Redstate

stances are going to do to the downticket R Senators and Reps. We are going to get killed in November without a strong unifying message from McCain that will give the others coattails. America wants a strong leader, not someone with a demented fetish toward "bi-partisanship" as defined by the libs and the drive-by media. McCain needs to do something big to ensure heavy R turnout. Voting for McCain as a vote against Obama is not going to give us the turnout we need. McCain may very well win, but the Congress may very well be veto proof. If McCain could just see this and turn it around, we could pick up seats congressionally and win the POTUS in a landslide.
Tim Schieferecke

... he would lose and so would those down-ticket candidates. A conservative cannot win this year, Bush and Republicans in general are too unpopular. Remember, during the primaries, the head-to-head polls showing Romney, McCain, etc against the Dems? The least conservative candidates -- Mac and Rudy -- did the best. Remember the current polls where Mac runs 10-15 points ahead of a generic Republican? If McCain wins this year, which is still quite doubtful, it will be in spite of his party affiliation, not because of it. This is not a good year for Rs; we're losing the House and Senate regardless, and the only chance we have of keeping Obama from inhabiting the White House for 4-8 years is McCain's personal brand, which is at the moment vastly more popular than the Republican brand. If Mac comes to be seen as a generic Republican, Obama takes it, and the Dem sweep is complete.

If McCain did what you want him to do, we would lose everything.

Also: you say that America "wants a strong leader," but then you say that McCain would prove he is such a leader by doing what his party wants him to, rather than what he thinks is right. I think not.

People want change, and conservatism would be a striking change to what has been going on in recent years.

I believe your analysis is based on a static model of the electorate, not a dynamic model.

For example, in economics, there is an important difference between movement along a supply or demand curve, and a shift in the supply or demand curve.

Public opinion can be impacted by what the candidates do or say. There are two ways to attract indenpents.
(1) Try to sound more like them (move to the center)
(2) Explain why the conservative policy would be the best alternative (persuade the electorate)

The electorate changes its collective mind constantly. Going for option (1) is not a recipe for success, as why settle for democrat-lite when you can get the real thing.

" ... why settle for democrat-lite when you can get the real thing."

I've heard this question a number of times as an effort to illuminate the dilemma for conservatives. Unfortunately it highlights the opposite of what it is intended to highlight.

why vote democrat-lite? That's precisely what moderates do. They vote democrat-lite or republican-lite. That's their fundamental, defining factor. Voting lite is exactly what moderates in the large do. That's why it's called moving to the center. They don't want the real thing. That's the point.

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

In my experience, moderates are people without consistently strong inclinations who go various different directions on various different issues. How many moderates do you know who are consistently moderate in the way that a liberal or conservative is consistently liberal or conservative.

I think moderates are people who bounce around on different issues, but don't necessarily take a center position on anything.

I also agree with Rush in the theorem that any person or group who is not conservative will tend liberal.

Unless the unintended consequences/downsides of liberalism are explained, I think most moderates tend liberal.

Health care is a great example of this. Unless McCain and the GOP make a principled stand for a conservative solution re: HSAs, insurance deregulation, individual choice, etc. people will choose Hillary care over a democrat-lite solution.

The only reason why Hillary-care failed the first time was that she ticked off half of Congress by refusing to deal.

We either explain why there is no free lunch, or people will choose free steak over a free hamburger every time.

"We either explain why there is no free lunch, or people will choose free steak over a free hamburger every time."

I've made the same argument dozens of times. It's a great argument for articulating conservative ideas.

It is also a completely unsuitable analogy regarding Democrat vs. Democrat lite. You think they represent steak and burger in that order?

Most people have a natural, inherent conservativism. On plenty of individual issues, conservative ideas are preferred by a majority of Americans. Moderates are the same. Look at Lamont and Lieberman. Look at the ways the Kos left damage the D brand, and how the D strategists know it and calculate around it. That's because D-lite is preferable to D in most quarters. Plenty of D winners in the 2006 bloodbath tacked right to win. That's because D-lite is preferable to D.

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

some important ways. However, I also think that unless the arguments are made (arguments for conservative ideas), then there is inevitably a slide. Especially with the MSM media being the way that it is.

Lieberman stook up for himself. He didn't try to cloud the issue. He defended, articulated, and re-articulated a strong defense for his position on the war.

He did not triangulate, defuse, or distract----which seems to be the Republican plan for dealing with challenges.

I agree the conservative arguments must be made. I've posted numerous blogs here at Redstate saying that we must do it, and do it much, much better.

I'm just saying it's not a material point to the D vs. D-lite deal.

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

Heck, the Republicans may well lose a couple of R House seats in Arizona.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

global warming and amnesty (around 70% on amnesty) McCain is literally wacking himself if he thinks a majority of Ds appreciate his stand on either. He does have a fetish for bi-partisanship at any cost even when there is stronger bi-partisanship for the opposite position he holds.
Tim Schieferecke

In case you haven't noticed, and it isn't because of a "too conservative" message.

that I must vote for McCain because we (conservatives/GOP) can't abide having Obama in the WH, we may want to look at the state of the GOP under Bush's stewardship (and he's not anywhere close to being as vindictive as John McCain with those who disagree with him). What is AGW plan will do to our economy causes me to shudder and takes any semblance of the title 'economic conservative' away from him.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The chain of causation isn't established. That is, between the state of the GOP during Bush, and it being due to the stewardship of Bush. At least not as a singular thing.

I don't think the McCain Presidency is a blow to conservatives in the sense of driving conservative ideals from the party or the marketplace of ideas.

It's certainly going to be a blow to conservative goals and to smart policy, at least in terms of things like the AGW plan. But, inasmuch as you are now guaranteed to endure such blows for at least four years, the fewer the better. Still seems a no-brainer to me.

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

Triangulation bites!

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I am a conservative and John McCain WILL NOT get my vote. I've tried really hard to get in the he's "my guy" mindset and it's just not going to happen.

McCain's not "my guy" either. I knew better than to even try to see him as such.

But electing a President of the United States isn't all about you or all about me. Neither of those guys, Obama or McCain, will ever be "my guy," but your country is going to be stuck with one of those guys as Commander in Chief next January.

It most definitely make a difference to your country which of those guys is President, so if we care what happens to our country we have to care which of those guys becomes President. But if the only thing you care about in the selection of your country's next President is whether you feel he's "your guy", then sitting it out could make sense in that silly perspective.

It's posts like this one, by the way, that make me want to break out the 3/4 elephant or upside down McCain logo.

.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

we had 9 billion blogs trying to forge an uneasy peace here. Which, for the most part, they did. Then this post comes along for, really, not much reason other than to pee in our cheerios. It's only the petty, you peed-in-my-cheerios-now-I'll-pee-in-yours part of me that wants to do the upside down logo.

.

....+ taxes + spending + free-market healthcare.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

- taxes via cap and trade

agreed on the rest though

a moonshot effort to achieve energy independence by DRILLING HERE!!! While I'm totally behind fighting the good fight militarily, the best wingman in the world we have is our own ingenuity. We've got oil all over our blessed country, and our President is going to Saudi Arabia to beg them to pump more oil. Does this make sense to anyone??? These stinkin' lib enviro-wackos need to reap the whirlwind for standing in the way of energy independence. It's for national security.
Tim Schieferecke

.

We would lose decades of progress in one election.

If we win this election we could finally get a conservative SCOTUS. That is 100 steps forward. If we lose this election, we will have taken 100 steps backward. Sure, losing this election could set up future victories in the future, but those victories would only advance us 1 step and would not even make up for the 100 steps that we lost.

On how it would be better to lose to Hillary than elect Rudy.

Stevens and Ginsberg are the next justices likely to leave. Even if Obama gets elected, he can't select anyone more liberal than those two.

the only choice. If Hillary were the nominee, it would be the only one.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

and, alas, it just did not work out.

Rudy's endorsement of McCain means a lot to me, as does the Senator's own strength of character (apart from moments when one is tempted to throw an ax at him on the TV!), demonstrated tenacity and undeniable political courage.

This is close enough for government work. :>)

And if he doesn't get in, we will be rocking to the great Obama-themed hit:

I haven't pulled the lever for the libertarian yet.

Of course if McCain keeps kicking me in the nuts I might not make it to the voting booth.

Of course if McCain keeps kicking me in the nuts I might not make it to the voting booth.

Amen to that.

End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

than surgical removal (by HRC) or atrophy from disuse (via BHO)!

....but given the far-left wing leadership of the congress, a President Obama would most likely mean several things that would be near impossible to undue in the future, namely, socialized healthcare and leftist federal judges.

Barack Obama is NOT an option as far as I'm concerned.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

That we can't get rid of or modify without being called heartless and cruel. Healthcare would be the next "rail".

Congress appears to be a goner this cycle...the only saving grace to ensuring no large government growth is McCain.

Erik

.

we as a class are absolutely getting PILLORIED for showing our ardent support of that man as a visionary.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

... when we have to start fighting McCain tooth and nail (on particular issues) right after he's inaugurated.

Yay us.

.

... and we blew it. I'm speaking of Republican voters as a whole blowing it, but obviously a whole lot of Republicans disagree and think we made the right choice. The problem isn't some sinister force that foisted McCain on us, it was our failure to convince our fellow Republicans that McCain is the jerk we always knew he is.

It's too late to change that this cycle, and we're stuck with making the best of the sorry alternatives we have to choose from in November 2008.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO