[Preechr]

This is a big waste of time. I'm pretty sure you are fully capable of understanding the difference between strategy and conspiracy, yet for some reason it suits you to act as if you aren't. You are actually demanding that I explain to you what I mean by "his party" when I refer to McCain's party? Hint: HIS PARTY IS THE REPUBLICAN ONE.

"You have utterly FAILED to explain what will derail McCain."

You have utterly failed to read then. Damn, man. This is not that complicated. There is no reason I should have to explain it again, as I have already done that four different ways. If you are really that concerned about what I think, just go back and re-read the thread.

What is remarkable about your entire method of continuing this discussion is that the more you type, the more you answer the questions you are asking of me.

"Where is this 'strategic direction' enumerated? The party platform? I challenge you to find me ONE 2006 congressional candidate who is running on this supposed "strategic direction" you've mentioned..."

"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..."

Both you. I keep asking you to look at HOW Bush is governing. I keep asking you to offer up an alternative strategy that could be driving the Republican Party while including the things the Party has actually accomplished, and that's just one more thing you are choosing to ignore.

Are the actions of the current Republican Party dominated government in line with their platform? Freakin NO. Obviously not. How the hell do you explain that, Kevin? I really don't want to hear anything else you have to say on this issue until you can appease me with that. I understand that you are focusing your education on campaigns alone, but surely you have to see, when you tell me over and over that what is said in campaigns has basically no bearing on the actual governance produced by campaigning, that there is something other than just campaigning to politics, right?

That something is strategy, buddy. Strategy lives a much more robust life than do campaign promises. Even the best campaigns of mice and men will never elect a dead possum, and even the most electable candidate ever will not receive campaign support from a party that disagrees with his or her strategy for it's future.

Part of the campaign support I'm talking about there is that thing that was missing for McCain when Bush's campaign started hitting below the belt in 99. His party, the Republican one, did not help him to overcome the attacks and win. His party, the Republican one, chose instead to allow and thus support the Bush campaign's "dirty tricks." Why? They preferred Bush's compliance to the greater party's general strategy for governence.

I submit to you that the strategy I am talking about here is evident in the record of what the Republican Party has actually accomplished since Bush's election. I have clearly explained to you in this thread what I believe their long-term strategy is, and you have yet to explain to me what it is you believe their long-term strategy to be... so far.

Contrarily, it appears to me that I have repeatedly acknowledged your contentions regarding McCain's efforts so far in his campaign efforts. Funny how I am responding to all of your points, but somehow the one point I am trying to add to your one-sided and unfocused ("I have never once claimed him to be a lock for the nomination, however i've attempted to show to you and explain to you what makes him the most likely candidate RIGHT NOW...") point that is essentially about as interesting or relevant as exclaiming the time of day is being completely ignored by you in your responses. Why do you think that is?

How's McCain doing now, Kevin? How bout now? How bout now? What's the point? You can do better than Matt Drudge or another sort of political Swatch Watch.

I'm thinking the root of your difficulty in this is that we have different views of governing and politics. It seems you see governance as random masturbation of public whim where I see it as a persistent struggle to control private activity. We both admit, however, that campaigns have little or no effect on governance. Campaigns are actually the fakiest part of politics. See why I jumped to the strategy part of the conversation so quickly? There's the meat of the formula that allows us to make real predictions. I'm just trying to help you by adding some relevance to the conversation.

So, again, explain to me your conception of the current Republican long-term strategy that allows your earliest comments regarding the wonderful and interesting McCain campaign that makes them seem in any way at all relevant to anything. I am so on the edge of my seat that I could fall asleep.