Another voice from the can't-vote-for-Squirrel-Hair-under-any-circumstances-camp

And perhaps the most cogent I've come across so far. Ross Kaminsky at The American Spectator touches on pretty much all the reasons why I'm inclined that way.

He comes in for a substantial beating in the comment thread, but it's mostly attempts to paint him as being selective in the application of his principles. From what I understand, the case is quite the contrary. To be sure, some folks stick up for him. The term "good guy" is used more than once.

He recounts giving a speech at an event in Colorado recently:

And so, thinking of the one lonely Trump supporter in the room, I offered this: “While I have in the past frequently put principle over electability and voted Libertarian, this year because it’s so important to make sure Hillary Clinton does not become president and because there are several acceptable (even if imperfect) Republican candidates, I will follow William F. Buckley’s rule and vote for the most conservative electable candidate. This means I’ll vote for the Republican nominee… unless the nominee is Donald Trump.”

And around the room, angry eyes threw daggers at me.

When we got to the Q&A, the first question to me was why I would refuse to vote for Trump if that might mean ceding the presidency to Hillary. My answer was, roughly, “He will do more harm to the nation and to the GOP in the long run than Clinton will do. He will destroy what’s left of the Republican brand and he will ensure Democratic control of Congress… which will then destroy the country when Trump loses his re-election bid to a Democrat. Beyond that, he’s not a conservative, he has no principles, and, sticking with the Buckley rule, he’s the Republican least likely to beat Hillary Clinton anyway” — although I realize that last point is more of an argument for the primaries than for the general election.

The tone of the assemblage was somewhat different when he engaged various audience members one-on-one:

Later in the evening, several people approached me on the topic. One, the head of the local young Republicans — and understandably a cheerleader for the party — gently chastised me for not simply going with whomever the GOP nominates, especially given the stakes. I told him that his argument was not ridiculous and not invalid, but also not convincing.
I explained, to his obvious but unstated dismay, that that sort of thinking is the reason that I gave up my Republican Party registration nearly eight years ago. I noted that people often use the term “lesser of two evils” as a comparison between one truly awful, unacceptable choice and a mediocre but palatable-if-you-hold-your-nose choice. And I’m willing to play that game — as I did in 2012, voting for Mitt Romney.
But when the lesser of two evils really is evil, so much so that you’re not sure which one is the lesser, I simply won’t go along. That’s the situation I would find myself in if the general election ended up being a contest between Hillary Clinton (whom I expect to be the nominee, even if she is indicted) versus Trump (whom I still think will not be, though I’m far less sanguine than I used to be).

On the bright side, a majority of the people who approached me after the dinner had ended looked around carefully, checked over their shoulders, and then whispered to me some variant of “I agree with you.” 

And, in perhaps the most refreshing part of the piece for me, he gives a proper smackin' to the one-note-johnnies who elevate one of the issues facing post-America above other equally urgent concerns:

Later that morning, when another speaker asked, “How many of you rank immigration as the most important issue in this election,” only a single-digit number of hands went up — again, in a room of a few hundred active and passionate conservatives and libertarians. The speaker, conservative 23-year-old Tomi Lahren, expressed surprise, a perfect representation of why Trump supporters (of whom Ms. Lahren is not one despite her question) don’t recognize Trump’s electoral ceiling just as others, including me, have underestimated his floor.

In short, more people than I would have predicted buy Trump’s ludicrous economic populism and blatant Know-Nothing-ness and xenophobia. More people than I would have predicted are willing to support a man who campaigns by insult because they think he seems “strong” while ignoring the fact that his website addresses only a small fraction of the major issues facing this country — notably leaving out entitlement reform, likely the single biggest economic challenge of the next conservative president, as well as any aspect of terrorism and national security.

He's not quite done with the smackdown:

If you support Donald Trump, you cannot honestly ever call yourself a conservative again even if you can point to one or two conservative talking points that Trump parrots without conviction. A true conservative cannot and must not support an obvious statist and the worst sort of cronyist rent-seeker.

Exactly. And those still claiming to be conservative icons and carrying Squirrel-Hair's water are killing the movement.

Laura Ingraham, isn't it becoming a bit painful to look in the mirror these days?