Redstate

If you can't vote for the GOP Presidential candidate, you can't vote for the Presidential candidate. But when you get in that voting booth, there will be a GOP candidate for your House seat. There will be GOP candidates for State and county legislatures. There may be a GOP candidate for the Senate, and there will probably be one for the Governorship. All of these races matter, especially if you are concerned with growing future conservative candidates.

And, after considering that, if you still want to lash out at the entire Party... you are, bluntly, a Republican in Name Only.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I would rather have Obama than McCain. What is the use of putting a fake republican in office? Just more of the same as Bush. If a demo wins then the voters will see a true liberal socialist and not be fooled by a republican cloak.

W is the starting point for all this. Conservatives didn't lose the Party in 2008 with McCain. We lost in 2003 when we started pulling punches against a less-than-conservative Republican president because of the war issue. By the time of the Harriet miers revolt, when conservatives may have actually found their will to resist "compassionate conservatism," it was too late.

We're in a rebuilding year. That means we don't get the perfect team. We try to get the best we can that can go out on the field and maybe win - at the very least not be humiliated, and bide some time to develop the prospects, trade up for better players, and pick up some free agents.

Romney is the "better conservative" - but he doesn't help us build the party or the movement. He could potentially cost us Senate seats in Maine, Oregon, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. So, if we figure we'll lose with either guy, do we want to lose the White House and 6 Senate seats (plus, how many beatable Democrat freshman House members might manage to win in places like Pennsylvania with Romney on the ticket - and once they win re-election they'll be virtually impossible to beat later)? Or do we take McCain, maybe win, maybe lose narrowly, and give our guys in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Maine, and Minnesota just enough to hold on, leaving us with a a better base on which to run in 2010 - another cycle where gains will be tough to come by?

And, McCain very well could win. And a win could be enough even to get us to 50 Senate seats again - and with it control over the organization of the Senate. It may not be a conservative Republican Senate, but having even a squish like Bob Bennett as a committee chair beats having Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, and Chuck Schumer running the show.

Am I thrilled with the way things look? No. But the choice is probably now between the okay and liveable McCain and the truly horrid Hillary (or the severly distressing Obama) - and that's a whole different equation than the one we address in the primaries.

who you think the "good candidates" are who say out this year.

I will only vote for the Republicans who are conservative. No more just voting straight party ticket. I won't vote for a Dem, but I also will no longer vote for a single RINO on the ballot.

And I most certainly not vote for...under ANY circumstance...crazy John McCain, who takes far more delight in trashing his own party and conservatives than he does in fighting the Democrats.

Calling McCain a nut is not gonna help us win in November. I've supported John McCain for about 2 months now bc he is without a doubt the one man that can defend this country against terrorists. Rush has done enough to tain the guy's rep...it's time to suck it up and support our candidate.

"I'll follow him to the gates of hell"

I want my party back. I really do. My party, if you will remember, is the one that fights the Democrats on spending, instead of pushing them aside to get a place at the trough.

So when was it that you had this party without either a Democratic president or a Democratic majority in one branch of Congress?

Do you need to have Democrats in control of something in order to have your party back?

I agree Erick.

I would hope that McCain would at least try to work toward suring up conservatives.

Yeah, he as an 83 ACU rating - but its been limping along last year or so.

I might mention the one thing no one has said a word about.. Yes, McCain did oppose the initial Bush tax cuts (sad to say).. but it was because he felt that without spending cuts it would hurt.

My point is - we want our brand as budget hawks back - which candidate do you think will be best?

In any case - Will I support McCain? Yeah, but like Romney, he will have to work for my vote.

Oh Fred, where art thou?

I think you are off the mark on several things.

First, the overwhelming problem here is there was no one out there who had the experience and platform to make them the obvious conservative candidate.

The fact we're at war required us to have a nominee capable of speaking to those issues. Look around. The GOP has been recruiting folks overwhelmingly from the private sector. The farm system is woefully short of those folks. We need more balance and hopefully we'll get it in the next few years as returning veterans seek elective office.

Second, sitting Veeps don't have a great record of renewing parties, even if they were one of the two in American history to have won a third consecutive term for their party. The fact that Cheney never was going to be a candidate opened up the presidential sweepstakes to any and all comers. That in my mind is a good thing, a force for renewal.

Could a Pence or a Sanford have won in 2008? Who knows? But the barriers to entry for a good candidate were lower this year than perhaps ever.

If McCain wins the general (and I hope he does), we'll have the best budget-cutter since Reagan. I'm cautiously hopeful he will give us good judges and a sound foreign policy. And we'll have to press him on taxes. Not a fabulous picture, but much better than the Dems.

The takeaway is build the farm system. Let's encourage the Jindals and Jebs to build their bases. Let's encourage the Shadeggs, Ryans, Hensarlings, and Pences to seek statewide office. The federal system is a huge advantage for conservatives who want to nurture presidential talent. Let's think 10 years ahead.

I would have bet the house that VP Cheney would have stepped aside in 2006 in order to properly vet the 2008 VP to run.

THis smacks of the political misstep of keeping Sec. Rumsfeld thru the 2006 cycle. If there ever was a truth to Pres. Bush is that his strategists need to never be hired again. We squandered the opportunity to be on top for 30 years. Depressing to say the least.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

Karl Rove.

It started with compassionate conservatism (which implies that conservatives before Bush were not compassionate.)

Bush's reliance on big government and his immigration amnesty put him him and the Republican Party at odds with its grassroots.

But your Bush-bashing caused your post to lose all credibility.

Romney is a good candidate. McCain will be crushed by the Democrats. Romney is our chance, period. Sure, he's not as hard-line conservative as we'd all like him to be, but the man gets things done, and he is able to stick to free market principles as much as possible, even when running a state full of populists.

Personally I wish Ron Paul hadn't bought into the old tired head in the sand mantra of the Libertarians. He's right on basically everything else, but his stance on foreign affairs is just plain ignorant and silly. It's a shame, because he's actually got the right idea about the role of government in every other issue.

~~~ www.itsmyblog.com

Is President George W. Bush leaving the prospects of the national GOP in the same straits as Governor Mitt Romney left the Massachusetts GOP? To that, I can say that I hope not.

John McCain will be our nominee, barring the earth being rent asunder by giant aliens from the planet Tenufor. This much has been obvious to me for a while, thus I have been paying particularly close attention to Adam C's posts regarding McCain's record. It's easy to pull up the three or four important things with which I vehemently disagree with McCain and pronounce that these things are the sum of the man, but they're not. We should find out all we can about our nominee and stress the strong points.

Also, it might do us some good to begin thinking about who we'd want to see as our candidate in '08 or '04. We'll want to support a candidate about whom we do not have questions and about whom we need not find the good to outweigh the not-so-good. None of the current crop fit that bill, and I say that only because Fred Thompson will be too old.

But as for McCain, once you examine his record and his strengths, you'll find that he is the best candidate running this November. Some things are more important than grudges, like our country, so I'm prepared to leave mine at the doorstep.

...the Democratic nomination. Against her, we will win. Even if McCain doesn't win the White House, having Hillary on the top of the ticket and allowing every GOP congressman and senator in the country to run against her will help us win back many seats in the House and limit the damage in the Senate. Plus, the GOP will be absolutely unified in opposing anything and everything she does.

I'm thinking about voting in the Dem primary in Missouri for Hillary.

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

I blame George Bush for our current problems in the USA because he:

1. Picking Chenney
2. Picking Rumsfield
3. Runway spending and two big new social programs - No Child Left Behind Education spending and Medicare Drug spending
4. Almost loosing Iraq and making this war last allot longer than it had to.
5. 6 years of open borders and ports after 9/11
6. Trying to ram illegal immigration down our throats
7. Not taking a harder stand with China after they held our aircrew hostage
8. Turning off conservatives everywhere.

for 1 and 2. Bush helped us hold Congress for six years. He gave us 2 good justices. He's led us in war with determination. BTW, war's have setbacks along with successes. And he's leading us to victory.

I think he's been a great president.

That word cost us a great conservative candidate in 2008. Granted George Allen ran a lazy campaign, but the Dems went after him in 2006 to prevent a 2008 run. Webb winning was a bonus for them. Allen would have been a great candidate.

Glad to see someone besides Peggy Noonan has the stones to place blame where it belongs...

George W. Bush

He completely abidcated his responsiblity of LEADING the Republican party.

Lame duck year and now he wants to attack pork and earmarks...way to lead.

"Strength and Honor."

"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."

"However, I am tired of this "The turnout among the base is going to be anemic this November and McCain will only have himself to blame." bull.... If the preferred conservative candidate should win, Romney, the base will expected the more moderate wing of the Party to rally behind the candidate. Why should we (more moderates) expect anything less."

Well, said. Please romney folks.. dont be "Soreloserman"

And as for Tax cuts... McCain opposed the tax cuts from an anti-spending standpoint. That isn't liberal, thats a conservative response to the Bush spending spree... McCain has never voted to increase taxes... period.

GWB may have been a good, even great President. But not a great conservative President. And in thinking about this last night, the best we can likely hope for from The Senator, my friend, is that he will be as good as GWB is now, and not as good as we had hoped GWB would be. Make a list of the top ten issues for conservatives, and McCain won't line up with conservatives on half of them. But Mitt isn't much better. And that's the conundrum we're faced with. Is half of this moldy old loaf better than none? Will it kill us if we partake of it?

"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."

and I disagree about Romney ... I think he can win (but that's for a different post).

I DO agree on fighting the fight though.

I do not find much to agree with in your post other than that Sir John has a screw loose and that we need to vote for the Republican nominee regardless.

This whole electile dysfunction crisis has led me to one very damaging epiphany though, which against all my efforts has unchained the cynic in me.

There are a score of powerful voices at this site that want to tell the sheeple like myself what and how to think while presenting the pretense of rational dialogue.

They may or may not know who they are but what I would not permit myself to believe is now evident to me from their words. Too bad you can’t or won’t impose a stop this too and so restore the mutual respect that is fundamentally necessary for heartily joining support in our kind of democratic system and in this type of forum.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/30/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

This highlights the importance of the Republican nominee picking an actual *CONSERVATIVE* as his running mate, doesn't it?

So who should be chosen?

He walked into a powder keg that Clinton knew was brewing. Cheney probably would have been out after term one if not for the war. We will eventually find out how valuable Dick has been for us. I think George had his hands full and, therefore, has not really paid attention to the "political" side of his presidency. That said, he still could have done better.

"Two legs bad, four legs good."

He wasn't and isn't responsible for holding our little hands and leading us to the appropriate candidate. We, the people, get to evaluate and choose our president.

And we, the people, pay the consequence when we choose poorly.

President Bush has worked diligently for the last 7 years to keep us safe and prosperous. You may disagree with some of his policies, but give up the idea that he has failed us by not giving us an anointed nominee.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.