So again, I ponder: is winning the presidency always worth it? In the short-term, perhaps — but does anyone doubt that the Republican Party is better off for having lost in 2008? John McCain’s fiscal policies would have been hapless — he was never a believer in free-market principles, and his fetish for ‘compromise’ would have doomed him and his party to suffer the consequences of the worst of both worlds. His failures would have been tagged as a conservative disaster, and we’d currently be lamenting the fact that we nominated him in the first place — and, more saliently, that his failure would be sweeping in an era of hyper-liberalism in 2012 and beyond. It was better in the long-term for Republicans, for economic liberty, and for the country that John McCain lost.
So I would like to retort
#1) Its all about #winning
you play to win the game.
Coffee is for closers.
if you start looking like marines, you’ll act like marines
all i do is win
You play to win the game
Politics is an awful game. No one plays it to come in second. No one eats lousy chicken dinners and is with creepy political people because they want to get a silver medal.
Coffee is for Closers
You don’t get the best perks in politics unless you can close. You don’t get things going without being able to roll out and make the small successes.
If you start looking like marines…
When you start looking like marines, you’ll start thinking like marines, and you’ll start acting like marines
all I do is win.
When you have the foundations you become a winner.
BUT LARRY you say, what about the Democrats from 2000-2008.
Well what you had there was Bill Clinton oppressed a certain kind of stupid in the democratic party that was unwinnable. And it took 2 terms of George W Bush for people to go “well.. whats the worst that could happen.” What George Bush is is what we had in McCain, What we have in Romney in 12 (vs 08) and we would have in Christie or Daniels. The things that touch the voters and encourage them in the GOP and make them more successful were never really oppressed under GWB and they aren’t oppressed now. But they are out played by the nature of how Republican primaries work (and the lack of a solid bench to play for it.)
#2) The lesson of 1994
How did George W Bush become President? Republican governors successfully promoted themselves as an alternative to Bill Clinton. Will Obama in a second term allow the federalism experiments? Why don’t you ask boeing how that works. Why don’t you ask the states who are being curtailed by various presidential fiat regulations. Whatever good a Perry, Christie, Walker, or other might produce: Will the Federal regulators allow them. Based on the 3 years of the obama administration he won’t allow it. So if we accept the premise its better to lose now to win later: we have 4 years where the value of any republican alternative is degraded by the White House. This is what happened to Bob Dole in 1996. And this is what will happen to any Republican Presidential alternative who comes through the statehouse.
#3)Obama’s Foreign Policy Disaster
Obama’s Foreign Policy (and train wreck of a fiscal policy) will ruin any of the sweet or soft power of American Foreign Policy advocated by Republicans. This will make it harder for Republican Politicians to take occupation in the minds of the American voters. That means we will have to waste time coming up with a new way to advocate for power in foreign policy (that may never resonate with voters)
So: We won’t burn out whats wrong if we lose now (we will only perpetuate whats wrong), We will lose our ability to advance our position on foreign policy, and we won’t be able to advance our domestic and economic policy because obama will actively impede their efforts to do so.
And if we don’t “Play to win the game” we will never learn how to act like winners. And if we can’t act like winners we just won’t win.
Its that simple