Do We Want To Win This Election?

I'd rather risk that than the democrats controlling the 2010 census.  If they control the census, the numbers will be so far off the mark it won't be funny.  Blue states will see amazing surges in population out of a desire to "account for the undocumented" so as to avoid any more shift away from rust belt to the sun belt.

If Gore had won, he would have inherited a recession, there would have been no tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and Gore would have badly mishandled 9/11.  Yeah there probably would have been at least another major terrorist attack before January 20, 2005 when he would be leaving office but it might have been worth it.

The 2002 midterms and 2004 congressional elections would have probbaly turned out the same perhaps even better for the GOP.  That godforsaken assclown Mark Warner probably would never have been VA governor (the recent trend is the party that loses the WH in the previous year wins the VA governorship the following year).  And Al Gore would have faced a primary '04 (probably from Hillary) which is a sure sign he would lose in November 2004 since the last 3 presidential incumbents to lose all faced primary challenges.

We would have a chance for a real conservative to run in 2004 and maybe win our nomination (assuming we would have somebady who would beat RINO McCain).  And he would win and nominated justices like Roberts and Alito and we would better suited for finally dealing with this Democrat-created mortage mess.  I don't know if there would have been an Iraq war starting in '05 (we know Al Gore wouldn't have gone after Saddam besides maybe the occasional wag the dog bombing of an aspirin factory or something along those lines a la Clinton's example) but if so I am sure it would have played out better if it did, but then again Saddam should have been dealt with during the first Gulf War anyways (thank you Colin Powell).

In your above scenario, Kerry would have appointed two left-wing justices in place of Rehnquist and O'Connor and they would have ruled aginst in Heller thus rendering our 2nd Amendment rights a dead letter.

Most importantly right now we can not allow the Obamunist anywhere near the WH lest we want to live in a third world, socialist hell hole run by corrupt elites.

Exactly why I am actually an undecided voter, Sean.

I was never a big fan of McCain, I understand his personal attributes and his policy inclinations.  Some of his background is a good fit for the Presidency in this time and place, some is not a good fit.  Then again, the only elections I have ever been confident about making a positive pick (rather than voting against the alternative) have been 1980 and 1984.

Obama is inexperienced, his background and associates suggest his instincts are pretty far to the left, but he is clearly intelligent and seems to have a cautious disposition.  His advocates can assert that he would grow into the demands of the office, they just cannot support that with any hard evidence.

The next four years could be very tough indeed, and the winner may well regret attaining the burdens of the office, like a thirsty man drinking from a poisoned chalice.  And the Republican party and the right generally may not renew themselves while trying to cling on to the executive and a supporting role as a minority in Congress.

Whoever wins, I hope he serves the country well.  The President is an executive job and can only do so much anyhow, Congress and the economy and world events will be more significant.  Not every four years do we require a Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Reagan, and those people who bundle up all their hopes and aspirations in a candidate for President are just plain silly.

So if losing the White House in 2008 is the price the Republicans have to pay in order to build a better, smarter, less corrupted team and vision for the future, well, we just might have to pay that price.

But I'm not sure resigning to defeat is a good thing.  If Kerry had won, it would have been a nightmare. If Obama wins, this will mean a Democratic controlled house, senate and executive branch. This is not the checks and balances our nation needs. For those undecided, I'd urge you to consider this facet and what it would mean. I'd hate the Republicans to continue to have a negative image, but would rather take a negative image than afull frontal leftist government.

Oh, and please stop calling Obama "Messiah" - it's a slam, but implies a recognition that he is not worthy of.

You'll have a choice?

If current trends continue, the GOP will be relegated to a small-sized regional party, centered on the Old Confederacy. 

Santorum and Gingrich and deLay's dream of a dominant GOP, permanently feeding on the mountains of money incumbency brings from Wall Street and Corporate America is basically over, done in by the greed and selfishness of those GOP leaders who lined their pockets first, and who abused their power.

Na, you guys are going back to what you were in the 70's and 80's:  Lone voices whining in the wilderness, your rightful place since you do not represent mainstream values, but are beholden to the extremists you brought in to achieve your temporary majority.

Sean,

As you say "Now the counter-argument to all this -- and it is not a small one -- is that we would have lost Iraq." Vietnam is a ghost that keeps on haunting and Kerry would have seen to it that we would have had the twin ghosts of Vietnam and Iraq to haunt and hinder our foreign policy for decades to come. A Iraq war would have reinforced all the wrong lessons of Vietnam. Any future military action would face the question 'do we want another Vietnam and Iraq?' That would be a persuasive argument against military action for many Americans for quite a few decades. At the same time foreign powers would have less reason to take America seriously, encouraging all sorts of regional wars. A Bush loss in 2004 would not have been good for the country, even if it would have been good for Republicans in the long term.

We can tackle our domestic issues on our own time. All the participants are Americans, after all. Foreign affairs, on the other hand, involves many actors other then ourselves. Many nations would not hesitate to take advantage of a preoccupied or inept America. We simply cannot afford that as every foreign policy problem that we have ignored has only come back to haunt us bigger and badder then before. A prime example: Had we not been so timid because of the supposed Vietnam lesson, Bush Sr. might have dealt with Iraq in during the first war.

I remember thinking back then that we could suffer a president who doesn't take the ever ill named WoT seriously in 2008 after we had won the Iraq war. I could not, however, have imagined how bad the democratic candidate would be in 2008. Better to consider the rebound that would result from an Obama presidency as the silver lining to a McCain defeat, should it occur, then as something we may desire.

Here in Illinois, there was an awful lot of talk a loss in 2002 would bring us back better than ever next time.  Or at least the time after that.

Guess how well that worked out.

What you call "the longer view," I call horse crap.  Losing is not a strategy, ever.  The popular meme about Carter causing Reagan is a textbook example of the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.  Reagan was a rising star in 1976, and to argue that he never would have become President if Ford had won in 1976 is pure speculation.  Even if one assumes that one event did cause the other, the trade-off was lousy.  After one term of Carter and two terms of Reagan, we still had a Department of Education, Iran was still a major threat to world stability, the Ninth Circuit was still a hotbed of leftist judicial activism, and we still hadn't gotten the Panama Canal back.  Come to think of it, all these problems persist to this day, as does Carter himself constantly undermining U.S. foreign policy like only an ex-President can.  If all this and more was the price we had to pay for two terms of the Gipper, then with all due respect to the Gipper price was far too high.

At least Carter didn't get to appoint any Supreme Court Justices.  Next time around, there's no reason to assume we will be so lucky.  If Kerry had won in 2004, the Second Amendment would have been wiped off the face of the earth by a 6-3 margin, and there isn't a damned thing the most Republican Senate imaginable could (or would) have done to stop it then, nor is there anything a future Republican President and Senate could do to fix it in the foreseeable future.  One-tenth of the Bill of Rights would simply be gone.  Today's Iraq would be every bit the threat to the region that Iran is, only this time the two countries would likely be aligned. 

Yes, the next President will inherit a crummy economy that probably won't go perfect overnight.  So what?  That doesn't mean he'll get blamed for it, as unlike the Clinton/Bush recession, everyone will remember that things went south on his predecessor's watch, not his.  No one blamed FDR for the Great Depression, even though by all right they probably should have, as it was his New Deal that made the depresssion "great."

Maryland elected its first Republican governor in 36 years in 2002. As governor, former congressman Robert Ehrlich managed an increasingly large state budget by making relevant adjustments in spending, and, yes, by raising some fees. However, Ehrlich did not raise taxes as governor. Likewise, Ehrlich blunted Democratic efforts at growing government unnecessarily, and similar legislative efforts regarding immigration.

Unfortunately, the unpopularity of George Bush and Republicans in 2006 cost Ehrlich his reelection bid. Now, under a former Baltimore mayor, Marylanders are paying higher taxes, and will face a revenue charade in referendum at the polls in November. Meanwhile, businesses, hit hard by the new taxes of the O'Malley administration, are suffering along with Maryland residents and families.

I tend to think that Robert Ehrlich would have been reelected had Kerry won the White House in the 2004 election. Had that been the case, Maryland would probably be doing better than it is today, and a promising "red" governor in a "blue" state would continue to inspire young conservatives in an out of Maryland. It may even be possible that we would be talking today about Republican presidential nominee Robert Ehrlich had Kerry defeated Bush. However, I wonder how many other promising governorships ended because of the difficulties of these four years.

As such, I found the post being commented upon here to be apt. We don't always want to win the presidency, it's true. However, at the same time, we don't want to plague the country with the sort of Democratic one-party rule that is the norm in Maryland either.

Just because there may be a silver lining that doesn't negate the existence of the cloud.

The raison d'etre of a political party is to win. 

You don't advance your agenda if you aren't ever in office, and we don't know what events will unfold in the next four years.  Probably an economic recovery by 2010 that the next Prez can "claim" credit for.  Victory in Iraq.  You wanna hand Obama the victory in Iraq that McCain fought so hard for?

I can't believe what I just read. With friends like this, who (on McCain's side) needs the Obama campaign?

McCain respresents fiscal responsibility. Last I heard we had an outrageous national debt and an unpredictable but surging creditor nation in China. You really think four years from now, after a Democratic administration and Congress, this situation is going to be more palatable? This election may be the last opportunity to get a handle on the national debt.