will say this.  There are, as with any  group, conservatives who are principled, and who think, and others who blindly support anyone who claims to support their positoin.  Thinking  conservatives would have to evaluate Bush's "accomplishments" over the past 4 years, and some could conclude that he was a failure, not on liberal, terms but on true conservative terms. 

I mentioned in another thread that there are lots of folks here in VT that supports Repub candidates for Senate and local offices with lawn signs, but few have Bush/Cheney signs on their lawn, and one with a Kerry/Edwards sign next to the Repub governor's sign.  Makes you wonder.  Policy debates with Repubs l;ike these could lead to fruitful bipartisan solutions to problems, but there is no way to talk to the blind idiologues.

The right choice for conservatives is Kerry.  The right choice for right-wingers is Bush.  Bush is not a conservative.  Bush is just a Bible-thumping reactionary who thumps the Bible but pays no attention to what the Good Book really says.  Furthermore, he is 100% subservient to the military-industrial-petroleum complex.  Any national exigencies that will not immediately profit these sectors will be denied or ignored.  Conservatives value stability, principles, and doing the right thing even if it is hard.  Bush has demonstrated only a loyalty to the super-rich, big corporations, and the evangelical crackpots who rouse his mislead constituencies.

Bush's rhetoric is "conservative" and "Christian," but talk is cheap, my friends.

I posted Palast's document on Iraq for a reason.  It demonstrates the ultimate greed and cynicism behind this administration.  There are no conservative principles whatsoever in the scam behind Iraq, only the corporate greed of the military-industrial-petroleum complex.  Conservatism and greed are not one in the same thing, are they?

Kerry is not my ideal candidate, and social conservatives will not approve of his stand on certain "values," however, there comes a time when sensible people of all stripes must recognize when their government has gone insane.  This is one of those times.  Kerry deserves to be elected, and the neo-con idealogues shut out of policy making.  If the Republicans can shut out the neo-cons and return to the conservatism of General Eisenhower, they might have a party for whom true conservatives can vote in good conscience.

The distinction Max makes above is, I think absolutely on the $$$.