You could at least give a cite.
Thanks. That’s all I came into this thread for. What I have to say on this subject I’ve already said in the 2 or 3 threads we had on this exact same subject in the last week or so.
An interviewee I heard on NPR last week (sorry, I’m too lazy to look up the cite) maintained that in opposing McCain, the true conservatives were hoping for a repeat of the 1976-1980 transition. In electing Hilary Clinton, this person argued, the nation would set itself up for four years of misguided and incompetent liberal leadership (a la Jimmy Carter). Wearied and fed up, the voters would anxiously swing back to the right during the next cycle, and voila! The Reagan Revolution all over again.
As a moderate conservative, I found that her attitude perfectly encapsulated the reasons why I left the Republican Party.
Considering the military and economic messes the next POTUS will inherit, that might actually be sound strategy.
Yep. If McCain disses them and wins anyway, their rice bowls are broken.
It seems obvious to me. The new eternal Republican Majority was supposed to move in lockstep with the commands of Rove and the other leaders, and all match their fantasies of what Reagan would have done. McCain committed heresy on the tax cuts and McCain Feingold. (And on immigration for most of the right.) He’s only 90% in lockstep rather than the 100% he’s supposed to be. (And Huckabee has similar problems for these people.) It would be much for them if he won rather than lost, since that would demonstrate a minor move to the left, and for moderation, could save an election given up for lost. If he loses, then they can say that a more true conservative candidate could have won. Silly, but these are the same people saying we have a deficit since Congress and Bush weren’t conservative enough.
And, as several people have noted in the press, if Reagan were running today he would be rejected as not being Reaganesque. It reminds me of a scene in a Tarzan book where Tarzan, in Hollywood for some reason, is turned down for the role of Tarzan for not matching the Hollywood image.
I dunno, I think it’s a pretty savy feint on the part of the republicans. They know plenty of dems and ‘pubs will vote their parties candidate whomever it is, it’s the indie/swing voters their trying to woo with this ‘McCains’ too middle of the road for the freakshow republicans,’ campaign.
The conservative smear campaign against McCain, a solid Republican, is peculiar. It is particularly unscrupulous and distasteful to try and discredit McCain’s military service. I understand he needs the party backing to win a presidential bid, but I don’t understand how McCain can appease people who have treated him with total disdain. I would at least expect McCain to grimace.
The radical right talk pundits might lose their livelihood if McCain takes the GOP down the path of sanity. Without an uncompromising, religious, radical conservative, who will be the contrast to a centrist Democrat? Mission Accomplished.
But not unprecedented.
Give an attack dog a taste of blood just once and he’ll just want more.
I shocked at how many people, both left and right, think this way. It’s the height of foolishness because the US incorporates a two party system. It is a given that either the Republican or Democrat candidate will win. Under this system the only logical course of action is to vote for the candidate who most closely matches your position on the key issues. There is no question that Nader voters were the deciding factor in the 2000 election and there is no way Bush was a better match on those voter’s key issues than Gore. It is childish and stupid to refuse to vote because neither candidate is exactly what you want, because you WILL get one of them and refusing to vote will not prevent that. Furthermore, I often hear Republicans say (IANAR, BTW) letting HRC or BHO get elected will be such a disaster that more people will vote Republican next time - the desire to do damage to the country simply for personal gain to your party is unpatriotic and disgusting.
The republicans you’re referring to think McCain would be no less damaging, so your criticism does not hit the mark.
Also, it is not foolish to vote for a third party. Victory for the candidate you vote for is not the only reason one might vote for a candidate. In other words, there can be good reasons to vote for a candidate even when you are quite certain they will lose. This is clear if only from the fact that if it weren’t true, then the best thing to do in an election that is not close would always be to vote for the candidate who you think will win. Since everyone acknowledges this is not the best thing to do in such a situation, it must be that everyone has in mind other reasons for voting in such a situation. It is implausible to think that these other reasons must be irrational.
One candidate for another reason to vote: To send a message to the nation. To make sure the nation understands itself to have a divided opinion.
-FrL-
In my opinion this is the only reason to vote. The probability of a single vote affecting the outcome is so minute that it simply cannot act as a reason to vote. Hell even in Florida in 2000 the margin was hundreds of votes.
The only reason to vote is so that the election results are a more accurate representation of the will of the electorate - and voting for someone you don’t actually support is actually at odds with that end.
Another answer: The W.J. Clinton presidency was the most successful Republican administration in the last 2 decades.
Balanced budget
NAFTA
Welfare reform
What if a Democratic administration is seen by a solid majority of voters as a success? Then the far right wing will have marginalized itself almost completely out of the picture. That BTW is basically what is happening on the Republican side. Oh yeah they’ll continue ranting and raving but few will pay attention (and in the case of those who are more entertainer than commentator, just watch how fast they change their tunes in the face of declining viewership/book sales).
They will work like the devil to ensure the Democrats fail, even at the expense of the welfare of the country. Regaining power is more important than prosperity or peace.
This pithy comment by Tom Tomorrow puts it in perspective:
Ayuh. They showed their propensity for that tactic during the Clinton years.
Which is why I think Obama is somewhat naive in his promise to unite the country. I think he knows not what he is up against.
So some of them really do say they’ll vote for Hillary and hope she bombs? Most of them will chicken out, I think.
Another possibility: while McCain has been known to break with the GOP on some issues, maybe they trust Clinton to triangulate, and come closer to their positions on issues like national security.
Yeah, after long reflection on this matter, my final conclusion is that the Republicans think Obama would fail on his own, and they could break Hillary if they had to. I read an article in The Atlantic a couple of years back talking about opposition research or “oppo” as they call it… supposedly the Republicans have a file pile that they called “Mt. Hillary”, stored against the possibility of her running for president (most politicians have done a lot of slimy things; I’m sure she’s no different). They came within a few votes of actually removing Bill from office; I’m sure they feel they could do the same to Hillary without alienating too many people. They’d have to be careful about doing that with Obama… if they “high-tech lynch” him there could be a serious backlash. But he’s so inexperienced that he may just Jimmy Carter himself into a single-term presidency.