Understanding My Endorsement

A few notes on my endorsing Romney and Obama as the best candidates on the respective sides of the race.

I expect Obama will lose in the primary to Hillary. It may well be over, if not obvious, by next Tuesday night.

But McCain would and will lose to either one. I believe that to be a fact. I don't think people looking in realize just how bad it will be. It will be Bob Dole, only worse, all over, again. I doubt even the base can make a difference in that race.

It isn't the end if Romney doesn't prevail, though he still can and I hope he does. I think these prognosticated Feb 5 delegate counts over-estimate Huckabee, though I could be wrong. As I think Romney would make a good president, if we don't prevail, it'll be a shame.

The fact is, a likely landslide-like McCain loss in November will be beneficial to the conservative cause. McCain's faux conservatism will prove to be a major loser for Republicans at the polls. Read this from Protein Wisdom if you want depth.

Starting immediately after that, we can begin to re-invigorate the conservative cause. We will most likely gain seats, maybe even a significant number, in the mid-terms. History does repeat itself. Don't forget, it was Clinton I that gave the Republicans the majority in the first place, after all.

The future for conservatism is not bad. But it will be gratification delayed. The problem is a Republican one, mostly. Not one for the base.

In the end, we will prevail, even if there will be an ongoing struggle for control of the party to some extent. That's a battle we should all embrace heartily and not allow the next Ronald Reagan, whomever that might be, to fight the fight all on his, or her own.

Comments

[Roy Mustang]

So, basically, you're willing to get 0% of what you want for the next four years for the "re-invigoration".

Now what would happen if the liberal and moderate GOP decided to jump ship when "your" canidiate is nominated in 2012?

You'll get 0% of what you want for the four years after that.

Reagan had to deal with the kind of people who wanted 100% all the time. He basically told them to f*** off and be happy with 75%. So in the spirit of the Gipper, I'm telling you to...

[seekeronos]

"--- It will be Bob Dole, only worse, all over, again. I doubt even the base can make a difference in that race. ---"

McCain v. Obama will look more like Roosevelt v. Landon in 1936 -- the largest ever electoral loss in history.

Or perhaps Reagan-Mondale in '84.

Many folks will turn out for both men, but the big coastal (liberal) populations will utterly smash McCain to pieces.

I also expect the (R) coalition to split out between NOTA votes, third parties and indy votes, and perhaps even some crossing over to the (D)s, although I don't expect to be telling my grandkids about the "Obama Revolution" and "Obama Republicans" whilest on the way to the local madrassa.

[Roy Mustang]

BTW, your mentality is no different than the anti-war Sheehan nuts that vow to destroy Nancy Pelosi. You're cutting off the head to save the patient.

[seekeronos]

Now don't be a big meanie-pants, Roy.

If McCain could even crank out an old dusty turd that remote offered a chance at Reagan's 75%, I might votre for the privilege of checking Old Grumpy's Depends for that lucky brown gem.

However, I don't think we will be so fortunate; McCain will give us 50% or more of the George Soros platform in the form of a shiv in the neck or a raw pineapple up our collective wazoo.

Without lube.

[IslamoLlama]

That's it, Dan. Ride the Magic Unity Pony. Barak Obama transcends all parties, all demographics, all political strategies. All roads lead to the Big O. Join us. Join us, Dan. Here. Have the kool-aid.

[Brainster]

Hey, it worked out great for us in 1992! Oh, wait, that's how we got Bob Dole in 1996, isn't it?

[Dan Riehl]

"how we got Bob Dole"

We got Bob Dole from the Republican establishment that always plays next man in line without regard for much else. We can't look to that party for vision. It will have to come from without.

[Wahoo Willie]

"We got Bob Dole from the Republican establishment that always plays next man in line without regard for much else. We can't look to that party for vision."

Absolutely, The repups had eight years...EIGHT years to groom someone to save the party and look what they ended up with. They will now be playing catch up for at least four years, maybe eight and one wonders if they will start before the next cycle has begun. Just imagine how difficult it will be to move right once the people start getting everything they want provided to them for free. The time is now to agitate for real change away from the, almost twins, two party system and toward a more constitutionalist government.

[Dennis D]

I totally disagree. While I prefer Mitt over McCain I think McCain would be better able to beat Hillary or Obama. All the polls point to this. Today Rasmussen has McCain by 8pts over Hillary. McCain will get the Anti Hillary vote and will win Southern Democrat males who, in South Carolina ,voted for Edwards. McCain could possibly win in a landslide bringing perhaps holding many GOP Seats in House and Senate that are at risk. What would Hillary do with the Obama issue? If she takes him as VP she gets nothing more than she was supposed to get from the start. If she ignores Obama she risks a black backlash and low black voter turnout.

[Dennis D]

John McCain is no Bob Dole and Bill Clinton has lost his shine. McCain is a much better campaigner than Dole. And he was running against a sitting President who had 65% public approvals at the time. Not easy.

[seekeronos]

"--- The time is now to agitate for real change away from the, almost twins, two party system and toward a more constitutionalist government. ---"

I hate to disagree with ye, WW... but I think that attempt to bring things right back to a constitutionalist way of doing things is an also-ran for this election.

First, there was Fred... 'nuff said.

Then... (I think I got banned recently over at RedState for intimating the same idea) ...

I know mentioning "Ron Paul" causes a few horses in somebody's backyard to mysteriously bray loudly... but aside from a few oddities (goldbug, non-interventionism, Trooferism) he is actually much closer to being a cut from the old Founding Fathers' way of doing business than the rest of the sorry lot... which especially means Johnny Mac his'self.

My wishful thinking is that the Ron Paul revolution (I certainly do not see that man elected to anything more than TX Representative for the remainder of his life) catches fire in the minds of the millions of his supporters, a few of whom may have the millet to rise either in the GOP, or woo the distressed masses of conservatives to join the Constitution Party and put the squeeze on the RINOcrat party.

Because that is where the GOP is headed - with Johnny Mac at the helm: The RINOcrat Party.

[Omnia21]

A 72 year-old McCain against a 45 something Obama? Please.
More important even George Will calls McCain Clinton lite and Bill Clinton says a McCain-Hillary battle will be a love fest. How depressing but true. Who will the NYT endorse? We know who.
Mitt Romney says he will fight on through. He would be a brilliant president, one every Republican, conservative or not, can be proud of. Just ask the question: Who is best qualified to be president of the United States of the four serious candidates still left in the race? If you say anybody but Romney you're lying to yourself.
What do you want: Self-made multimillionaire, extraordinary private sector success, took on the Democratic power structure in the most blue state in the Union Massachusetts and got a privately-based health care insurance plan through. Mitt hasn't said much, but what he's said shows he understands the global jihad that's targeting the West; it isn't just Iraq, which is all that McCain talks about. That's a small though important piece. To defeat global jihad will take more than military strength, it will take imagination and creativity in problem-solving, that's what Mitt Romney has beeing doing all his adult life. What has McCain been doing about overentitlements in Social Socurity, Medicare and Medicaid? What has he been doing about letting millions enter the country illegally and burdening our state support systems and exploding crime rates? Mitt stands for secure borders and selecting those who should be welcomed as immigrants to this great country, people who want to live the American dream and work to make it real.
So he's a Mormon. He happens to be a man of faith, a superb example of what a family man should be and a selfless helper of others in need. He believes Jesus Christ is his savior.
He is a man every Republican can be proud to have as his candidate and, with the help of all, as President.
Romney has run an issues-oriented campaign. He has not been accused of being nasty, mean-spirited, hot-tempered or hot-headed as McCain has throughout his career. He has not bent the facts to suit his personal agenda, as George Will accused him of this week.
Don't get the idea it's too late; it's not. It took time to winnow the field. The New York Times and other liberal media are selling the "inevitability" of McCain, but that's not so. Let's show Mitt there's a constituency out there for honest, conservative values and this will energize him to cross the finish line in first place.

[Kevin Bowman]

"McCain would and will lose to either one. I believe that to be a fact."

Since when are predictions facts? And if McCain wins, will you threaten to move to France?

I think your strategy is brilliant. Give power to the a president who is further left than any in American history with a far-left Senate and house. (No Scoop Jackson around anymore to slow things down). Ensure that the Supreme Court returns to a Berger-era liberal majority.

I am sure that Conservatives will come back stronger than ever, once the country is wrecked.

And if they manage to re-take some part of the government, after redistricting and new campaign finance reform laws ensure no incumbant Democrat will ever face defeat, with 20 years of concerted effort they might begin to undo some of the "progressive" programs enacted in the meantime. Dismantling government programs is a piece of cake. Remember when Ronald Reagan promised to dismantle the Department of Education? Last I checked, it's still there.

I remember back in 1992, I voted for Ron Paul (Libertarian) because George H.W. Bush had proven that he was not conservative enough for me. We then got 8 years of Clinton.

This kind of "I'm taking my ball and going home" stuff is for babies. You're wrong about McCain and Romney. But, even if you're not, suck it up. The notion that Obama will be good for conservatives is absolutely detached from reality.

[Victoria]

Am I the only one that remembers history? There is a saying when you forget history it repeats itself......my point is what happened last time a President from IL was elected? The only true conservative that had never crossed the line was Thompson. McCain is very liberal on immigration, Mitt bothers me because neither he nor his son's or his dad for that matter have ever served in the military.

[seekeronos]

I could give Mitt a pass on the military - not everyone is cut out for it.

I'll also pass on the Mormon thing -- IMHO, Mitt's religion is irrelevant, as there is no viable fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian currently running (i.e. Huck doesn't pass muster with me) that I could support.

Kevin Bowman: I want to say that you got your RPs crossed. Ross Perot (the flip-chart guy) had me deuced too, back then.

I cannot guarantee that I wouldn't vote NOTA for the POTUS row, or perhaps for a 3rd party/indy guy if faced with McCain as the (R) candidate.

If my NY-based GE vote were able to seriously make that much of a difference, I'd probably have to "drink John McCain pretty" before I pulled that lever... and I don't think I could afford enough Guinness to make that happen.

[Kevin Bowman]

Seekeronos:

You're right, it wasn't Ron Paul. It was Andre Marrou. Paul was Lib candidate in 1988.

[Beth]

What Roy Mustang said in the first comment--megafuckindittos.

"McCain would and will lose to either one. I believe that to be a fact."
Dan, step out of the echo chamber for a bit and get some perspective. That statement is either deliberately dishonest in a sad attempt at convincing someone, or it's evidence of histrionic blindness. Seriously, dude.

Seekeronos:
I could give Mitt a pass on the military - not everyone is cut out for it.

That's true, but it's also sort of a cop-out. Pampered, "sensitive" boys and girls "aren't cut out for it." Others? They don't want to do it (too dangerous, "beneath" their social status, not enough pay--you get the point). And what the hell, he's got five sons and not ONE of them ever darkened the door of a recruiter's office? FIVE sons?

That's not the reason I support McCain, but it's just another example of Romney's inauthenticity. Unlike Rombots, I don't hate the other candidates, I just think McCain is the right man for the job.

It's funny how some of my fellow former-Fredheads have gone all Kos-like in their derangement. Way to represent conservatism! You think McCain would destroy conservatism? Hell, those of you with MDS are doing that all by yourselves! (Thanks for nothing.)