There is a common theme running through conservative talk radio and the thoughts and comments of average die-hard conservatives. The talk radio hosts have kept their message under the radar, by-and-large, but the conservative public has embraced the idea with little if any reservation. The theory being supported by these groups is that a vote for John McCain is a vote for the continuing decay of the small-government Republican Party. The logical conclusion these people have reached is that an Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress supporting him for a minimum of two years, however liberal and damaging it may prove, is necessary to save the conservative movement and the Republican Party that supposedly embodies that movement. John McCain is little more than a Democrat in red clothing to these people, and Barak Obama is so far to the left that they believe he is bound to dig his own grave as president. A grave that will allow the conservatives to recapture Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012.

Such a line of thought has its support in recent history. The Republican Revolution of 1994 was due in large part to Bill Clinton's early mismanagement of the presidency and a gross over-estimation on his part of his own popularity. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 because of the incompetence of the Carter Administration and Nixon was elected in 1968 due to the internal divisions over Viet Nam and domestic policy within the Democratic Party.

However, the battle plan formulated by these conservatives for the 2008 election, a strategy I will refer to as the Strategic Withdrawal Method, is predicated on several dubious and dangerous assumptions. The greatest, and most dangerous, of these assumptions holds that a Barak Obama presidency would be immensely unpopular with the majority of the American people after only 2 years. Obama is certain to advance a liberal agenda not seen in this country since LBJ's Great Society program and FDR's New Deal prior to that. Conservatives should never forget that FDR was seen as a similar radical prior to taking office and his New Deal was viciously assaulted by conservatives and in the press. Many key tenets of his policy were found grossly unconstitutional, but the reality of the New Deal was masked for the public by the energy and ability of Mr. Roosevelt to sell his programs. This country is not even close to the level of despair that wracked the country during the Great Depression, but perception, again, is more powerful than reality, and Mr. Obama strikes this writer as a personality to be feared by honest conservatives and libertarians. He has the ability to glide effortlessly into a position contrary to his previous claims and yet still retain his credibility. He has even shown hints of being able to successfully place the blame for his failures on his opponents.

The second assumption of the Strategic Withdrawal Method that must be questioned is the myth of the silent majority. Vocal conservatives always contend (just as their opponents on the left do) that the majority of Americans who remain silent on political issues are merely poorly motivated or poorly educated conservatives who merely need the impetus to rise and sweep conservatives into power. Much has changed since 1980 and 1994. The internet has created a new breed of politics that infects everything from fund-raising to campaigning. Liberals have become more effective at managing their message and utilizing the internet for damage control and organization efforts. An Obama presidency that was viewed as a failure by the general public may not result in a national sweep for conservatives. All politics is local, and the Democratic Party has demonstrated a remarkable panache for tailoring the messages and issues of their candidates to the needs of the constituents in the various Congressional districts while distracting those constituents from other issues, be they moral or economical or international, on which their candidate has taken an avowedly liberal position. Republicans may be able to prevent a Democratic super-majority, but I cannot see them retaking Congress until well after 2010.

Finally, proponents of conservative anti-McCain camp seem to be holding their breath that all will be well and recoverable by the time an Obama presidency ends. It is true that the nation was given Ronald Reagan after four years of Jimmy Carter, but Carter's policies and failures still haunt this nation today and can be linked to many of our gravest concerns (energy independence and Iran are foremost). If Obama were able to pass a form of nationalized health care, and there is no reason to think he would not be able to, small-government conservatives would be faced with yet another untouchable government program that would saddle the country with slow economic growth and unreasonable taxes. If Obama were to allow Iraq to fail and Iran to go nuclear then a conservative president or Congress would be faced with an international crisis for which there would be no good options. If Obama were able to enact protectionist trade measures, prevent the recovery of domestic energy sources and continue ethanol subsidies, then what tatters of an economy would this country be left with?

Americans who have visited Europe have seen the malaise which infects every aspect of their governments and their societies. Currently Europe survives on the combined economies of the member nations of the EU, but it would not take much to push their socialist governments into total bankruptcy. Obama could easily start the United States down this path and, by the time conservatives regained power, they may find themselves unable to undue what Obama has woven into the fabric of our nation.

This writer is not a member of the "hold-your-nose" crowd when it comes to John McCain. I support his candidacy unabashedly while strongly disagreeing with cap-and-trade, campaign finance reform, and government interference in the compensation of business leaders. Senator McCain has shown that he values moderation over extremism. It would be wonderful if a hard-line conservative could run and win in this country, but at this time, following the Bush presidency, any hard-liner would be unable to shake the comparisons. Senator McCain can bring voters into the Republican Party and hopefully turn them into true conservatives. Conservatives love to quote Ronald Reagan and compare our current leaders to him, but it is important to remember that Reagan was also forced to moderate repeatedly with a Democratic-run Congress. Reagan Democrats still vote Democrat today, even while Reagan was able to woo them by showing that he was not a hard-liner, just a visionary. I believe John McCain to be a visionary.