Follow up question? Is it a good idea to see the country hurt as much as possible so that a “true conservative” will be in a better position to win four years from now?

The GOP did not appoint John McCain its standard bearer. There was a primary election in which McCain received the most votes. Does that not mean anything to you? Do you not realize that you insult everyone who voted for McCain everytime you threaten to stay home on election day?

Let’s say that you get your way, and enough conservatives stay home on election day to guarantee an Obama/Hillary victory. You will bear some of the blame for the disaster that follows, and I do not want to hear a single one of you complain. You will have lost that right by failing to vote.

Let’s assume again that in 4 years social conservatives manage to win the GOP nomination. Would you expect those who voted for McCain to vote for your guy? Why? You did not support the GOP candidate in this race, so why should other factions in the GOP support the social conservative?

McCain was not my first choice, but he is the GOP nominee. you cannot honestly believe that he is no better than Hillary/Obama.

Okay, call me cynical, but it looks like fun times are coming ’round the bend!

Grafted on April 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Perhaps nearing time to ‘lock and load’. Thank the Lord for the 2nd amendment!!

Okay, call me cynical, but it looks like fun times are coming ’round the bend!

fossten on April 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM

But what else can be done at this point anyway?

Sure, we can start making sure a McCain never happens again, but it’s already happened. That can’t be taken back. So what else is there to do but try and defeat the Dems?

I really don’t want President McCain, but I really, really don’t want President Obama or President Clinton (again).

I didn’t get to see last night’s debate live, but I’ve mostly caught up thanks to soundbytes and transcripts. It sounds like Barack Obama has a really bad night, but we need to keep things in perspective here. Barack Obama should have…

McCain should pick a VP who appeals to Hillary’s voters on image

You mean nasty, stupid and ugly?

I was also amazed by that show of hands…this could mean a replay of the 1968 convnetion riots if either side thinks (knows) their candidate is being sold out.

And the good ship GOP tacks further to the Center, dragging it’s members along, intent on marginalizing conservatives forever, unless of course they lose in November. Then………

davecatbone on April 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM

And then we all go down with the ship. Seems to me that tacking is a whole lot better than sinking.

Forget it conservatives, the country has listed too far to the left to ever go significantly in the other direction.

It is clear that Rush wants the lessor of 2 3 liberals

Dollayo on April 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Biggest factor: one of these three will become President in 2008 and which one will do the least damage. Sitting out will gurantee someone else selects the President. I know the liberals/leftists of the Democrat Party know who they will vote for either Obama or Hillary – a democrat victory by either candidate is too important for them. They know McCain is their enemy even if he is not always a conservative’s friend.

Exit question one: Won’t this hurt him with Republicans? Nah. Where are they going to go?

Answer: As I’ve noted on this site before, McCain needs a significant part of the Republican vote to win. This kind of strategy could well be what keeps him out of the White House. He will get more Democratic and Independent votes, but fewer conservative Republican votes, than previous Republican candidates.

If I’m right, the difference will be enough to give us a Democratic president next term.

Yay. (sarc).

For the first time ever, I must say that Limbaugh is off message. He’s focused on defeating both Hillary and Obama and he’s ignoring the reality that McCain is a liberal.

I’m very disappointed. I’ve listened to Rush since 1992 and up until now I thought he was a lighthouse. Now I see he’s just a billboard.

fossten on April 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM

This would expose the fact that you don’t understand the message. In a general election, your choices become A or B, not A-Z or B. Apply some basic logic to this equation and see if that helps.

I remember multiple times in Luntz’s focus groups that Fred Thompson was doing great, everybody liked what he was saying, etc.

I guess that didn’t turn out what actually happened, huh?

I wish that guy read HA because he needs to know that he is a moron. He obviously isn’t smart enough to realize that himself.

Bush’s approval rating is in the 30′s.
Congress’s in the 20′s…
Obama’s negatives 50…
Hillarys 56???….

People registered independent are now 1/3 of the electorate…

Folks… neither of these 2 parties are doing a good job…

SouthernDem on April 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM

The “7 months to be convinced” is being convinced to vote for McCain, not Obama or Clinton. I admit I wasn’t clear on that last point. The Democratic party doesn’t require any assistance to destroy itself; though it appears they are being helped. McCain may fit into the analogy,”For lack of a nail, the battle was lost.” It’s going to be that close.IMO.

Comparing 1988 to now is not valid. In 1988 there was not a competitive primary race for Republicans like there was in the beginning of the primaries this year.

LevStrauss on April 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM

H.W. had primary challengers…but lets just post Fredosso’s history he reported which also included 1980.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjFjNTM4YTM3OWQwZDNjZDFjNDZlOTBlN2NlODA3ZTg=

In the open election of 1988, 23 million Democrats voted in primaries, as did 12 million Republicans. Yes, you’re reading that correctly. Nearly twice as many Democrats voted. That was a precursor to President Michael Dukakis’s election.

In 1980, Democrats actually had an incumbent president, who was challenged by Ted Kennedy. Republicans, meanwhile, had a competitive primary between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Democrats cast 16.1 million votes in their primaries that year, compared to just (corrected) 12.7 million for Republicans. We all know what happened in Jimmy Carter’s second term, don’t we?

The only times Republicans have outnumbered Democrats in primaries in the last 35 years were 2000 and 1996 — both years when Republicans were sick of being out of power. Even in those years, Republican turnout was only slightly higher than Democratic turnout.

That’s where the Democrats are now — they are sick of being out of power. Plus, they’ll probably still be choosing their nominee in July, so expect their advantage to climb. Their turnout is higher, just as it always has been, it shouldn’t come as any surprise.

By historical standards vis-a-vis the Republicans, Democrats’ turnout this year has been no great shakes, even if it is going to shatter the records in the numerical sense. Or maybe Republican turnout has been slightly high. But it’s no surprise that more people vote when their primary actually means something, is it?

I stand behind my belief that it will be Lieberman.

LevStrauss on April 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM

That would certainly make things interesting, if only to see the reaction from the Leftist fever swamp. Especially if he does it, and the ticket wins.

And it would make history-within an 8 year period, a former Democrat VP nominee becomes the VP nominee for a Republican.

Pass the Jiffy-Pop…

Exit question one: Won’t this hurt him with Republicans? Nah. Where are they going to go?

Write-in, AP. Interested in heading the all-blogger ticket? :-)

Exit question two: Why is Limbaugh so invested in Operation Chaos, anyway? Doesn’t he hate McCain? Or is he part of the answer to exit question one?

It’s a matter of degrees of hate. As much as Limbaugh hates McCain, he hates the ‘Rats that much more.

Exit question one: Won’t this hurt him with Republicans? Nah. Where are they going to go?

Here, or to the house. But if you’re right, we’ll be replaced by McCain-supporting Democrats, which strikes me as wholly appropriate.