Correct, that's the direction I was trying to go in. We have indeed lost the 'moment' with respect to getting the kind of Presidential nominee we really want. But we still have better vs worse choices, and opportunities to make the best of it. We conservatives can turn this into victory in 2 ways: (1) Make this 'change' argument to be an argument about changing *away from a failed Liberal Democrat Congress, and (2) getting voters to *reject liberalism*. This is important! Let's admit that we are on defense here, and think like a defensive team. Our goal should be to stop the Democrats from scoring a touchdown this year, and turn it around so we can go on offense next election season.
With an Obama victory will come a liberal Democrat Congress coattail effect, it will be a huge win for liberals and a huge setback for our cause. So to stop liberals from gaining, we need to deny them the white house and get more conservatives in Congress. 2008 can be a 'turning point to liberalism' election, or a 'wait-and-see' election, where we collect our stuff and try to get a real conservative leader down the road. I am for making 2008 the latter.
(I'm no longer using 'Republican' or 'Democrat'. The terms are now meaningless w/r political orientation.)
that is completely factually wrong. There is a chasm of difference. Pelosi vs Boehner? Huge. Coburn vs Kennedy? Huge. Explain how they are remotely similar on abortion/life issues, the war in Iraq, and the Bush tax cuts. 100% opposite.
Part of my perspective here is the knowledge that Obama is the MOST LIBERAL senator in the senate. And Clinton is pretty darn close. It's not like we have a race between two centrists. The GOP picked a more centrist candidate, while the Democrats are going left for their candidate. The space is as big as if we picked a conservative and they picked a centrist.
And although you have a point about judicial appointments, if McCain is the next president, we'll have even more liberal legislation than with a Dem.
More liberal legislation with McCain? That is simply wrong and untrue ... McCain will have some bad compromises, like on CO2 regs, but he also will veto multiple Democrat bills that obama is rooting for. Again, McCain is for extending the Bush tax cuts, Obama wants to end them and raise taxes. " The Rs will back McCain (just as they have Bush) no matter how liberal the policies (amnesty, spending). They will oppose a Dem, however, on the exact same policies.
No, I don't see that. I see a much greater danger that Democrat single-party control will mean more advance of these. Remember, there will be a Democrat majority in all likelihood.
A vote for McCain is a 'limit the damage' vote. Just letting him beat Obama is not the real solution. The real solution is to get real conservatives back in the saddle ... but that wont happen if Obama sweeps.
And we will lose so much in an Obama era that we will spend 20-30 years recorvering from it: Mandated socialized medicine, tax hikes, cultural multiculturalism, amnesty for illegal aliens. It will all happen.
Another issue is the long-term affect on the party. This is probably similar to your SC nomination scenario in how it can devastate the country. The GOP has been advancing left for decades.
You might have a point, but let's see who McCain picks for VP. If he picks a conservative VP, it should send a better signal than if he picks a RINO. I would add: (1) We are *still* the party, we are not going away. I am all for voting for McCain on Tuesday and writing him scathing letters on wednesday on how he is not conservative enough. But more importantly (2) we should put country ahead of party. Leave aside what is best for GOP, we have to fight that out over time anyway - Ask, in this time when troops are in harms way and our economy is shaky, who is best to lead in those arenas, an inexperienced uber-liberal or a war hero and "Reagan foot soldier" turned moderate RINO?
With a McCain win, the GOP establishment will consider that that's the correct path and that they don't need conservatives.
I consider that question an open one that we answer every primary we have. On this presidential primary, we should just take our licks and, as I've said, make the best of it. We lost this primary, but there are dozens of senate primaries and House races and state and local races ... In each and every one of them are conservatives running on the GOP ticket. Boost the conservatives and defeat the RINOs every chance we can. That requires (1) *NOT* running away from the GOP or letting the RINOs take the party over, (2) fighting for the most conservative option in every race - which means when you have a RINO vs uber-liberal choice, defeat the liberal. In the end, this teaches a lesson to the Democrats to stop nominating liberals, which helps to at least reduce that risk.
But beyond that, with tens of millions of new Democrat voters (illegals), a leftward shift for decades will be inevitable.
So why complain about an electable RINO? Or are you pointing out the dangers of amnesty and how huge that would be? I agree. If the sole accomplishment of McCain were to be amnesty I too would throw the fight over to Obama. I just see some other issues at play.
And the backlash of a McCain presidency advancing this agenda will drive the WH back into the arms of the Democrats.
How do you know that? Bush got battered on 3 issues: Immigration (because he didnt secure the border); spending; and Iraq. There is also corruption. Notably, of the 4 items that dragged GOP popularity down, McCain is 'bad' on one of them, and could actually turn around GOP brand on the other 3: Finish and win in Iraq; end earmark spending and keep spending in line (he has promised "zero expansion" in entitlments and opposes the socialized medicine ideas of Hillary/Obama). On immigration, he is bad, but he claims he 'gets it' on securing the border. We should trust him not at all on this, but keep his feet to the fire.
Not that it would matter that much, since we'll have 2 liberal parties to 'chose' from. So our choices are pitiful, no matter how you spin it.
Our choices are far from great, but the choices are significant. Three is a significant difference from a prolife pro-Alito McCain and pro-abort anti-Alito Obama/Clinton on Judges. And the parties are more than one man. The GOP lived through this before - Eisenhower was a 'centrist' but the party was more rightwing as a whole than he way. He ended up winning in landslides both times.
And as far as the justices being over 70 - McCain's there himself. If that's too old for an SC justice, it's probably too old for a president. (If the next president is a one-termer, it'll likely be the one after that that appoints more justices. Most wait to quit until they are extremely ill or very, very old.)
The point is simply this: The next president will pick several Justices. It will make a huge difference in our culture and laws.