It's a vision of our possible future. Unfortunately, I see only a minor flaw in the argument. Otherwise, it seems like a lead pipe cinch. Matthew Yglesias points us to a paragraph from Kevin Drum:...If McCain loses, as he’s almost certain to, we’re going to see two reactions. First, [McCain messaging guru] Steve Schmidt wasn’t nasty enough. In the future, Republicans need to return to their Lee Atwater roots and really teach Americans what liberal treachery is all about. Second, we told you a RINO couldn’t win. The conservative base will be convinced for years that the big problem with McCain was that he was trying to be a pale shadow of liberal Democrats. (Sarah Palin will be conveniently forgotten, or else finally seen for the tokenism she really is.) The nation still hungers for genuine conservatism, they’ll say, and they knew McCain was a phony all along. If only the party had nominated a Romney or a Huckabee the public would have swarmed to their cause.
The flaw I see is in saying that Palin forgotten or otherwise dismissed. I think you'll hear some on the right say that Palin was the better candidate, that we should have more candidates like Sarah Palin. Otherwise, dead on. The lesson the right is going to take away from the results in November won't be that their ideas have been rejected. The lesson they'll take away is that McCain wasn't a complete ass and that Republicans must become much, much worse. A real Republican would've won, they'll say. And by "real Republican," they'll mean the average moron who calls into Rush Limbaugh...
[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]
