I was reading the replies to the Wirs' column yesterday, but couldn't post due to technical glitches, so I'll pose my questions here.

As usual, many folks came down on the vote for the lesser of both evil sides, because of the one core conservative issue that McCain is generally viewed as having going for him: national defence.  Although quite frankly I find some of the doomsday scenarios with respect to Obama a bit far-fetched.  Would it be a good thing?  No, it would be a very bad thing.  But to read some posts, you'd think that after four years of Obama Arabic would become the new official language of the U.S., which is getting pretty far out there.  I mean honestly, the world won't come to an end, it just won't be as nice a place as it otherwise would.

Nevertheless, I personally like the idea of doing the fighting in their back yard, not your own.  So staying active in the Middle East is not the worst idea I've heard and taken in context McCain's comment about staying there for 100 years is of no consequence.   So McCain's willingness to continue to bring the fight to them is a good thing.

However, the direct threat posed by Muslim terrorists to most Americans, and where Americans are most vulnerable, is not over there, but here.  Isn't preventing them from arriving here an important part of national security in the war on terror?  Now if you think about how they can get here, what comes to mind?  The exceedingly porous Southern border that McCain has absolutely no desire to control.  Wasn't it the Fort Dix Six that were muslim terrorists who mostly entered the US from Mexico?   A dirty bomb or nuclear device smuglled across the border and detonated in the U.S. is a lot closer to being the end of the world type stuff, and can anyone honestly claim with a straight face that there is any kind of significant difference between McCain and Obama that would affect this?

Also, how many of the September 11th hijackers were here on fraudulant or expired visas?  How many would not have been around with a half-decent immigration control and enforcemnt system?    Another question: if you legalize millions of people through amnesty, or any other name that stinks the same, can you look the American people in the eye and swear that no terrorist in the U.S. illegally will be able to benefit from that?  McCain has demonstrated through proposed legislation, legislation bearing his name for crying out loud, that he has no intention of going there, either.  Another draw, as far as I'm concerned.

 Or, in the end, do we have to pretend that a secure border and immigration control are issues completely unrelated to national security in order to give McCain his one core conservative issue?

The reason I ask is because I think that calling the Republicans the Stupid Party is wholly inadequate. 

What brings about this latest round of Republican Party bashing you ask?  Well, I was reading the comments to Chuck Norris' recent column, and came across this comment by ted (# 67), regarding the performance of Congress since the Democrats took control in 2006.  Or rather the lack thereof.  I am going to copy it below, and, when you read it, bear in mind as I did that the Republicans are expected to suffer further losses in both Houses this year, a prediction I unfortunately agree with.

"Subject: Its Oil and the Economy Stupid

***
________US snapshot since DEMOCRAT CONTROL 06
________and Bush Lame Duck:

________GASOLINE PRICES DOUBLED AND CLIMBING
________ADAMENT REFUSAL TO TAP OUR OWN ___RESOURCES
________UNEMPLOYMENT RAMPANT AND GROWING
________NEW TAXES PROPOSED
________NEW SPENDING BILLS PROPOSED
________ENDLESS WHINING & COMPLAINING
________ENDLESS FINGER POINTING
________ENDLESS HEARINGS
________ABANDONED; THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE
________labeled ; THE DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS

________CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL RATING
********************10%********************

________EXPECT MORE OF THE SAME"

So, although a three-legged lab-rat would win a race by several lengths against these jackasses, somehow the Republican Party can't even make itself competitive?  It is to weep.

And why do you suppose this is?  Could it be that maybe, just maybe, it's because a lot of the above was also true when the Republicans had the whole enchilada?  That adopting many of your opponents habits and positions is not the best strategy?

Perhaps it has something to do with the party's current chief spokesman, McCain, having even more in common with the Democrats than Bush does?   Here's a radical idea, why not field a candidate that distinguishes himself from his opponent on more than one major issue, while agreeing with the party's base on more than one major issue?  We here have plenty of solid ideas on issues and ideas, yet the RNC's brain-trust is apparently brain-dead because they apparently keep seeking advice from Teddy Kennedy and Wolf Blitzer.  It's enough to have you shout out your own Dean Scream.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/06/10/congress,_get_off_your_gas,_and_drill?page=full&comments=true

I was over at Rush's website today, and he and I agree on many things when it comes to how the conservative movement should be rebuilt.  Of course, what makes life more interesting is our little disagreements.

Rush:  I have a fear that John McCain secretly wants to destroy the Republican Party.  After he gets the election, if he does, he's going to take out after conservatives.  I just think he's going to come after conservatives as much as any liberals would. Where we are is we have squandered every victory we had since 1993, 1994, the House Republican freshman class taking over Bush winning in 2000 and 2004 with a majority Republican Congress for much of his two terms, we squandered it.

Me: That's an understatement.

Rush: The first midterm election is the target here.  Not 2012, but 2010.

Me:  Again, correct.  We need a new wave of conservative lawmakers akin to those elected under the Contract With America.

Rush: The first order of business, regardless who wins the presidency, 'cause it's not going to matter, the first order of business will be to continue to discredit liberalism in the eyes of as many people as possible.  They, liberals and liberalism, must and will be the continued target, because they're moving the agenda that our side is accepting.

Me: Sure, and between Rush, GunnyG and the Crawfish we've got that pretty much covered.

Rush: Well, there's a second reason for voting for McCain -- I hate to say makes sense -- but there's another reason to put in that column, let me put it that way, and that is taxes. (The first was foreign policy, identified by a caller)

Me: While Rush is hardly endorsing McCain, I personally have a strong belief that who the next President is does matter because a McCain Presidency is antithetical to the goal of rebuilding the conservative movement through the election of conservative representatives.

First of all, one of the reasons why the House Republican freshman class was successful was because they had Bubba to run against.   There’s no Contract With America if the sitting President had been a Republican.  How can there be a Republican revolution in Congress if the President is also a Republican (even if he really should be a Democrat)?  Also, the reason they were able to continue to be successful, both in terms of  what was accomplished legislatively and in the following elections was there ability to define and fight for who they were and against who they weren't , i.e. Bubba and the Dems.  

Once Bush was electing he did the defining of who the Repuclicans were, which turned out not to be very conservative, and they couldn 't/wouldn't fight against Bush when he wasn't being conservative.  How would that be any different for elected members of the Houses under McCain?

Secondly, by virtue of his becoming President, McCain redefines the image of the party, both publicly and in terms of its internal machinery.  Also, the term conservative gets to be further redefined by McCain and more significantly the media.  It’s hard enough to be conservative now, how many of us would still wish to be called conservative when it means being like him? 

This is the greatest of all potential disasters.  I give you two words, Brian Mulroney.  He was a Conservative Party Prime Minister in Canada for two terms (1985-1993), and when he was elected for his first term led the largest majority government in Candian history. 

However, by the end of his second term his image was so tarnished that in the following election his party was reduced to just two seats from 151 in the House of Commons, two out of just under 300.  Things were so bad that a second ‘conservative’ party was formed and had a member elected even before the general election in 1993.  Yep, those votes were sure thrown away.  And the Conservative party was effectively banished to the wilderness for 13 years, not returning to power until 2006, and then only with a minority government.

So to all those who say Obama must be stopped at all costs so hold your nose, with both hands if necessary, and vote McCain, I say the following.  We all know that Obama will only have one term, well unless the stupid party manages to help re-elect him.  The same is likely true of McCain.  And it is also probably true that Obama will inflict slightly more damage to the country than McCain over the course of that term.  However what is worse, the incremental damage from Obama for one term or the damage done by the raft of successive Democrat Presidents and Congressional majorities that a McCain Presidency would be very likely to engender?