[Preechr]

Maybe if you'd read more than every other paragraph I waste on you, your comprehension would be higher.

Maybe you are just intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying, but I'm starting to doubt that.

You eventually did grasp the Republican strategy I was trying to outline, but that's about it.

The first section of your response was from outer space. You quoted a part of me trying to explain to you that instead of a coven of evil Republicans making illuminati-like decisions in back rooms that all Republican politicians use whatever power and sway they can bring to bear in order to fashion a communal decision.

I feel I made that very clear, and yet you insist on ignoring what I'm saying, preferring instead to play with your strawmen.

So, in the world of your silly little argument, the only option to McCain being a guaranteed nominee is that the world is run by a group of evil Republicans that I refuse to name for you. Any other explanation that I try to provide for you seems to get mutated into that, so why bother again?

Tell you what: try reading what I wrote all the way through, slowly, THEN responding.

"DeLay, Frist, and let's even throw President Bush's name in there. Out of the three, which one will be making appearances, speaking in GOP districts, and raising money for Republicans more than John McCain?? Who have long-shot candidates in spots like Seattle invited? Who did Gov. Schwarzenegger call to help raise $2.5 million? Who is Rep. Wilson running in her Ads. to help her in her tough fight in NM-1???"

This was your response? I wasn't talking about McCain. I wasn't comparing the men I mentioned to him. I was explaining groupthink to you, and you seem to have the attention span of an autistic hummingbird on fire, so you run right off into some other subject.

I have acknowledged McCain's efforts to position himself. How is your statement here appropriate or on topic? You are the mod here, aren't you supposed to know how to discuss things?

"When Republicans are in trouble, and need to stress their "independence" they call John McCain. When they want to raise money, they call John McCain. Guys like DeLay could raise their fair share, but old Tommy has been distracted lately. Neither of the gentlemen you mentioned (not even the president for good measure) draws the kind of water that Sen. McCain does. "

Again, so? I was giving you easy to understand examples of powerful men that help to make decisions for the party. I didn't mention McCain, but wasn't it obvious that he is also a Republican, and for the reasons you mentioned he also has power in the party? Yes, Bush is also a party member and he also has power.

Thanks for helping me by providing a few more examples. Now I understand that you can grasp my point, so why don't you try?

"You keep implying that some group of Republicans will eventually "make the call" on McCain, which will crush his state-by-state infrastructure, force the resignation of top Bush consultants and fundraisers from his team, kill his popularity, and annoint some TBD governor as the likely candidate.

I'd like a little bit more substance than that, sorry."

I'm not implying anything, Kevin. I tried my level best to methodically explain to you that McCain is not inline with the party's current strategic direction, and I explained to you what that direction is. I am not arguing with you that McCain is a good Republican. I am not saying he's bad, just that his preferred strategy is not the same as that of the larger party at this time.

Why the fuck is this so hard to grasp for you? If you get it, but just disagree, then by all means say so so I can quit rephrasing the same things over and over to you.

You can have a differnet opinion of the future than I have and vis a vis. It's seems that you are trying to get me to prove concretely who will win the SuperBowl next year, and I can't do that any better than you or anyone else.

"Other GOP candidates, say Romney, Allen, Newt, Rudy, or a TBD governor will enter the race with an instant disadvantage. McCain gets a LOT of unearned media, the kind of media guys like them will have to budget for and spend for. That's a calculation that's made when you run for office. Thus, good candidates might decide to sit it out now, and wait 4-8 years. This happens all of the time, and that's what I meant by the media advantage McCain has."

If that was the only advantage a potential candidate could have, I'd agree with your projections, but it's not. If it were, Dean would have been running against Bush in 04. What I am trying to explain to you is that McCain's media advantage, though considerable, does not guarantee him a spot on the ticket. Yes, the base likes him well enough, but if the party doesn't agree with his strategic view, he might as well try to use his media advantage to get the nomination from the Democratic Party.

"They draw people who are guaranteed to vote on election day. They draw party loyalists. They draw die-hard supporeters of the candidates. They generally draw people, statistically anyway, who are more informed on the issues, more informed on the candidates, and more likely to vote every year.

That's ok by me. Let the folks who stay home watch American Idol and allow the people who care to decide. God bless America."

Again, how is that in any way relevant to the comment to which you were responding? I wasn't even talking about who votes in primaries. I was talking about why the primary voting is not the same thing as the actual voting in the elections.

They do not tally all the votes and nominate the winner. Basically, whichever candidate puts on the best show wins. They have to prove their skills at influencing and manipulating the media, the pollsters, the voters, the voting blocks, the state reps, the lobbies, the pacs, the Governors, each other, the legislature and it's members... EVERYBODY. The individual candidates do not bring their own message into the fray, they are presenting the message of their party.

Now, while McCain's message will resonate with the Republican base, his methods do not jibe with the methods the party has been employing successfully so recently. Why would the other also powerful and influential members of the party accept his leadership if it does not match their current direction?

Again, if you disagree with me on their direction (the plan) then kindly explain to me what you believe their strategic vision to be? You seem to think it's all just random reactions to random events. Maybe the Republican politicians just forgot what they were supposed to be voting for and against. Maybe they were just kidding or high when they wrote out the platform. Oh, wait.. Maybe their just corrupt! Yeah! That must be it.

I say their actions can be explained logically, and that logic leads to a cohesive plan of attack against the Democratic Party that is working. This is not the only obvious strategery the Bush Administration has employed, but it is the one we are discussing.

"They were in the middle of what went down as one of the closest and most contentious presidential elections in our nation's history. I guarantee you there WERE people who wanted to burn Bush for it, but to do so would only hurt him, and yes, the GOP was more concerned with the supposed greater good of taking back the White House (eight years of the great satan Clinton, remember?). Once Bush won, he was the president. Even McCain kept quiet about it. Do you think he did it because he's so humble and likes Bush? Come on....it's politics!"

No, he decided to wait for his turn to come back around. He has continued to vote on his principles, but if you ever listen to the conservative talk shows or read the GOP biased opinion pieces about McCain, he is considered a spoiler rather than a leader of the party.

Please note, as well, you just said that the GOP favored Bush in order to regain the White House. Is this where I'm supposed to start harangueing you to give me the names of the supposed black robes cultists that made this evil decision while scrying through their unholy crystals in their hollowed out volcano?

"McCain will bend to the power your welfare state just like everyone else does, you'll see."

I said he will fight it using traditional Republican methods, not that he would bend to it. The GOP has adopted new methods with which McCain disagrees.

I also said that the plan is not evil. It is just strategy.

"McCain will run as a tax cutting fiscal conservative. Let's not get into what he'll actually have to do once he's president, because that rarely has to do with elections."

Wow. I didn't realize he'd already run and won.

"The platform is pretty appealing to the base, and as it turns out, plays kind of well with the general public. McCain will lose his liberal appeal, partly b/c the Left is now realizing the monster they've made. McCain will cleverly let the media do his base work for him..."

Ok, well at least now you're trying to play along. I understand your admiration for McCain. I disagree with you on your projections, as I have explained in detail, but I'm willing to let you be proven wrong.

"This plan can't be stated publicly. Nobody who walks around with an American flag and their "I'm a conservative!" badge would agree to this. So, Republicans are still forced to run like McCain and govern like Bush. Bottom Line."

But McCain, as you so astutely pointed out, has a voting record that is staunchly conservative unlike Bush's executive record or the result's produced by the larger Republican run government.

A McCain Administration would be much different than Bush's, though Max would still hate him. I really do respect the guy for his integrity, and I really do think that would shine through in his presidency. I just don't think he's going to get the chance because his party won't support him.

"So, since the message will STILL have to be based around tough security, fiscal responsibility, and (maybe) some Christianly stuff, then it would HAVE to be a backroom, nefarious deal that undercuts McCain....something the American voters are unaware of.

So I ask you again....who makes this decision???

btw, parties go through realignments. Ideologies change. I'm sure you know this, but you seem to think that just because a couple of Republicans think one way it'll stay that way indefinitely."

McCain is not bullet-proof, and without the full support of his party, he can be taken out just like any other politician. Just like he was in 99, or just like guys like Rove and Carville have done to sooo many other generally decent guys.

If he is thrown under the bus, no matter who he has allied with, nobody is going to jump in after him. He has probably prepared himself well for the upcoming smear tactics and other BS he'll have to face from both parties, but he will definitely have to face it.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the GOP will rally around him and everything will go off without a hitch. I don't see why you are so hung up on him, honestly. It's obvious by now that I see it as just as much a no-brainer in the other direction, but thanks for forcing me to go into such detail as to why.

I'd ask you to do the same for your position, but I already did and all I got was more of the same questions about the evil centaurs.

"Good grief. You give the Democrats far more credit than any Democrat ever would.

Okay, so let's ctach up here. There are now TWO nefarious conspiracies in Washington, each being kept very secret and maintained by the party committees, the members of Congress, and the state parties. The Republicans talk about conservatism but really want liberalism, and the Democrats talk about moderate conservatism because they really don't want liberalism because they know it'll result in liberalism which will ultimately result in super conservatism.

Preech, you should go talk to some folks at the DNC. Go out to the bar with them. If such a complcit plan truly exists, they are totally unaware of it."

It's tactics, Kev. Strategy. It's not conspiracy. It's not nefarious. The end result of the Republican plan as I have outlined it will be a distinctly Republican political victory resulting in a much more conservative America. I have also explained why such a strategy is necessary and why the more direct methods fail.

I have asked you to explain what your version of the GOP strategy is, and you have yet to do that. Try. Tell me about a strategy that follows strict adherence to the GOP platform and yet allows for the observable events of the Bush Administration, making it all make sense. Without an underlying structure, one could only witness a jumble of contradictions that would lead to the conclusion that the only way this party could be leading the country with such a mandate is that we are a nation of retards being led by monkeys.

Take the examples that I have given you... hell, add to them if you wish... and tell me how else all that makes sense in a GOP dominated government.

"People talk a good game, but they like their entitlements. Elected officials learn this the hard ay, and thus get burned! Every official wants to bring back to their district, and if everyone is doing this, the spending goes wild!"

And then the welfare state eventually collapses under it's own weight. As long as Republicans would fight the growth of the entitlement structure, they were restraining it's growth... keeping it sustainable. They were always easy to paint as the bad guys that love to take food from the mouths of babies and cancel Grandma's checks. They learned to fight fire with fire.

This is tiring. I know you are smart enough to understand all this. All I ask is that you genuinely try. You are actually starting to prove me right by arguing with me. Keep doing that. I'll catch up with later on tonight.