Of course, your main point remains - it will likely increase the damage that McCain will do, too.

Here is how it starts:

Picture a President John McCain , next January, making his first appeal to Congress. What might that message entail? Certainly, it will include something about Iraq, and the war on terror, and other elements of national security and defense that will put him at odds with the majority Democrats.

But then, the new president will turn his attention to his domestic agenda. And he likely will be facing a Congress with larger majorities of Democrats than it now has. The electoral math all but guarantees Democratic gains in the Senate. The House looks pretty good for them, too. If President McCain wants legislative victories, he will have to turn to those majorities to get them enacted.

And he will be happy to do so. That’s how McCain has always operated, and there is no reason to believe that if he becomes president, he will operate in any other manner.

Yep…..that’s what I’m talking about.

Second is the question of what Republicans in Congress will do. Please don’t think that I believe many of them are going to suddenly grow backbones - Not. Going. To. Happen. But, with Hillary in office, it is the electorate who will provide the spine-stiffener. Haven’t you noticed how the prospect of losing an election will concentrate the mind of a politician? For the best recent example, notice McCain’s current campaign…..is he talking like he did back in Washington in 2005? On the other hand, with McCain in office, acting like he did BEFORE the campaign, how effective will that spine-stiffener be? With many Repubs, it will work just fine…..but on the left side of the curve, we’re going to lose a lot of them. Again, if you analyze the situation, without regard to your feelings about who you’ll vote for in the end, what answer do you come up with?

(And yes, I denominated myself a blockhead, because I recognize that you’re a more sophisticated thinker in this area than I am.)

When caught between the Scylla and Charybdis, there’s a temptation just to abandon ship, isn’t there? I have the very unpleasant sensation this election cycle that there are no good options, only bad ones.

Still, and with all due respect to your very well-reasoned, well-thought-out arguments, I’m going to cast my luck with McCain — at least for the time being. Maybe after being a conservative for such a short time relative to my whole voting career, I just can’t bear the thought of flip-flopping right back into Democratic arms.

I do want to thank Tap, who has clearly expressed my concerns in a different way, a way that may assist others to understand that we’re not simply daft. Mike may be correct in his assessment of the future - none of us really know what is going to happen. I’m not so sanguine about McCain’s real “core”, if there is one…..he has played to the media and the leftists (think of all those bills where he combined with enemies of conservatism - has he EVER gotten together to write a bill with someone that he SAYS he identifies with?) so consistently over a such a long time that I wonder why so many are so eager to assume that he is either a conservative, or that we can count on him to act like one when he becomes President. What is the source of that confidence? Or should we call ilt “hope”?

I think it’s unlikely that the leopard is going to change his spots, is all. Does ANYONE doubt that the “drive-by media” has chosen the Republican candidate? Are we really going to simply rationalize the choice in terms of how well this can turn out, rather than ask ourselves WHY this man is the Dems’ and the media’s favorite Republican? My answer is that he’s their favorite because he really *isn’t* what he claims to be. And for reasons clearly enunciated by Tap, I think that presents us with the real possibility that he would be a bigger danger than Hillary.

NOT that he will drag genuine conservatives to the middle — I don’t see that happening. But, there is a bell curve over the Republicans in Congress in terms of their conservatism. And those on the left side of the curve are going to be tempted to “cooperate for the good of the country” with those who are the enemies of property rights; who are the enemies of a comprehensively stout defense of Western Civilization and the United States; who are the enemies of certain parts of the Bill of Rights; who are the enemies of those who see American citizenship as a reward for demonstrated respect for the rule of law and the culture of our nation; etc., etc. And John McCain has NOT shown himself to be stalwart in these areas, folks — or, if he has and I’ve missed it, please come up with examples of his ACTIONS prior to the current Presidential campaign.

Conservatives must recalibrate now:
http://thoughtyoudneverask.blogspot.com/2008/02/recalibrating-where-we-stand.html

And claiming that McCain in the White House will pull conservative Republicans to center, I think is an absurd proposition. Bush in the White House did not do that; his “centrist” policies galvanized conservatives to fight against them. I agree it is still better to have a centrist Republican in the White House standing against a Democrat-led Congress than it is to have a Democrat in the White House leading a Democrat-led Congress. I hope conservatives will take the time to consider that carefully.

That would be NOTHING compared to having to battle Hillary and a Democrat Senate and House.

A fight is what it will take to keep McCain’s worst in check:
- Once the border is secure, McCain will try for some sort of amnesty package. But so did Bush. Easily defeated and prevented. (There’s help from the left on this one; many don’t want it either)
- Supreme Court justices: This should be easier than George Bush. You won’t see a Harrier Myers nominated. If there is any problem, though, a fight will take care of it.
- Lower taxes: McCain will lower taxes only if there are spending cuts associated with it. He will hold the line on current tax cuts. That’s not too bad of a position to take.
- Guantanamo Bay and “torture” : This one might be difficult. I think we can find a way around the problem. McCain will keep up (otherwise) a VERY VERY strong offense against the jihadists. He’s no friend of Saudi Arabia, home of the Wahhabis and madrassas that preach jihad, so we’re better off there.

And in every way, better off than with Hillary or Barack!

‘Yeah, he’s not so great, but look…he’s better than them on two…no THREE! yeah, three issues! The contrast is to Hillary Clinton, no less. Who would’ve dreamed 2 years ago that we would possibly be debating whether our Republican nominee is better than HILLARY CLINTON?

Where is the leadership in McCain?

I’m still torn on the whole thing. I think the argument Earl brought up has a lot of merit. The way things work in D.C., a member of congress HAS to support his President the vast majority of the time if he doesn’t want to ruin his career.

Now, the thing that scares us about McCain is his liberal policies…so we know we won’t be able to count on opposition from the Dems…they’ll just be pushing things further in that direction…and we all know McCain how much McCain loves to make them (and the left-leaning media) happy.

So who will apply the brakes? No one, as far as I can tell. The only exceptions to party loyalty in D.C. comes from ‘mavericks’ like McCain…but those ‘mavericks’ NEVER go out on a limb alone. They join up with the other party -and that won’t be an option in this case- that’s the direction we don’t want it to go.

As a matter of fact, that has been the source of McCain’s power..his constant threat to vote with the Dems has gained him huge influence within the Rep. party. The Republicans HAD to constantly check in with him and make sure he had what he wanted or he would put their majority at risk. Remember Jeffers? Same thing.

That won’t work in this situation. Mavericks going against a liberal agenda cannot threaten the Republican Party in any way. There is nowhere for them to go, no one to team up with….all they can do is ruin their own career. So who applies the brakes?