I think we often forget the tendency of the GOP faithful to make huge ideological concessions, circle the wagons, and get behind whatever candidate they think can win.  If it looks like McCain has momentum, the religious right will grumble, but they will fall in line because they realize that the other alternatives are unacceptable.  If their options are McCain, a Democrat, or being marginalized from the political process, they will get on board with McCain.

My thesis has always been that the so-called "far right" is not nearly as ideologically driven as it is power-driven -- that the "interest groups" on the other side are much less interested in their particular issue or agenda than they are in being a part of power. And the best, really the only, way for the "theocon/K Street" alliance to do that is through unity; its their ability to work together in messaging and mobilization that allows them to gain and hold power with an agenda that appeals to only a narrow segment of American society.

So point being, I think Dobson will jump on the McCain bandwagon as soon as it appears inevitable, which is to say when Ralph Reed adn Tony Perkins tell him that McCains' the guy to back because he'll win.

And this system will work for McCain in the GOP primaries because he'll be able to out-raise any potential rivals by a far sight, with most of the money coming from the K Street/ corporate side of the alliance. Remember, McCain chairs the Commerce Committee; how does Brownback or Allen compete with that?

I agree absolutely with whomever upthread suggested that the Dems need to target first and foremost GOP "moderates" like McCain and Schwartzy -- we want and need to keep those appealing voices off the airwaves and make the double-team combo of "delay, do-little and nay" speak for the Republicans.

All of which is to repeat the point that I made in response to MY's post yesterday -- Dems need to get ready to run a hard-hitting, no-holds barred campaign against McCain, and to do it when he is weakest, which is to say now -- not wait until July 2008

I think it's a mistake to dismiss Giuliani so casually, and I also think to do so under-estimates the religious right.  I know a couple of them who are looking at Giuliani seriously, just because he has an (R) by his name.  They look at how Miers was rejected by the hard right, and figure they can control Giuliani the same way Bush was controlled over Miers.  They would certainly have more luck controlling Giuliani than they would any Democrat, and they know it.

The essential McCain issue is whether he's too much of an outsider to get the nomination, not Republican enough, which is a very contextual question. First of all, McCain is very much a Republican on many issues, enough so that Democrats shouldn’t buy into the hype that he’s more than a perceived moderate. Someone compared him to Lieberman, point being he wouldn’t pass muster with many of the interest groups. Matt is making the same case about McCain.

However, a Lieberman could be very appealing to Democrats and the country IF there had just been a complete melt down of leftist ideology by a left candidate as incompetent and ideological as Bush. Let’s imagine for example Nader (or whatever boogeyman) had won in 2000 and 2004, and brought about the worst nightmare of cartoonish liberal stereotypes. Then a “moderate” candidate would do very well compared with radical candidates of either party in a country sick of radicalism.

In the end moderates from both parties would prevail, the out party having the advantage. Ultimately the candidate perceived as most moderate, solid, and capable of restoring stability, will win. Which is why McCain does stand a dangerously good chance.

I'm not sure Hillary and Rudy aren't the same person. Have you ever seen them in the same room together?

I see what you're saying about him being "not Republican enough" to a lot of interest groups on the right, some of which constitute "their base."

But, they've been very good, led by some smart strategists, at winning elections lately.  When they have a guy who has an independent image, who's challenged US sanctioned torture and the war strategy right when both have started to hurt the right, but who is still, at the end of the day, on the right... I could see the Republican strategists, the people who lead their base, finding a way to support him as a guy who will seem, to the mainstream electorate, a compromise, and who currently has support from registrered Democrats and who could conceivably steal a blue state or two, without necessarily sacrificing the red ones.

There is some risk in that.  McCain might well be vulnerable in dependable Republican states like South Carolina, but they could give that state up and still win, if they trade it for a blue state on the cusp.  Also, it might not even be that they'd lose South Carolina.  That's a state that has, and will, given McCain trouble during a primary, but that won't have any other way to vote if McCain gets the nomination.  What are they going to do, vote Hillary?

 If the GOP's leaders want the White House, more than the pertfect idealogue, they could make a lot of McCain.  He is, as you said, "not Republican enough," but he's also a darned major threat to those of us who want the Democrats to reclaim the presidency.  He might be, if the GOP can get its rank and file in line, the most major threat of them all.  After all, who else do the Repubs have?  Frist?  A stock cheat.  George Allen?  A threat, but possib ly beatable for being a country bumpkin.  Santorum?  Sure... 2 years ago.

Yeah, it's hard to even imagine, after the past decade, that Republican voters, even members of the base, aren't willing to compromise in the cause of victory.  Hell... Democrats like McCain.  Everybody, at least on a personal level, seems to like McCain.  But the guy's not a Republican by chance or anything.  He chose that party.  I can see how he offers enough, even to the farthest right, to win their votes over our alternative.  He's dangerous, this guy.

You're no doubt right.  After a primary, anyway, what would it really take for Dobson to support McCain?  That McCain believes in God and goes to church?  What national politician doesn't?  A few pronouncements of faith and a sufficiently vague stance on Roe v. Wade and... Dobson's in the clear to endorse.

Even that aside, the right, including their base voters, have proven very willing to compromise, at least in a general election.  Every dirty trick that's worked against McCain has been during a primary  That's when Republicans can safely diss McCain.  But what are South Carolina's voters really going to do if their choices are McCain vs. Edwards, Clinton, Kerry or Gore? 

destor23:

I agree with you on Guilani. See my comments here on the other McCain thread where I said the same and more.

I am not a Guiliani basher; I voted for him. But people don't seem to understand the reality of who he is. Certainly not for general public consumption.

It simply amazes me that people on the left and the public in general have this mythic impression of him which comes solely from his 9/11 performance. I hear so so many impressed with that and thinking that's what he's like. It's not real! That was like an andrenalin quirk, like when the mother lifts a car off her child. He is not that person.

Dems should be so lucky if he ends up the nominee. Unless he goes through major behavioral training, you're talking major major unfulfilled expectations in a campaign. Seriously, those of you who don't know him before 9/11, you know the famous caricature of the rude New Yorker of pop culture? Why so many red staters hate or are scared of New York? He is it personified. He's mean to anyone who disagrees with him, too, vicious. (There's a phrase the cops abusing Abner Louima used: 'it's Guiliani time.') He's a prosecutor used to imperial power, not a pol. (This is where you bringing in Spitzer applies, destor. Spitzer is showing signs that he can appear caring and gentle and understanding in public...not like Guiliani on a tear.)

McCain's few little temper tantrums are like saintly next to Guiliani.

Mrs. Clinton has one advantage:  The national press still swoons on her every word.  When--if--she acknowledges her mistake on Iraq, the press will characterize it as the "beginning of the 2008 campaign."  Just watch.  

The point about Hillary and health care is right on.  A national consensus had developed by 1992 that access to health care was a primary domestic concern.  She, and I have to say, her husband killed it and killed it so well with a combination of executive skullduggery and legislative bombast that, 13 years later, we're actually further from a solution than we were then.

For that reason, and many others, I continue to believe the worst thing for this country is yet another Clinton v. Bush campaign.  We have far too much work to do to re-run the same personalities we've been fixated on since 1992.  To the extent we can get one, we need a debate on ideas and leadership unencumbered by these rivalries.

To coin a phrase, move on.

McCain has always been extremely anti-choice.

Guiliani is too obviously mean-spirited and nasty to get through a presidential campaign.  His only claim to fame is the act he put on after 911 as New York's mayor.

I also think Americans are so aggressively militaristic that they would never vote for a woman as President for the foreseeable future.  Women can be as barbaric as men, but I think the American public looks to Rambo, not Kill Bill, to be its tribal chief. 

This is a shame, although Margaret Thatcher & Condi can prove that some women can be as big an a**hole as some men.

McCain may have to do some fancy dancing within the GOP to get the nomination, but if he does - and I hate to say this - I do not see a Democrat who would be a sure winner against him.

Great analysis Ed.  A guy very close to Orin Hatch told me back in 2000 that the only reason Hatch was running was that certain people were afraid Bush would implode during the primaries and they wanted someone to be there to stop McCain.  I don't think you can underestimate the depth of opposition to McCain among the Republican powers that be, though ideally a good number of them will be serving time by '08.  6 months ago I thought that Republicans would coalesce around George Allen for '08.  He seems a natural heir to Bush; that is, an empty vessel in which to pour their schemes.  Except that another Bush is not looking like a good idea right now.  So what do they do?

Raindog:

 Painting McCain with the "George Bush brush" is exactly what the GOP wants their Democratic counterparts to do.  Why?  Because an attack plan such as this keeps the issues on the back-burner.  Democrats must temper their criticisms of the Bush Administration during the 2008 campaign.  It obviously did not work for John Kerry--and that was during a re-election campaign for the incumbent.  The reason why the Democratic party has suffered such staggering defeats in the last few elections is because they are perceived by the public as being weak on the issues; namely, not having better alternatives than the current GOP leadership.  Indeed, such a representation was cemented in stone when Kerry's entire platform was "anti-Bush" rather than "this is what I would do better."  Clearly the Democrats are already at an appreciable disadvantage for the 2008 presidential campaign by way of a weak candidate pool.  If they resort back to the "anti-Bush" strategy which has already failed, they will be mightily disappointed by the results once again.