Assume McCain wins

[taurusowner]

This is not a thread about who will win or who we should vote for.  It's not about the "lesser of two evils" or "standing up for principle".  It's a hypothetical question.  Assume McCain wins.  Now where do you see the Republican party, or conservatism in the coming years?  The scale of years is up to you.  4 years from now?  10?  20?  All of the above? You pick.  Just where do you think conservatism, and the GOP will be headed if McCain wins?

[MicroBalrog]

Generally I cannot help but think that the GOP is badly screwed. But the good side is that McCain will probably support and promote voucher programs.

This will mean - I hope - that the thousands and millions of Evangelicals will leave the government schools. This will strengthen the small-government movement in the long run - but the effects will unfortunately take decades and generations to be felt.

In the shorter term, however, we're screwed as the GOP will continue to nominate more and more 'moderate' people.

[m1911owner]

I'm afraid what we'll get is the "Only Nixon could go to China" syndrome.  McCain introduces terribly liberal stuff, and the Republicans in Congress go along with it because he's a Republican president, and also partially because they had a tight race getting him there.  The Democrats will of course have little trouble coming up with enough votes to pass his liberal programs.

On the other hand, if Obama wins, there's a possibility that the Republicans will dig in their heels enough that they can stop the worst of his programs.

Either way it's a disaster for conservative principles.

I actually have slightly more hope that the rebound from Obama would be better for us than the aftermath of McCain, in that people might be so sick of liberalism that a good conservative president and Congress might be elected.  I think with McCain, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, will be so sick of "Republicans" that they'd elect Vladimir Lenin if the Democrats put him up as their candidate.

The only silver lining I see to a McCain presidency is that he might select less bad Supreme Court justices than Obama.


P.S.  No way, however, would I ever vote for Obama.  It's either McCain, or a third party (Constitution or Libertarian).

[seeker_two]

If McCain wins in '08, we'll have Hillary as President in '12....

[m1911owner]

If McCain wins in '08, we'll have Hillary as President in '12....

Isn't that what I said?:

I think with McCain, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, will be so sick of "Republicans" that they'd elect Vladimir Lenin if the Democrats put him up as their candidate.

[Regolith]

If McCain wins in '08, we'll have Hillary as President in '12....

I hate to say this, but I'd rather have Hillary than Obama.   

*shudders*

[grey54956]

If McCain wins, I see two possibilities:

The GOP crumbles.  Fusionism breaks down.  Social conservatives break away from the GOP, leaving free marketers and strong defense advocates holding the ball.  The religious right moves along to the ironically named Constitution Party in order to pursue their dreams of a Christian Theocracy.  That's okay, though, as without the religious right, independent social moderates who want neither high taxes, nor gov't sponsored religious aid programs, move right in and make themselves comfy.  With a much diminished independent vote, the Democrats lose their footing and gradually sink from power until the die-hard leftists are purged from their ranks.  Once this occurs Republicans and Democrats find new middle ground and honest-to-god reasonable compormise.  A new golden age ensues.  The United States is reborn as a land of opportunity, liberty, and happiness.  The religious right and the leftists get dragged along, kicking and whining, and generally ignored.

The other possibility is the GOP holds together until the post-McCain years, then fire up the rhetoric machine again, beating the same old drum and dead horse as always:  abortion, protection of marriage, the family, etc., etc... until everyone is sick of it and loses interest.  The Democrats win the following 8-16 years, the US as we know it ends, replaced by an inferno of sky-high taxes, poor health care, horrendous energy prices, a dwindling economy, and societal collapse.

If Obama wins, I figure that we just get a jump start on the latter possibility.

Not that I agree with the wacky alternative-lifestyle crowd, but as long as they stay out of my business, live and let live.  Abortion should be very highly regulated, but no-fault / no-blame adoption should be encouraged.  The family is strong when the economy is strong, and when personal responsibility is emphasized over gov't assistance.  Personal responsibility starts with the rewards of one's efforts going into ones pockets, not the coffers of gov't. 

[MicroBalrog]

Eh. The religious right I have no problem with. It's the neoconservatives that are the problem (in the true sense of the world, not the leftie fearmongering definition).

[grey54956]

The neocons are a problem, but they are actually a fairly small group under the GOP's power structure.  They seem to have come to power largely through trickery and praying upon the fears and desires of the religious right and the defense supporters. 

I seem to recall that Bush largely got where he is based on conservative "compassion".  True conservatives don't want the gov't to be compassionate, they want the gov't to be fair and efficient.  This leads to a stronger economy, more wealth, and more private charities that are more efficient and effective at providing aid to those in need.

[MicroBalrog]

The main problem with neoconservatism is that it provides a useful ideology for RINOs and moderate republicans to hide behind.

[grampster]

Gridlock, except with respect to energy policy and Islamic radicalism.

[Gowen]

This election is about damage control.  The Republicans need to clean up their act so we can elect some real conservatives.  Also, given McCain's age and health, he may not live through his first term.  It is very important who his VP is.

[taurusowner]

grey, I don't think your dislike of religion really transfers over to the rest of the country.

[longeyes]

McCain buys time.  No more.  For what remains to be seen.  There will be no soft landing from where we are right now.  The issue will be whether there's any political liberty AT ALL by 2012 or 2016, and there may not even be a Presidential election or, for that matter, the rule of law as we know it.  Too apocalyptic?  To some; not to me obviously.  We are being eaten up from within and from without.

Vouchers are a nice idea but we don't have decades or generations to wait for "good ideas" to kick in.  The reality is that every generation starts anew and determines if there's going to be free republic or not, and the last two generations have failed miserably at creating the citizenry and the culture we need to prevail into the future as a strong and unified "America." 

A certain number of Americans will survive as free men, either within the ambit of "America" or outside it, and if inside it, they may constitute the potent political "bloc, the "swing vote" that people are saying Hispanics comprise right now.  But they are just as likely to have created their own nation by secession as have reformed a decadent nation that has completely lost its mind and its way.

A lot of what we believe in needs reform and redress anyway.  Universal suffrage--yes, I'll go there--is a lousy idea.  I for one do not want 20-somethings who know nothing, own nothing, and have done nothing controlling my future, economically or in any other way, because some liberal thinks being a featherless biped is the same thing as an informed citizen.  With the corrupt social culture we have right now we need to seriously re-think who can vote.  If that sounds "fascistic" to some, so be it; there is nothing more fascistic than ignorance or arrogance or irrationalism and that we have brewed extravagantly in the drunken sleep of the last 40 years.

 

[seeker_two]

Also, given McCain's age and health, he may not live through his first term.  It is very important who his VP is.

Don't be so sure.....Reagan was older when he was elected, and he went on to serve two terms despite numerous health problems (high-velocity lead poisoning being one)....

....and the youngest President elected didn't make it through ONE term (see aforementioned health problem).....

....you never know....

[MicroBalrog]

I for one do not want 20-somethings who know nothing, own nothing, and have done nothing controlling my future, economically or in any other way, because some liberal thinks being a featherless biped is the same thing as an informed citizen.

A degree does not a better voter make. Neither does education.

[MechAg94]

IMO, 2012 and 2016 will be about who the younger or next generation of candidates are.  I think McCain only affects them if he really, really sucks.  If someone can come in and clearly communicate good principles of government, I think he can win.  Obama will be back too and with a bit more experience.    

1.  Supreme Court justices are extremely important these days when a court decision seems to have the power to wipe out one of the Bill of Rights.  Heller was only 5 to 4.

2.  Never underestimate the power of the Democrat party to nominate a crappy candidate.  I think the media bias hurts them a lot in that regard.  

3.  Nancy Pelosi is running around right now with a huge foot in her mouth after saying she is trying to "save the planet".  She just gave the House Republicans a good campaign issue.  Who knows what Congress will look like come January?  

[HankB]

With McCain, we might get a moderate SCOTUS judge - think another Anthony Kennedy. Not what we'd want, but if he replaces Breyer, Stevens, Souter, or Ginsberg, that's a net gain. (Don't expect McCain to nominate a REAL conservative or originalist, as that's the type of judge who'd vote to overturn McCain-Lieberman.)

McCain would make a better Commander-in-Chief than B. Hussein Obama.

Beyond that, remember, McCain IS the standard bearer of The Stupid Party. A victory by him will tell the GOP that as long as they're 0.000001% to the right of the democRATS, they can win . . . which would bode ill for the future. The GOP would become a party comprised MOSTLY of RINOs.

BHO, of course, comes from The Evil Party; he's downright dangerous to the Republic, and one of the (very) few people who make Hillary look good.

I can hardly believe I wrote that . . . 

Either way, we are so screwed . . .

[longeyes]

A degree does not a better voter make. Neither does education.

I was not talking about what today passes all too often for "higher education."  It's not about degrees, it's about experience, knowledge of the world, of life, good judgment, sound values.  I think we would agree on that. Indeed, many degreed people in the younger set are merely advanced products of indoctrination, nothing more.

As for the value of education, you can't have a thriving Republic when so many supposedly educated people are totally bereft of any knowledge of basic economics or fundamental civics and history.  Countries don't run themselves, they are run by smart, aware people who are clear on what they value most and know how to preserve and advance it.  It's a hands-on business.  We are trying to run a society based on consumerism and pop culture.  We have been telling ourselves this system was working--because that's what a lot of government and business interests have wanted us to think--but it plainly isn't.  This current cultural matrix has produced leftists like Obama and Hillary and hybrids like McCain.

[FTA84]

I for one do not want 20-somethings who know nothing, own nothing, and have done nothing controlling my future, economically or in any other way, because some liberal thinks being a featherless biped is the same thing as an informed citizen

Right.  The older people should decide how to spend the younger people's money (old people would not vote to raise the age to qualify for SS, ect.).  The problem is everyone has an interest in the way this country is going, like it or not, informed or not.  Young people are the ones who got RR elected in the 80's.

I predict this country will do nothing about the pending entitlement programs and in a few years, when people can't be paid what they put in the system, the young people are going to vote in the next leader based on this topic.

[Regolith]

I for one do not want 20-somethings who know nothing, own nothing, and have done nothing controlling my future, economically or in any other way, because some liberal thinks being a featherless biped is the same thing as an informed citizen. 

Right.  We should deny them whippersnappers the right to vote so that know nothing done nothing baby boomers can vote to massively increase their social security benefits so they can retire early while living off the backs of them do nothing youngins.   

[alex_trebek]

I am more worried about the immediate effects of McCain being elected. 

I think the GOP got the message when McCain only received 60-70% of the vote in the primary AFTER he was the nominee.  I think that the libertarian party will probably have a record number of votes this year (record breaking for them), and the GOP will notice. 

Also this depends on the final number of votes between Obama/McCain.  The GOP will draw a conclusion from a tight margin, compare total number of votes, republican membership rates, democrat membership rates, etc.  Whether the conclusion will be right or not is debatable.

[MechAg94]

Actually, I have heard that SC judges might be one of the few places that McCain might line up with conservatives.  At least he has supported conservative judge nominations in the past and helped get them through the Senate. 

[longeyes]

Whoa.  I'm not trying to generate age war here, brothers.  Young people shouldn't have to carry oldsters and oldsters shouldn't have their wealth involuntarily transferred.  If we had a soundly financed privatized SS system retireees would have a lot more money and it wouldn't be on the backs of the younger generation.  I am saying that people who have no current economic stake in the nation have no moral right to act as if they own part of other people's treasure.  If you disagree, you're on the way to being a good socialist, congratulations.  Fact is, both young AND old are getting screwed--by the usual suspects.

[ilbob]

Some of you guys are just so far out it is amazing you don't die of laughter at your own posts.

The republican party needs to present a contrast to the democratic party to be viable. If they are just a weak kneed sister to the dems, people have no reason to vote for them.

The republicans had a chance to effect real change when they came up with the contract with America. it was a bold and consistent plan to improve America. too bad they abandoned it for a few million bucks worth of earmarks.

The very few people who hate religion are so small in numbers that they are insignificant in any election, even less important than libertarians and the constitution party. The so called religious right is not going to move to the CP. That is just a wet dream for the haters of religion. Nor is the Lp party going to attract liberals in any numbers. Liberals are in favor of ever increasing government. They just are not going to vote to reduce the size of government.