That's your problem right there.
"First of all, McCain is McCain, and no one else."
And that's yet another problem.
"He’s imperfect, but lets cut the hyperbole - he would be infinitely better than either Democrat."
I'm seeing little evidence of that. In fact, what I see is a man with the singular potential to eviscerate the GOP to 1964, 1958 or 1936 proportions in 4 short years (if he lives that long). Neither Hillary or Obama could do that.
"McCain would not be guaranteed a 2nd term, nor would he necessarily seek it."
As I've said many times, I don't expect him to live long enough to seek reelection.
"I reject the premise that either Clinton or Gore would have gotten the Democrat nomination in 1996. Democrats don’t tend to hand it to losers unless they know they’ve already lost. Hence Mondale in 1984 and Stevenson’s repeat in 1956. So no, I would say Clinton and Gore would have been out. We have no way of ever knowing whom it may have been instead."
If you think Clinton was just going to go away if he had lost narrowly in '92, I want some of what you're smoking. He would've run again, and he would've won. Quayle would've been disemboweled by the media. A nice man, but he just couldn't have pulled it off against Clinton.
"I reject the premise that the GOP wouldn’t have taken congress in 1994 had it not been for Clinton."
I'm sorry, sir, but if you can believe that scenario, your grasp of political history is poor. That scenario would've been without precedence in U.S. history. No party in power in the WH moves that dramatically from Congressional minority to majority status -- in a 6th year mind you -- EVER. In fact, I guarantee you in 1994, the GOP would've dropped into the high 30s in the Senate and around 150 House members.
"Once again, we cannot know, but we do know the American people were finally fed up with the congressional Democrats (and obviously not the Clintons, since they won re-election just two years later)."
It was BOTH of them. If Clinton had been up in 1994 for reelection, he'd have lost.
"They were fed up with the wasteful spending and the corruption of Jim Wright and Tom Foley."
Jim Wright had been gone 5 1/2 years from Congress by Nov '94. Most people didn't even know who Tom Foley was. The GOP ran against Clinton and the Democrat Congress in 1994.
"We know that Newt Gingrich orchestrated a national campaign, centered around a powerful theme. Do I attribute the GOP’s victory that year to the Clintons? Honestly, I do not."
I'm sorry, but it largely WAS the Clintons. It was the perfect storm of Clinton and the out-of-control Democrat Congress, the tax hikes, and all the rest that led to their having their asses handed to them. I cannot believe you honestly think the majority of the country were simply mad at Tom Foley (and long-gone Jim Wright, a non-issue since 1989) and ignored the Clintons. It was a specific repudiation of the Clintons. It wasn't until the government "shutdown" standoff of late '95 when Clinton recovered his game. Up until that point, he was counting down the days to the end of his failed one-term Presidency.
BTW, if Wright and Co. had made the country so fed up with the Democrat Congress, it would've gone Republican in the 1990 election. It didn't. With almost no exception, every Congressional election generally tends to be a referendum on the President's party, no matter how many seats they have. 1980 was a repudiation of Carter and it reflected in our winning the Senate for the first time since 1952. 1982 was a repudiation of Reagan (just BEFORE the positive economic numbers showed his plan was working) and the Dems made sizeable gains in the House. 1984 was a positive affirmation of Reagan. 1986, a repudiation in the 6th year that cost us the Senate. 1988 was an affirmation but a status quo election. 1990 was a status quo. 1992 was a repudiation of Bush, but we made modest gains in the House exclusively on the backs of redistricting. 1994 a repudiation of Clinton and our winning Congress. 1996 a repudiation of the GOP Congress. 1998 was a 2nd repudiation of the GOP Congress (the one and only time in the modern era where a 6th year election bucked the usual trend, which was actually occurred in '94 instead). 2000 was actually a draw, but we lost seats. 2002 was a positive affirmation for Dubya and the GOP (just as odd an election as '98 was). 2004 a 2nd positive affirmation. 2006 was a full-on repudiation of Dubya and the Congress.
"This whole idea that we have to lose big first to win is a mental disease. The failures of the Republican lead congress was the failure of conservatives to demand better from their leaders. Conservatives cheered on the big government spending of the GOP, declaring it a political victory for President Bush. It was our failure above all."
Problem is, politics being what it is, you do indeed often have to lose in the short run in order to win later on. The question is whether you want to win Pyrhhic victories instead, as my example of Ford and GHW Bush proved.
"We will have to fight McCain perhaps 30% of the time if he is president. We will need to be vigilant and keep him on a short leash. But McCain is already on notice, unlike the free pass Bush got for his first 5 years. We can and will do better this time."
As far as I see, we're fighting him almost every time he opens his damn mouth. I wouldn't vote for this guy for Senator because he's proven how unstable and treacherous he can be. As bad as Dubya can be, this guy is as BAD as we can get and still run under an "R" label (save perhaps for the dual asshats of Huckster and *omney).
"But it is far better to have to remain vigilant and fight McCain 30% of the time, than have to fight Obama 100% of the time, and then be called racists for doing so."
We're called racists regardless. Problem is, it's McCain who is calling us that.
You obviously see no difference between success and retreat in Iraq, or perhaps you just don’t care.
You also sound paranoid and delusional in your hatred for Senator McCain. You apparently think he’s no different than Obama’s revolutionary Marxism revealed in his adherence to “Liberation Theology.” People like you are apparently so blighted in your cartoon world that things no longer carry real meaning. It’s all little more than a parade of personalities for you. It’s very sad.
I’m not sure why you think that Dan Quayle would have been the GOP nominee in 1996. I highly doubt he would have been.
He was a joke even in Republican circles. Being VP does not automatically put a person in line to be the next party nominee. This kind of thinking, like your odd believe that in 1996 the last seasons losers would have been given a 2nd shot is nothing short of myopic. One thing you should know by now is that in politics, a dark horse always comes out of nowhere when it is least expected. No primary season goes by without it.
And there is a much better chance that Dole would have been the GOP nominee in 1996 either way. Would he have been defeated by the unknown Democrat in the race? Perhaps, but then perhaps that Democrat would have been a one-term president. Perhaps we would have had George W. Bush anyways. Or perhaps George W. Bush would have never entered into politics had his father not been defeated, or insulted by Ann Richards. Maybe we would be wrapping up the end of President McCain’s two terms. Who knows who we would be talking about today.
But here is the bottom line: All of that is moot.
We can neither know nor manage the future. All we can do is make the best choice from our limited available options each step of the way. We do not throw in the towel, pickup our marbles and go home simple because of a poverty of choices. We still choose wisely and pragmatically, because we do not relinquish the reins of our destiny to anyone else ever. This is why we will do everything in our power to prevent the Democrats from putting their candidate in the White House this November, and why we will succeed.
I don't want to get in the middle of your discussion, but I believe that Tom Foley got his ass handed to him by the NRA because of the "Assault Weapons" Ban in 1994. They wanted to make a point. In fact, that legislation, according to Slick himself, cost the Dems at least 15 seats in the House.