The State of the Conservative Union: Not Good

Posted by: ST on January 31, 2008 at 8:42 pm

I know the fireworks are just starting in the Dem debate, but something far more pressing is occurring and that is the disarray of the Republican party.  I wanted to repost something I just posted over at Hot Air – it’s part of what I’ve been working on most of the day today – the post I’ve promised on Romney, McCain, and the state of the Republican party (or more importantly, conservatives).  I’ve edited and added some stuff to this post that I couldn’t do at HA, because it has already been posted.  Some of the points I made in the following post I made in my last one – and in the comments section of it, so sorry if parts seem repetitive.  I wrote this after reading some of the comments at HA and other blogs, message boards, conservative sites like NRO, and opinion pieces over the last week or so.

Like a lot of conservatives, I am torn this election, because I don’t like McCain. I’m not overjoyed with Romney either, and it’s always perplexed me that some of the same people who will wipe the floor in defense of Mitt Romney (like many of the pundits at National Review) will jump all over John McCain for flip flopping on an issue for political purposes. Yet, that is Mitt Romney’s stock and trade. He’s done it for over a decade. I think it was John Derbyshire who wrote over there recently that you didn’t know what Romney’s position was on an issue until you could see which crowd he was speaking in front of. But between Romney and McCain, I guess most of the NRO crowd somehow believes that Romney won’t flip flop again, whereas they think McCain will. It makes no sense, but whatever.

On the other hand, McCain’s performance in the debate last night was/is a case study on why conservatives can’t stand him – his arrogance and smugness, not to mention his cheap shots on Romney for his work in the private sector and his outright lies about Romney’s postion on timetables for Iraq, were some of the most offensive things I’ve seen from any campaign since the race for the nomination started early last year.  Shame.on.him.

I remember in 2004 how conservatives argued about the importance of getting out to vote, because we were in the middle of a war on Islamofascism, both in Iraq and elsewhere, and we needed to keep Republican leadership who understood what the cost of losing in Iraq would mean both in the short and long term, none of it good. Kerry would be a disaster, conservatives argued, because he’d be cutting and running out of Iraq as fast as he could, regardless of the consequences. Conservatives were already disatisfied with Bush on a number of issues – like immigration, the Farm Bill, his ‘alliance’ with Ted Kennedy on NCLB, etc, but conservatives knew it would be catastrophic to not vote in the 2004 elections, because we wanted our men and women in uniform to be able to come home with their heads held high, and for the sacrifices made by their fellow soldiers not to have been made in vain. Not only that, but America’s reputation as a defender of democracy was at risk if we cut and run, and we knew Iraq would turn into a genocidal bloodbath if we did so. So conservatives pushed on and said “stay the course” with their vote.

Not much has changed four years later, just the faces of those who want to represent our party in the general election. The top three – Mitt, McCain, and Huck, all know the value and importance of winning in Iraq, and not rolling back the progress we’ve made in the overall GWOT. We’re still in Iraq, more of our troops have been hurt and maimed, and many more have made the ultimate sacrifice – all for their country and the people who have stood by them and said "we will not forget you" since day 1. It has been, after all, a war worth fighting and one worth winning.

We’ve seen the progress in Iraq that has taken place in the last year, a progress that will continue only if we have a CIC who understands what the consequences of failure in Iraq and elsewhere are in the fight against Islamofascism. Also, let’s not forget this: Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated in so many words that genocide is not a reason to keep US troops in Iraq – that is an astounding display of ignorance and naivete coming from two people who want to be elected in a position that would see them be the driving force behind our foreign policy decisions and in control of our armed forces.

America has an obligation to finish what it started in Iraq, not leave it unfinished as we did in Vietnam (thanks to anti-war Democrats who still today have not learned their lesson on that front). We’ve already seen that with perseverance and determination, things can change for the better in Iraq, that we can succeed, and that one day our troops will be able to come home with their heads held high, knowing that not only were they coming home to a country that supports them, but a CIC who, when the chips were/are down on the floor, wanted them to win, too.

On the "principles" argument, one side says “I’m going to stand on conservative principle and sit out this election, because I’m fed up with not having more solid conservative options for a nominee, and I’m not going to settle anymore” while the other side is saying “I’m standing for the conservative principle of victory and honoring committments the US has made.” But in the end, this is not about who has the most or best principles, because we all have good principles. Each of us right now is either determining or have already determined which principles are more important. We do this every election cyle, and this one is no different.

No matter what my differences are with the candidates – whether we’re talking Mitt, McCain, or Huck – I would not hesitate for a second to pull the lever for any of them against whoever the Dem nominee is. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq, as well as the overall GWOT.

I’m not crazy about McCain’s position on Gitmo or ‘rights’ for terrorists, but on Iraq, he’s been consistent from day one (and was for the surge before it was popular to be for the surge) so I will give him credit for that, and hold my nose and vote for him come election time, should he be the nominee.

Our troops and their families have made so many sacrifices in this war, and all of it done in the name of keeping America safe and spreading democracy in a place where the iron fist of a dictator ruled for decades. I will never forget the first time I saw a purple finger, and read about the Iraqis who were defiantly going to the polls in spite of the possiblity that some Islamofascist thug or “insurgent” would try to make a martyr of himself at a polling station. I think about that, and then I read about people who have actually already decided to sit out an election here (or vote for a Dem candidate or write in another) in order to prove some type of point, and it saddens me a great deal, because the only point it will prove in the end is that the same America who said in 2004 that we shouldn’t rest until we’ve won in this war will sit back and allow someone into the WH who has no concept about what American honor is about, someone who will effectively make it so those same Iraqis won’t enjoy the right to go out and vote anymore because their country will be overrun by terrorists who want to make it a base for global jihad, someone whom our enemies will absolutely love.

The illegal immigration issue is an important one – I don’t deny that. And it will be an uphill climb on that issue should McCain be elected president. On Iraq, though, we’d have a strong ally in him. However, electing Obama or Clinton would be a lose/lose situation, because neither one of them give a rip about our border nor do they support the war in Iraq, and as a consequence everything our troops have sacrificed so much for will be in vain. I, for one, do not want that on my back. Hillary or Obama may win the election regardless, but it won’t be because I stayed at home, or wrote in another candidate’s name in protest. 

Related: The Anchoress urges us all to chill out a bit and take a deep breath.  (h/t: Instapundit)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

38 Responses to “The State of the Conservative Union: Not Good”

Comments

  1. Nothing I can say here, you did it well.

  2. Kimberly says:

    I’m sorry but I can’t chill out. That is just a bit too weak of a request when there is so much at stake.

    Since it became a real possibility that McCain could get the nomination I have been trying really hard to think what my father would do. He was a 20 year veteran of the U.S. Navy and served in Viet Nam. He was damaged in ways by that war that make me ache to recall them. But he was proud of this country. And he knew what was at stake in the WOT.

    McCain is loathsome to me. He does not care what the base of the party that he supposedly belongs to thinks or supports. His record has made that clear. The idea of casting a vote FOR him makes me want to vomit.

    But why are we here? Why don’t we have a candidate that is worthy of our support? I am still scratching my head on that one. My prayers are that Mitt Romney can somehow come out ahead on Tuesday. I am not all smitten with Mitt. I don’t give him a free pass. He is the most viral candidate of all time. But he seems like a decent man. He seems like a better man than McCain. And that is a start.

  3. NC Cop says:

    But why are we here? Why don’t we have a candidate that is worthy of our support?

    An excellent question. Personally, I think the Republicans listened too much to our media. Our media harped on the poor ratings of Bush and used that to lead the charge against the Republicans. They got scared and tried to become more “moderate” to appease the media gods. They also seemed to be more concerned about popularity than reality a.k.a. the “Clinton factor”. That’s just my opinion though.

    With that being said, I still agree with S.T.’s post. Whether McCain or Romney gets the nomination, it will still be better than a Clinton or Obama administration. The WOT/Iraq is the most important issue we are facing right now. Whatever we think we MIGHT get from a McCain presidency is surely better than what we KNOW we will get from a Clinton/Obama presidency.

  4. Yea, but God I hate having to resort to such a harsh case of the lesser of evils.

    If he wins the nomination, voting for McCain will be physically painful.

  5. Great White Rat says:

    If he wins the nomination, voting for McCain will be physically painful.

    Not really. A couple dozen good stiff drinks before heading to the polls and you won’t feel a thing. That’s my plan, if I do decide to vote for him. :-w

  6. Hmmm – I’m sensing an evil capitalistic opportunity for me to start a designated driver service just for election day :D $-)

    Of course, I may need a driver myself …

  7. ruth says:

    I began this political year not knowing much about Mitt Romney, but a lot about John McCain. As I have learned more about Romney from each debate I have come to appreciate his intelligence and patriotism and the wholesomeness of his family who stands with him at all times. McCain hasn’t gotten any worse than before except he is distracted from bashing President Bush at random moments and reminds me how much I loath the thought of him becomming CIC. I like the idea of a fresh group of Republicans in DC and think it is way past time to clean house of the bureaucrats and professional politicians who have hung around too many Republican administrations. For the sake of brevity I will just say that it interests me that the one candidate who is standing up for conservative Republicans is Mitt Romney, whose family has agreed to spend his money, their inheritance, on this presidential run and yet he is not good enough for the purists in the party. If McCain is pushed on us as was Bob Dole, I will not blame anybody for their reaction. Myself, I have already early voted for Romney and sent him money. I pray he soldiers on tho I doubt that I would given my cynical disposition.

  8. Kimberly says:

    My co-workers and I have been talking about drunk voting being the way to go. We can get ourselves so loaded that we wouldn’t feel the pain.

    Unfortunately, the morning after would be quite hellish.

  9. Zach says:

    And quite bad for your liver.

    Ruth – Hannity copying your answers. He just came out with an endorsement of Romney LINK

  10. TedintheShed says:

    No matter what my differences are with the candidates – whether we’re talking Mitt, McCain, or Huck – I would not hesitate for a second to pull the lever for any of them against whoever the Dem nominee is. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq, as well as the overall GWOT.

    No.

    If America does not exists, if America can not survive her politicians, then the GWOT becomes a mute point.

    The GWOT can continue and be run by any of those three and their predecessors for a generation, yet the America the founding fathers saw, and even my grandfathers saw, will be dead.

    A comment on the emphasized part- this is what I was referring to what I said of late you have sounded like a Republican shill ST. That iswhat a shill would say, I am afraid.

    Our troops and their families have made so many sacrifices in this war…

    This is such a lame duck argument. Being a member of one of those families, I realize that in a generation or less America will be dead rendering the GWOT irrelevant. Radical Islam won’t have to destroy the country- we’ll do it ourselves.

    What will they be fighting for then?

  11. NC Cop says:

    The GWOT can continue and be run by any of those three and their predecessors for a generation, yet the America the founding fathers saw, and even my grandfathers saw, will be dead.

    Oh? Please explain this Ted. How exactly will our nation be dead? How exactly will Hillary/Obama run the WOT when we know they will retreat into isolationism, just like under Bill Clinton?

    Furthermore, please explain how voting for Hillary will stop this impending doom.

    This is such a lame duck argument.

    To you, perhaps, but not to many of us who realize the consequences of losing in Iraq as well as the WOT in general.

  12. TedintheShed says:
  13. TedintheShed says:

    Please explain this Ted. How exactly will our nation be dead?

    When you look at the state of this nation, you don’t see the things that are wrong?

    Freedoms being removed by both parties, such as Kelo?

    The impending 2nd Amendment ruling?

    The fact that by my grand children’s generation Americans will be taxed at a rate of 70%?

    The sale of American treasure to China?

    The impending energy crisis?

    The North American Union, represented by politicians such as McCain and Guliani?

    I can go on forever.

    These factors are not going to change, until Americans cease being complacent.

    How exactly will Hillary/Obama run the WOT when we know they will retreat into isolationism, just like under Bill Clinton?

    I never said they would run the WoT, did I? I agree with what you are saying, but it is irrelevant. A dead America can not be involved in any war, can they? It would be like Latvia trying to run the GWoT.

    Furthermore, please explain how voting for Hillary will stop this impending doom.

    Sure,but I have said this so many times it seem that St is probably tired of it.

    The thing that Hillary has going for her in this situation is that she isn’t socialist-Lite like Juan McCain or Romney. She’s a flaming socialist. She will spend this country into oblivion. To do that, she will have to tax American, an tax them hard. She will hit the pocket books and savings of every family in one form or another.

    And that is how you get the attention of Americas. You hurt them in the pocket books. There is no other way, as the parties have lulled us into a horrible complacency.

    So there will be hard hard pull away from this socialism, even the socialists lites like Juan McCain and “Pretty Boy” Romney. Because of that reaction, we may look for a real conservative, and may even find someone with an ounce of integrity that has our best interests in mind instead of the interest of maintaining power for their party.

    To you, perhaps, but not to many of us who realize the consequences of losing in Iraq as well as the WOT in general.

    As I said- a dead America can not fight any war, let alone the GWoT. That’s why the argument is a lame duck one. Keeping the nation alive that the fore fathers envisioned is higher priority to me.

    But one of those liberal forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, saw the need for a revolution every 200 years or so, thus the second amendment and our right as a people to supplant the government.

  14. Brainster says:

    I enjoy it more when the left-wingers try to keep hope alive for their doomed candidates; did you know that the Kossacks were still supporting Edwards as recently as a week ago. Now they’ve joined the Obama bandwagon; look for them to drive that effort off a cliff as well.

    Unfortunately the GOP bloggers and the radio guys are behaving just as mindlessly, as if this nomination is still in doubt. Romney’s tire has sprung a leak, and no matter how much you try to pump air into it, it’s going to seep out before you get another block down the road.

    I say this not to be cruel, because I know most of you don’t want to hear it, but because it’s true.

  15. El Carlangas The Greato says:

    “I’m not overjoyed with Romney either, and it’s always perplexed me that some of the same people who will wipe the floor in defense of Mitt Romney (like many of the pundits at National Review) will jump all over John McCain for flip flopping on an issue for political purposes.”

    It’s so much more than this, you’ve stated a few reasons but there is even more than that to dislike the self centered Senator from AZ. The biggest reason to campaign against him is simply the anti-conservative legislation he has proposed and gotten passed. It is noxious, what has been more damaging than McCain Feingold when it comes to electing Republicans? He has done everything he can to poke his finger in the eye of the base, he has purposefully damaged his base that cannot be disputed or discounted. He has constantly advocated positions that push our nation leftward and it has lasting damage. I think you underestimate the bitterness the conservative movement has for John McCain. He will rip this party apart, which is exactly what the country clubbers want.

    I will actively campaign against him in the general election and vote for the Democrat candidate.

  16. mishu says:

    I’ve always said that the Mexican immigration issue was a political loser. It was raised by the Buchananites in ’92 and the country lurched left. It wasn’t raised in ’94 and Republicans gained a majority stake in Congress. It was raised in ’96 again by the Buchananites in ’96 and it was a step back for conservatives just when we got Clinton to say that the era of big government is over. Elections 1998 through 2004 all made gains or preserved the majority. Come 2006 and people are foaming at the mouth again over the presence of Mexicans. Well guess what happened that November? Now, two years later, people are still beating there heads against that wall and expecting different result. Haven’t we enough to focus on with winning the WOT, Iraq and Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?), reigning in entitlements and pork barrel spending as well as keeping taxes low. Oh yeah, do you think we should also work on diversifying our energy resources so we don’t have to shovel money to Hugo, Vladimir and the House of Saud? To me, those are way more pressing issues than the presence of Mexicans.

  17. RoadieFan says:

    Well, I understand folks just wanting to support the party regardless of the nominee, but I have to draw the line at McCain. There are two things about him I just can’t forgive:
    1. His temper tantrum in 2001 and how close he came to LEAVING the Republican party to join the Democrats.
    2. He CLAIMS to be for securing the borders, but he has hired Juan Hernandez as his Director of hispanic Outreach. No one is more open borders than Juan. Actions speak louder than words, especially in the case of McCain. And his CONSERVATIVE rating for 2006 fell nearly 20 POINTS below his lifetime average. He is moving to the center folks.

  18. Achillea says:

    As non-conservative as McCain may be (and that’s a lot), he’s still to the right of Hillary and far, far to the right of Mr. “Most Liberal Senator of ’07” Obama. So, as much as I may deplore his positions on immigration, the First Amendment, Gitmo, etc., etc., the Dem candidate is guaranteed to be at least as bad on them and far worse on others.

    And as far as the “A dose of Hillabama will have America crawling back to us on the right begging forgiveness” argument goes … sorry, but it’s arrant nonsense. It won’t happen. Four years of Clinton saw him invited back for a second term and after four more years, the Dem candidate still lost by barely a cat’s whisker. Socialism is insidious. There’ll be promises and platitudes — “Free health care!” “Taxes will only be raised to ensure the greedy rich pay ‘their fair share.'” “You’ll have to give up your 2nd Amendment rights because guns are evil and nasty.” “Oh, and you can forget those 1st Amendment rights, too, lest somebody be offended.” “We have to subordinate our nation’s sovereignty to the UN or people might not like us.” And so on, and so on.

    No. Fighting government encroachment on our rights and liberties is difficult, but wresting them back once we’ve surrendered them is damn near impossible.

  19. NC Cop says:

    I saw that, Ted. I think it’s going to be an ugly election year. Lord knows there are some good points made against McCain. I guess my problem is that I’m more afraid of a Hillary presidency.

    I mean, what happens if Hillary ends up in the White House for 8 years just like Bill? What if Hillary is the destruction of this country that you fear so much?

    I guess it’s a moot point, because it seems that a Hillary presidency is inevitable. I just hope we can survive her.

  20. TedintheShed says:

    I saw that, Ted. I think it’s going to be an ugly election year.

    Puts me in mind of the college football season we had.

    I mean, what happens if Hillary ends up in the White House for 8 years just like Bill? What if Hillary is the destruction of this country that you fear so much?

    If after 4 yours of Hillary Americans do not vote her out of the White House, then we will have deserved it because we would have loss all facualties related to governement and poltics.

    I guess it’s a moot point, because it seems that a Hillary presidency is inevitable. I just hope we can survive her.

    We can, but it’s going to hurt.

    America needs a slap in the face NC, to get us out of this vicious cycle that we absolutely will not survive regardless.

  21. Rovin says:

    No matter what my differences are with the candidates – whether we’re talking Mitt, McCain, or Huck – I would not hesitate for a second to pull the lever for any of them against whoever the Dem nominee is. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq, as well as the overall GWOT.

    Thanks Sis, Finally a website who’s owner has the common sense to know the diffence between the two partys—-even though we are not happy with the choices.

    Here’s my argument for those who claim they will sit out or even vote for a Democratic candidate if John McCain is the Republican nominee:

    It’s the Last Day to witness the CRUCIFICTION OF JOHN McCAIN by the “puritan conservatives”. Be sure to step up to the cross and heave a spit on the old man that some here are claiming Hillary is more conservative than McCain——what a load of horse manure.

    With the Superbowl taking over the media frenzy and silencing the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et all, maybe rational heads will come down from their “Pontius Pilot” thrones and realize there is NO POLL showing that Romney can defeat Hillary or Obama, (in fact he is losing by double digits to both of them in most polls), while the same polls show McCain defeating either Democrat by 9-15 points. Take McCain and the points and re-focus on the BIG GAME, which is defeating the Democratic nominee.
    Or do “conservatives” really want to gamble with putting Hillary and Bill back on the throne?

    Latest Gallop national tracking poll: McCain 37% Romney 22%

    Disclaimer: Yes, I do have many issues with McCain of great concern that does not please me as much as others here. Neither of the two remaining viable candidates fit into the mold of the pure principals of conservatism. The “my party has left me” faction have valid points. But fracturing the party to the point that allows another eight years of a Clinton Dynasty would be the ultimate sin. Eight years of higher taxes, entitlements ballooning, and maybe up to three liberal Supreme Court justices appointed ——- roll the dice——but please remember, everything’s in the pot, including your children and grandchildren’s future.

    Oh, and I like the Giants + the points.

  22. TedintheShed says:

    Take McCain and the points and re-focus on the BIG GAME, which is defeating the Democratic nominee.

    Spoken like a true shill of the Repuplican Party. No need to think, they’ll do it for you.

    Eight years of higher taxes, entitlements ballooning, and maybe up to three liberal Supreme Court justices appointed ——- roll the dice——but please remember, everything’s in the pot, including your children and grandchildren’s future.

    EXACTLY what I am counting on and it is precisely why I am doing it.

  23. Spoken like a true shill of the Repuplican Party. No need to think, they’ll do it for you.

    What a crock, Ted. I find it offensive that you think people who have decided to vote for McCain should he be the nominee arent thinking for themselves and that they’re just being “shills” for the party.

  24. benning says:

    I agree with you, ST. I am not sitting out this or any other election. But I am disappointed with the state of the Republican Party. And I posted on it, too and linked to you.

  25. Baklava says:

    TIS is against America as much as other liberals as evidenced by this statement, “EXACTLY what I am counting on and it is precisely why I am doing it.

    This nation needs to stay strong. Decisions made in the next 8 years carry on for a few generations. Just like FDR’s programs that are still hear today it is in America’s best interest to vote for the candidate (out of the top two candidates) who believe in less government and a strong national security policy.

  26. Lorica says:

    I always go back to my Conan 2 analogy. When that idiot of a high priest is standing there telling Conan that they can control this god if he is re-awakened, and the 1st fool that is killed afterward is that same high priest, I just have to think, “I saw that coming, why didn’t you”.

    Look we are all travelling the razors edge. Vote McCain and we have to deal with his need for press approval, which will move him leftward. Or not vote and hope and pray that after 4 years of a Dem administration a new Reagan will appear, and turn this Dem into the next in a long line of 1 termers. People forget what the MSM is telling you about McCain, they would lie to their mothers to get McCain the Rep Nomination. Outside of Florida there has yet to be an purely Rep Primary, and Florida was obviously going to go McCain for 2 reasons. 1st the old folk vote, I heard they broke 3 to 1 for McCain. Why Cuz old folks like to vote for old folks, to protect their entitlements. Fine, I don’t have a problem with that. 2nd reason, John’s stance on immigration won him the hispanic vote.

    Now let’s just see how well he does on Super Tuesday. I don’t think that Arnold is going to help him any in Florida, as he has pretty much po’d every Rep in the state. I am still boggled at the Texas Govenor’s support of John and I think his immigration stance is going to kill him in Texas. Illinois has a fairly large Morman population and most of us out here in the fringes of space…aka not Chicago, were pretty much Fred heads, and will most likely vote for Romney as we don’t see Huck having a snowflakes chance in “not paradise” of winning the election anyway. There are some pretty big states out there to grab, and it ain’t over till it’s over. I know I am voting Romney come Tuesday. There is no way I would miss this primary, even if I had to be late for my Mom’s funeral, I would still vote in it. – Lorica

  27. jerry olaughlin says:

    Both McCain and Romney will be strong on finishing what we started but the damage McCain will do is far greater than any war. His trickery on immigration alone will be devastating. If the GOP does not want to lose then they will pressure Huck to quit conspiring with McCain to win with a third of the vote. Also, what about the rising issue I’ve seen on the blogs about the matching funds problem for McCain. Can anyone wiegh in on this. If it is true that McCain is locked into a paltry 20 million in matching funds then he’s toast in the general. If this is true then this info should be diseminated ASAP because a limit of 20 million in the general election is sure death. How could he ever compete with those that have many times that because they are not under the matching funds constraint. Also if this is true then it looks as though McBenedict is a victim of his own free speech squelching law.

  28. Ryan says:

    EXACTLY what I am counting on and it is precisely why I am doing it.

    So it’s out of spite; no problem with hurting the country to prove a point.

  29. Great White Rat says:

    Ah geez, here we go again…. :-w

    First off, let’s dispose of the nonsense:

    Spoken like a true shill of the Repuplican Party. No need to think, they’ll do it for you.

    Get serious, Ted. You’ve been around here often enough to know that ST, NC Cop, and the others who will vote for McCain if he’s on the November ballot think for themselves and have always put country ahead of party. You owe them an apology for that.

    Now down to cases. Realistically, there are only two possible nominees for each party. Everyone else has either withdrawn or is finished but doesn’t know it yet. It will be McCain or Romney against Clinton or Obama.

    If Romney wins the nomination, it’s an easy choice. You don’t hear any great number of conservatives hedging on whether they can support him.

    McCain’s the one that gives us problems. Rovin looks ahead to what we could expect from the Democrats:

    Eight years of higher taxes, entitlements ballooning, and maybe up to three liberal Supreme Court justices appointed

    To which I respond, how will that change in a McCain presidency? And you can throw in more global warming mandates, weakening of the first amendment, and a cushy-soft policy toward illegal immigration.

    So let’s be honest – if McCain is the GOP nominee, we’re headed for at least four years of leftish policies at home, no matter who wins.

    For the moment, set aside the WOT. I’ll come back to that later.

    You’ve all heard the old saw about how to cook a frog. Throw him into boiling water and he will jump right out, but if you put him in cold water and turn up the heat, he won’t react until it’s too late.

    America is the frog, and socialism is the boiling pot. The heat’s been turned up slowly for years now. Don’t believe it’s true? Look how many socialist ideas are now entrenched as government bureaucracies that we’d have one hell of a battle to remove.

    All three – Obama, Clinton, and McCain – want to continue to turn up the heat, but it’s HOW they want to do it that separates them.

    Obama is Mr. Smooth. ST’s been wise to his game plan from the start (here and here, for example). He’d boil us pretty darn fast, but sugar-coat the whole thing so it won’t seem so bad. He’d probably get the GOP members of Congress to go along with a lot of it, in the name of “unity” and “bipartisanship”.

    McCain will be a little rougher around the edges, but I think the congressional Republicans won’t have the sense to fight back too hard against programs from one of their own that won’t differ too much from the Democrat plans.

    Hillary wants to toss us in the boiling water. Her overbearing approach to everything will actually give the Republicans in Congress a backbone. I think they’d be inclined to fight.

    No matter what, the net effect on the economy and the domestic front will be bad. Paradoxically, it may be least bad with Hillary because her typical ham-handed, clumsy, shrill style will galvanize opposition in a way that Obama and McCain will not. Here, Ted really does have a valid point – but not one that should make anyone actually vote for her.

    Now add the WOT to the mix. McCain will be solid, the Dems range from Obama’s naive quick surrender to Hillary’s more nuanced phased version of running away.

    So if it’s McCain vs. Obama, I will not hesitate to vote for McCain. At home, we’re in trouble regardless, but at least McCain will continue to fight the good fight against islamofascism.

    That leaves McCain vs. Clinton. That’s the toughest call, and unfortunately it’s also the most likely scenario.

    Ted’s for Clinton: let the left go berserk in the streets for four years and shock the public to its senses, after which we’ll get a conservative administration in 2012. He sees Hillary as an emetic that will make America disgorge liberalism for a good long while. That idea has some merit as well as historical validation, but it ignores the overriding impact of the WOT.

    ST’s approach is to stick with McCain because nothing is as important as being victorious in the WOT. That has all the priorities in order, but I think it concedes that we won’t see a conservative in the White House again for another generation, with all the attendant consequences.

    The question is, which is riskier?

    ANSWER: IT’S TOO EARLY TO TELL, PEOPLE!!!

    The WOT has been tremendously successful for the past year. Let’s see how it looks by October. If AQ is on its last legs, then McCain loses much of his main appeal. If AQ is resurgent or, God forbid, gets its hands on a nuke, then it’s infinitely more important to have a real commander in chief and Hillary’s an unacceptable risk.

    And if we’re really lucky, we won’t have to worry about this Hobson’s choice.

  30. Leslie says:

    ST,

    Great stuff! While much of the conservative movement seems to be devolving into a small group of loopy cultists running around firing cap pistols into the air, your aim remains straight and true. You are the “true conservative,” my dear.

    ^:)^

  31. H. D. Palmer says:

    Come on people, I started voting in 1961 and only twice have I been able to vote for someone(R.R.) instead of for the lessor of two evils. Please vote for the Repubs and save me from Clinton/Obama.

  32. NC Cop says:

    I talked to a friend of mine who has seemed to be a die hard Hillary fan for years. Now she tells me that she is not sure if she will vote for her, she might vote for McCain. Then she says that she would like to have a woman president, she just doesn’t think Hillary is the one.

    So, I think GWR has a point, it’s too early to tell. I think it is going to be one wild ride, though, so everybody hang on!

  33. Lorica says:

    Now she tells me that she is not sure if she will vote for her, she might vote for McCain.

    My problem with this is anyone can tell you something but once the curtain is drawn and they start thinking about which lever to pull, you can pretty well guess that a person is not going to jump party lines on just one vote. – Lorica

  34. clifto says:

    These are the times for which I say I’m an independent; the times when I can’t in good conscience vote for the Republican. I could no more vote for McCain than I could for PIAPS. I’ve said for nearly two years (in public) that I wouldn’t.

    I may try to overcome my inertia and vote Tuesday for Romney, though I don’t see him as much better. But it may be the last time this year I bother to vote. Between McCain and the fact that Daley will ensure Durbin wins, 317 million to six, there’s no real reason to walk the 1,000 feet to the polls.