Given how many of the remaining Republicans have announced their retirement since 2006, I would be SHOCKED if the Dems don’t increase their majority, much less lose control of Congress.

But still, while you may have a point about 2004, that doesn’t address 2000 (or 2002)…

The history of the last seven years or so seems to contradict that theory. How many “compromises” have the liberals won recently?

Stormy:

It’s not about the possibility that things will get worse, for me; it’s about the certainty that things will get worse. In 2000 and 2004, I was convinced that things would get worse if W was (re)elected. Turns out, I was right. And maybe I’m missing the forest for the trees, but I just don’t see how losing in 2000, 2002, and 2004 was good for the long-term interests of progressives (or, more broadly, the country).

As for GOP VP candidates, it’s early, but I’ve heard Karen Hughes’ name bandied about.

And that’s the question each voter has to ask of themselves. For myself, I don’t have the raving dislike of McCain most of the establishment has. I voted for him in the 2000 primary, and while I don’t consider him a good choice, he’s an acceptable one (the only two candidates this year I actually liked were Ron Paul and Fred Thompson). Certainly more acceptable than Romney or Huckabee.

I’ll probably still vote for Paul in the primary. Who I vote for in the general depends on three things:
1. Who the democrat is.
2. Who the VP candidate is (this is actually very important to me this time since I have a feeling McCain may not survive his full term do to his advanced age and already declining health).
3. Who seems likely to end up controlling congress.

>I’d have to be damn sure that the short-term pain would
>produce some serious long-term benefits before I’m willing
>to go down that road.

“rather to bear those ills we have than fly to those we know not of” then? My experience is that there’s rarely progress without risk (if the risk-free progress were possible, it would have happened already). If you can’t handle the possiblity things might get worse, then things will never get better.

My response was in response to the portion of your post in quotation marks. Whenever a liberal wants a conservative to compromise, he means “do it the liberal way.”

but that’s not what these evangelicals seem to be talking about

When I mentioned “the theocratic right v. the GOP” I wasn’t talking about now, I was talking about the sharp move to the right the GOP took in the latter 1970s. As most everyone seems to have forgotten, after Ronald Reagan failed to get the nomination in 1976, the theocrats started making noises about bolting the party and going independent. The center of the party shifted dramatically to the right in order to keep that from happening.

I don’t want to get into the third party thing again — believe me — but that’s not what these evangelicals seem to be talking about. They’re talking about simply staying home (which, while I don’t understand it, I encourage them to do).

But I think I see a portion of our disconnect here. We seem to be applying the term “compromise” differently. You seem to be talking about compromises between the you and the Democratic party, or between your preferred party and the Democratic party, or something like that. Whereas I’m talking about the differences between what I want and what I can get.

So as I said before, my take is, in the general, take the best you can get, and then work like hell to move them toward your way of thinking while they’re in office, and work like hell to get better candidates the next time the primary comes around.

I sympathize with many of your qualms about the Democratic party, I really do. I just fear that in working against the Democrats, we’d effectively be rewarding Republicans, who I view to be far, far worse.

Stormy:

But how much short-term pain are you willing to accept? In the case of W, it’s going to take a decade or more just to fix the damage he’s done and get the nation roughly back to where it was when he took office. Was that pain really worth it? Did it really advance some greater good long-term? I wish that were so, but I just don’t see it. In any case, I’m not that patient. I’d have to be damn sure that the short-term pain would produce some serious long-term benefits before I’m willing to go down that road.

Janet:

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Mr. D is the one suggesting that religious conservatives should effectively concede the election to a Democrat. How am I the one saying “do it the liberal way?”

Because if you think your party is heading down a blind ally, voting for the lesser evil may just delay the necessary changes for another eight years. It’s a question of balancing short term pain vs long term benefits.