I'm afraid I respectfully dis-agree. A McCain nomination would split the Republican Party and ensure the election of whomever the Democrats run. The Far-left has been doing a terrific job of destroying the traditional Democrat base. Why should the Republicans try to out-do them in this arena and sell-out on principle at the same time? I believe a conservative or even a centrist Republican with charisma, (not a Bob Dole and not a Rhino), could defeat the traitorous left with no problem.

Mark,

I agree with Bindare4u it would greatly spilt the party. Granted I don't think we should pick me as I am way to far to the right for a Nominee but a good Slightly Con. Republican will be a good choice. We only need to pull in the middle not middle left. I think we already tried that once his name was Dole and much of the base stayed home. So I personal feel that you need to rethink that idea. Not to mention the money problems there would be for them.

Robert

bindare4u and Robert,

I don't know if it would split the right all that much - but it would certainly split the Democratic Party. A McCain/Lieberman ticket would ensure that no Democrat would score more than 30% of the vote in 2008 - and if the right splits over this, then I can't see the right wing candidate scoring more than 10% (the difficulty in settling on a third Party conservative and then getting him on the ballot, etc) - a McCain/Lieberman ticket should easily capture 60 to 70% of the vote...a crushing victory for a ticket overtly pre-committed to winning the War on Terrorism.

Meanwhile, McCain is no liberal - he ticks off we conservatives all the time but, come on!, he's a GOPer from Arizona who holds Goldwater's old seat...as liberal as he might allegedly be, he's far more conservative than such GOPers as Snowe, Collins and Chaffee. Additionally, Lieberman is socially a lot more conservative than most people know - and freed from any need to placate the left, he might surprise a lot of people in a forceful defense of traditional values.

We would have to put up with a bit of liberalism - but liberalism will also have to put up with a bit of conservatism. This is about the nation, not the Party. There is that chance that as 2008 comes in that we're in such a position in the War that victory is clearly certain...if that is the case, then we can ignore this issue and fight it out on a purely partisan basis...take our 51% victory and move on, as it were. But if the war is ongoing and uncertain - as I believe it still will be - then we need, for our own safety, a united America.

America is divided - and while it isn't as divided as the news media indicates, foreigners can easily get the impression that we are riven with faction and will never come together...and our armed enemies can watch CNN and tell themselves, "fight a bit more" and America will quit. I want to win this war because it is vital - and we need to win it in the next 5 to 10 years because we've got other problems looming (most notably China) which we will not be able to deal with if we're still fighting terrorism in 2020 - or having to refight what we messed up because an anti-war Democrat was sworn in on January 20th, 2009. I service of such a goal, I'm willing to put up with quite a lot.

Hey Mark,

Nice post. I agree with you that the next president must have a steel of backbone just as President Bush does. For me, I can't imagine a president other than President Bush. Senator McCain would be a good president to fight the war on terror for the most part. I think he has many flaws though, such as this feel good terrorism bill and he tends to like the spotlight too much. Would he blow with the changing poll numbers? Also Senator McCain is too wishy washy for me regarding the abortion issue. He claims to be pro life, but when I listen to him speak on the issue, I don't have alot of confidence in his seriousness on the issue. You get the feeling like after listening to kerry speak. You say to yourself, "what?". Joe Lieberman, other than Iraq, is way to liberal on every other issue. I don't think I could hold my noise hard enough to pull the leever for them. How about Jeb Bush/Dick Cheney! I wouldn't even have to change my signs from 2004!

Well who would be more conservative, McCain-Lieberman or Clinton-Feingold? This could be the matchup, and if you think conservatives are really dumb enough to stay home or waste their votes on a third party conservative candidate again(pulling a Perot), I think you are mistaken. McCain is not my first choice either, but the alternative is too scary to think about.

James,

Good points, all - but I think, also, that a bit of McCain these days is merely not being President Bush - there is a bit of resentment, I think, left over from 2000. Once in office in his own right, we might find that McCain adheres to a fairly rightwing viewpoint...and, meanwhile, the House will still be firmly in conservative hands and thus provide the necessary ballast to keep McCain from doing anything weird.

Yikes!

I don't see this ticket hurting Democrats at all. In fact, I think most of them would be delighted to be rid of Lieberman. After all, have we forgotten his standing in the primaries?

I can't vote for McCain. The man is unstable. Have we forgotten about his attack on the First Amendment? Have we forgotten about his attack on this country through his so-called "torture" bill?

If we want a centrist ticket it would make more sense to run Giliani.

However, I have to say I'm a lot more concerned about '06 at the moment.

Terri,

Yikes does, indeed, seem to be a common reaction - over at Freep, my little idea is getting hammered.

I'm sticking with it - we need unity in the war: to repair the unity we had which was deliberately destroyed by the left in its desire to have America defeated.

We also need to completely marginalise the left...and I think this is just the ticket to do it.

Mark has a good point. As things stand now, the survival of the entire West (not just the US) depends on the Republicans not losing any national election (Congress and/or President) to the deranged leftist cabal that took over the Democratic Party. That's a very bad situation, because it means having to vote for a Republican, even if he or she is not worthy of the vote. The only way to put an end to it is by utterly destroying leftism, which will probably take a rather unconventional combination of both flavors of Rooseveltism (Teddy for McCain, Franklin D. for Lieberman).

This need not be dramatic for the cause of conservatism, especially when Bush manages to put some more reform projects on the rails (once a certain project is started, it gathers its own constituency). Besides, demographics will make Congress more red for the foreseeable future.

McCain is the dream candidate...for the Democrats. His willingness to make deals for personal political gain will be brought up. His connections to the S&L scandal will be revived and amplified by the MSM. His personal traits such as his temper will be brought up again and again as an indication that he does not have the temperment to be POTUS.

Peter,

That is my view - plus both McCain and Lieberman are rather up in years; they won't be around too much longer, and by 2016 we can hope that the left is marginalised and we can get back to normal liberal/conservative political debates.

Mark,

I think you are way off on this one.

First of all, McCain won't win the GOP nomination (you know that already, if not wake up and look at the primary voters-- on the right, and distrustful of McCain). Second, Lieberman doesn't have the support of many Democrats (charisma aside-- anybody that can make Dick Cheney look good in a debate...) He tried running in 2004, and 'Joe-mentum' got him all the way through two weeks of last place primary finishes, with a whole zero delegates to show for it.

As for your idea that the Republicans can't lose any elections or either house of Congress, that is historically almost impossible and it won't happen. For one thing, even if they break even or even gain a seat or two in the Senate this year, 2008 will be a horrible year for the GOP in the Senate, since they have to defend 23 of 33 seats up that year, quite a few with freshmen. As to the house, for the moment they will probably hold on, but Rahm Emmanuel has done the smart thing in spreading the field by finding Republican districts that can become competitive and recruiting able challengers, and he's been helped in that regard by GOP retirements (including right here in AZ, where Jim Kolbe was a lock for re-election every year, but with him retiring, that district is very competitive-- especially considering that the 2nd and 4th wards in Tucson, the GOP stronghold in a Democratic city, just voted Democratic enough to toss two incumbent Republican council members, Kathleen Dunbar and Fred Ronstadt, just a couple of months ago.) Other retirements in Ohio, Iowa and Colorado have suddenly put what looked like safe GOP congressional districts just a few weeks ago, on the table.

Virtually every GOP house member has taken money at some point from Tom DeLay (who has a battle on his hands as well, at home from former Congressman Nick Lampson), and they all voted for him to be house majority leader, so figure that DeLay will be 'popular' in Democratic ads this year targetting GOP members of Congress.

Eli,

Lets just say that I find it amusing that the Democrats, in the year they are going to fight against an alleged GOP "culture of corruption", have chosen Rahm Emanuel to be their point man. Lets just say that while a GOPer or two might have a skeleton in the closet, Emanuel looks to have a whole graveyard in there. Chosing a Chicago pol to run an anti-corruption campaign...thats like having Al Capone fight against organized crime.

I didn't say that the GOP can't lose an election: I'm saying we MUST not lose an election. The Democratic Party, enthralled to the anti-American left, cannot be trusted with power in the United States - continued support for the GOP is a matter of patriotism these days.

The focus here is to say that since we want to win the war, we'd better ensure that a Republican wins in 2008 - and while we're at it, we might as well try for national unity and the marginalisation of the left. A McCain/Lieberman ticket would do the trick.

McCain, as noted, is not at all popular with the conservative base of the Republican Party - but they aren't going to stay home and watch and overtly anti-war candidate win the White House. I'd bet that at least 90% of the GOP base shows up on election day for John McCain, after all is said and done. But it is by putting Lieberman on the ticket that makes for a crushing victory.

You see, while Joe Lieberman isn't popular among Democrats who show up at primary time, he is mighty popular among centrist Democrats, and he has a lot of respect among independent voters. With the Democrats looking to nominate the most overtly leftwing candidate outside the Communist Party in American history, centrist Democrats and independents will be turned off...but will be turned on to a McCain/Lieberman ticket.

It is by getting 60 or 70% of the vote that we'd both smash the political left in the United States and demonstrate our resolve for victory around the world. Its a two-fer, and something might not be just a possibility to ponder, but a vital necessity for American national security.

Add me to the list of those who don't trust McCain. He is too emotional, too unstable, and too much of a Clintonesque media whore. Look at the positions he has taken because they got him attention and/or poll numbers. Look at his totally irrational bill on torture, following the McCain Feingold fiasco. That so-called finance reform bill was not only a blatant effort to appeal to the left-of-center, it showed a miserable lack of knowledge of economics OR the Constitution.

I don't see McCain having what it takes to run a real war. He did a good job, forty years ago---but he was not a decision-maker. He led a few troops, but he took orders, and his record since then is that he is not competent enough to give orders. He just seems to lack a real grasp of the Big Picture.

Also, for a man who became famous for his fierce loyalty to his men, McCain seems to have very little loyalty to his party or its leaders. While some might find his political meanderings representative of an independent mind, I see them as a search for fame, adulation, and validation. We've already had one president like that in recent memory, and don't need another.

The focus here is to say that since we want to win the war, we'd better ensure that a Republican wins in 2008

Which war? Democrats are completely behind fighting the people who actually attacked us-- in fact, making the war in Afghanistan anything other than the top priority is a mistake.

All I have to say about the war in Iraq, is that it was all of you on the right who, when you rushed into the war in Iraq, predicted it would be over in a few weeks, then the President declared under a giant 'mission accomplished' banner that 'major combat operations' were over, and it was just last year you yourself were telling me that the war was already won. So, if you are worried about 2008, I would suggest that that should give you all the time in the world to finish withdrawing American troops from a war that is already won. So what are you worried about?

Of course the way I've seen it put is this: On May 1, 2003 ('mission accomplished' day), we had won the war at a cost of less than $30 billion, 140 lives and two months. So based on this, we have now won in Iraq at least a dozen times. Isn't it time to get out, or how many more times do you want to win in Iraq?

Oh, and I really love your quote from Rick Santorum: Because IF you use the 'nuclear option' anytime, then if a Democrat wins in 2008 (certainly possible especially given historical patterns) and Democrats control the Senate that year (which the numbers actually make quite likely, see my last post) then you could GUARANTEE more liberal justices, because just like the 'war on drugs' laws that were passed under Reagan and enabled a 'no-knock' raid at Waco, it is amazing how Republicans are so short sighted that they assume that when they pass something like this, only they will ever use it.

You see, Mark, your thought that you must not ever lose an election is ridiculous-- sooner or later you will, unless the people who think that all the Diebold machines have been pre-programmed to elect Republicans are right; and if they are, then Lord help all of us (including you) because it would mean that everything either of us believes in would be a farce.)

BTW, how come you never stick a post on my blog, if nothing else, just to provoke a few responses? I do have a Republican named 'Mark' who sometimes posts there but he is a friend of mine from Snowflake, not you.

Eli,

I do apologise for not spending time on your blog...but, don't feel left out, Dean Esmay and other bloggers are also missing my scintilating comments! I've just been amazingly busy what with buying a new house, moving my dad in with me, getting married...and there are other projects ongoing which you'll learn about in due course.

As for the war we're fighting - same one since 9/11 (or November of 1979, if you want to get technical about it): the war against Islamo-fascism, often called the War on Terrorism. Hitler and Mussolini didn't attack us on December 7th, 1941...but to not fight them in the context of the time would have been as absurd as, well, not liberating Iraq in the context of the War on Terrorism. Its all one war, Eli, and we don't get to opt out of part of it because we'd rather score domestic political points.

As for the "nuclear option"...you see, you Democrats already have an advantage over us: we'd never filibuster a judicial nominee merely on ideological grounds. Ginsburg, a de-facto socialist, sailed through without a hiccup...meanwhile, moderately pro-life justices are filibustered by Democrats. If the Democrats were to win the White House and the Senate in 2008, then they wouldn't need a nuclear option to get liberal justices appointed because we GOPers would never dream of such an interference in executive and judicial operations. We need the nuclear option, however, because you Democrats simply will not play by the rules.

But, it is not to be worried about, we're going to clean up in the 2006 elections, and win handily in 2008...I'm only making my suggestion here because I want it to be a crushing, anti-left victory, rather than just a convention GOP victory.

Think you are in for a bit of a disappointment (and don't forget, last year, when I was being honest and making my best bet, I forecast a narrow win for Bush, and you forecast a landslide; so the track record is that I'm a bit better at separating what I want from what I expect analytically, than you are. And looking at the raw numbers gives me a lot to feel optimistic about in '08.

The idea that Republicans wouldn't use a filibuster? Please. Abe Fortas aside (don't say Republicans would never filibuster a judicial nomination because they already did once), the only reason they didn't use it during the Clinton Presidency was because they didn't have to; they killed nearly a hundred of his judicial nominations by never letting them out of committee (and if Democrats either manage to gain 6 Senate seats this year-- unlikely, or a total of six seats in the next two elections-- much more likely, then even with a GOP President you will see them bottling up nominations in committee, because they will then be able to do that.)

Eli,

I was wrong in the landslide prediction - I never guessed that the left would gin up that mush support for a loser like Kerry. GW matched my expections for vote growth between 2000 and 2004, Kerry far exceeded my expectations. At any rate, a win is a win - and while you Democrats can whine about 65,000 votes in Ohio, less than that number would have given us PA, MI, WI and MN. You can say you came close to winning, I can say we came close to blowing you out of the water.

As for Fortas, we've long disposed of that leftwing canard - Fortas never had majority support in the Senate (ie, he would have failed on a floor vote - something entirely different from the case of the filibustered Bush picks). He was crooked, the Senatorial GOP knew it, and justifiably blocked his advancement.

What you really miss in your number crunching, however, is how few "red" Senators there are in "blue" States - vulnerability is not just number of Senate seats to defend, but how many have to be defended in "enemy" territory, and how many of such seats are open and how many held by long-serving Senators.

Absent a pro-Democrat tidal wave (impossible given the Democrats positions being so out of step with mainstream America), the only changes which can come will be at the margins - and unlikely to be enough, even in a series of elections, to hand the Democrats a House or Senate majority.

Of course, absent a pro-Republican tidal wave, the GOP will have a hard time extending their majorities...but I see a pro-Republican tidal wave coming. It is 1994 again, but just as in 1994 it will be a Democrat melt down.