July 5, 2008
Beating the "Inevitable"
No political strategist am I, but Jonah Goldberg's suggestion for the McCain campaign strikes me as wise:
As many have noted, it's ironic that Obama supporters who profess to want bipartisanship are indisputably voting for the wrong guy. There's next to nothing in Obama's record that suggests he's better equipped to reach across the aisle and work with the opposition party, against the wishes of his own party's activist base. Obama is bipartisan on popular issues, not on controversial ones. Meanwhile, that's McCain's whole schtick.What's more ironic is that bipartisanship wouldn't be an issue for a President Obama. If, as expected, the Democrats win large majorities in the House and Senate, Obama won't need Republicans for anything, and there's no reason to expect he would find common cause with the GOP against the base of his own party. In the Illinois Legislature, Obama was a pliable creature of the corrupt Democratic machine. Why, McCain might ask, should we expect that he will be otherwise at the national level?
Obama may be moving rapidly to the center, embracing faith-based initiatives and backpedaling on Iraq and NAFTA, but he is not "triangulating." He has not picked any serious fights with his base, no doubt in part because he doesn't think he has to.
This is a potential opening for McCain to exploit. Obama's thin record offers little ammo for McCain. But the Democrats who would truly run the country if they controlled both the Congress and the White House do indeed have a long record.
The reason the Obamanation is willing to overlook his move to the center is likely that nobody believes that he'll stay there, especially with his party's control of the legislature. McCain, therefore, must push him to choose: keep his messianic grip on his base, or fulfill the promise (or promise to fulfill the promise) of substantive compromise.
Even for his own sake, McCain must hammer home how plain wrong Obama is on most issues, because the Republican's biggest problem has arguably been his years of testy relationships with his party's base. He has to hammer home the message that voting against him isn't just a protest vote, it's a "let it burn" vote.
There are plenty of reasons to vote against Obama,but one minor reason is just to see and hear the whining from the RIF crowd and their friends.
And if he wins,I wonder how they will get along with the supporters from the Farrakhan crew.That particular element is just a little bit homophobic,jew hating,anti-white,and not really into liberated women.
The church Obama attended for so many,many years is a harbinger of what he wants to bring to Washington.If not,why did he stay there so long?They can spin it all they want,but 2+2=4 all day long.
Obama personally avoids any such public stances,but what about his support at grassroots level?That racist Farrakhan loving element has some influence.How much?Who knows?I don't want to take a chance,nor should anyone who believes that those supporters have a negative message.
>>because the Republican's biggest problem has arguably been his years of testy relationships with his party's base"
McCain is a "Republican" only in the technical sense. He is the poster-politicians for RINO's.
History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. This is very much like 1972.
Nixon was not beloved by his party's base. McGovern was far left, and was beloved by his party's 1960's "new" base.
Once the general electorate, including many "blue collar" Democrats realized just how far left McGovern was, they defaulted to Nixon, merely to avoid McGovern.
The same is likely to occur with Obama. He is even farther left than McGovern, in fact, unlike McGovern, Obama is a far-left whack job.
So McCain has a real chance (if not likelihood) of winning, merely because of a swelling "not Obama" vote ... but not because of any organic support for McCain.
And like Nixon, McCain will go on to be am absolute disaster for the Republican Party. No, not for wiretapping, but for remolding it into a party representing Northeast-type "Republicans," i.e., Democrat-lite "moderates."
And the decades long shrinking of the go along to get along with Democrat liberalism "moderate" wing of the Republican Party here in the Northeast, resulting in the party's (deserved) near extinction demonstrates how well THAT model works!
There is a valid argument for standing down (or voting for Barr) so that the Republican Party can rebuild for 2012. It has lost its way and needs some time in the wilderness, unfortunately.
Whoever wins this year is going to be a disaster for their party. In the short run, we will be better off if McCain wins. But in the long run, we will be better off if Obama wins discredits the Democrats for the next 10-15 years ... versus McCain winning and destroying the Republican Party for the next 10-15 years.
Posted by: Tom W at July 5, 2008 12:05 PMTom W-hey,buddy I sure hope you weren't counting too much on that nomination for the Optimist's Club man of the year award.
Posted by: joe bernstein at July 5, 2008 12:26 PMI'm certainly not averse to creative destruction of the Republican Party, but I'd request two considerations from conservatives who would pursue it by means of the next presidential election:
1. Think of the damage that Obama could do with a Democratic congress. We'll be decades fixing it, if we even find it possible to pull back from the edge.
2 Think of the pure entertainment value of the Left's teeth gnashing should the chosen one lose. I'd suggest that there's at least some potential that the resultant ire and infighting would do more damage to the Democrats than a McCain presidency would do to the Republicans.
It is a shame that Jesse Helms, will not be on earth,for the November election
Posted by: JERRY at July 5, 2008 1:02 PM>>Tom W-hey,buddy I sure hope you weren't counting too much on that nomination for the Optimist's Club man of the year award.
Nope.
Whoever wins, the next four years are a write-off.
The Republican Party has been drifting left since Reagan left office. At some point we have to reverse the drift. McCain not only will continue the drift, but lurch us much farther left.
It would be naive to believe the once in office he won't revert to form and be voting right in there along the lines of Chafee-Snow-Collins-Specter. His talking-point of "80% lifetime conservative rating" is just that - in recent years his voting record has been RINO A+. In fact, he takes delight in stabbing conservative and the Republican Party in the back.
At some point real Republicans need to put their feet down and stop "voting for the lesser of two evils (and keep moving us left)" mantra of the "pragmatists" and "moderates." Voting for McCain for President is not far removed from voting for Lincoln Chafee for President. Well if voting for de facto Democrats is the fait accompli, is it not better to resume a principled stand and "just say no?"
The key now is to start building a foundation for 2012 and a real Republican renewal, and thus resumption of hope for a better future for our country.
Tom,
Good analysis and comparison with 1972.
Obama is scary to many people, and I don't think he stands a chance.
Posted by: Citizen Critic at July 5, 2008 1:51 PMOn the issue of whether to vote for McCain or the "lesser of 2 evils", I am looking at from the point that Obama is so far to the left it may be difficult to pull back from the increased socialism/marxism that he may be able to impose over the next 2-8 years.
I think I would rather battle over ideas with a RINO president than start looking for a valley in Colorado.
Posted by: tcc3 at July 5, 2008 8:25 PMFrightened comments from frightened people. Obama's election is as inevitable as it is welcome. It's a modest start, but it's a beginning.
OldTimeLefty
For those of you who think a RINO would be worse than Obama, think about this- the next President could end up appointing 2-3 SCOTUS justices. That's DECADES of decisions.
You REALLY want Obama screwing us for that long?
Posted by: EMT at July 6, 2008 9:03 AMMy suspicion is that McCain - in the spirit of "bipartisanship" and "reaching across the aisle" for which he is notorious, a/k/a siding 100% with the Democrats - will appoint Souters, not Scalias.
A Souter may be "moderately" better than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but not by much.
Working with Ted Kennedy again, he will also bring in amnesty, just as he tried last summer.
A far left Obama facing opposition (or at least resistance) from Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans may actually get less of the far-left Democrat agenda through Congress than with Bi-partisan-John and spineless Republicans unwilling to oppose "their" President.
Posted by: Tom W at July 6, 2008 11:37 AM"A far left Obama facing opposition (or at least resistance) from Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans may actually get less of the far-left Democrat agenda through Congress"
You say it like there'll be any left after November.
Here's a hint: there won't be. Congress will look like the RI Legislature.
Posted by: EMT at July 6, 2008 7:29 PM"Frightened comments from frightened people. Obama's election is as inevitable as it is welcome. It's a modest start, but it's a beginning."
OldTimeLefty
OTL,
Is it as inevitable as a Hillary election was a year ago?
Bobc
Bobc
I never believed that Hillary's nomination was a sure thing. You are speaking to the echos of your own mind.
OTL