Time for a little history lesson.

In 1976, the Republican Party was in shambles. After Richard Nixon's scandals and Gerald Ford's inadequacy, GOP campaign buttons read "Republicans Are People Too!" This party was only the party of the elderly and the rich, the white and the Protestant. It was small, broken, and unpopular. The United States wanted change.

The GOP race for the nomination that year came down to a battle between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Ford won a narrow victory over Reagan, then proceeded to lose decisively to Democrat Jimmy Carter.

After Carter's victory, the US witnessed one of the worst presidencies in its history. He encouraged a revolution in Iran, alienating one of our key geopolitical allies in the Cold War. His oil taxes and gasoline policies caused one of the worst energy crises ever, with gas more expensive than today and lines at the gas station onto the street. His approval ratings were (rightly so) lower than even George W. Bush's. I could spend the entire post exploring the shortcomings of the Carter presidency, but I have a greater point.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan re-entered the political arena. His message of true conservatism, individualism, small government, and strong defense against the growing Soviet threat inspired and united Americans around his cause. He spoke with conviction, skill, and pride; his message was one of hope, strength, and love for our country. It was an indelible message, rejuvenating the Republican Party and breathing life into what had become a corpse. A whole new electorate appeared, coming to be known as "Reagan Democrats." This term is still used by many to describe Democrats that recognize the truth of conservatism.

In 1980, Reagan won one of the most decisive victories of our time. He carried 44 states, with 50.7% of the popular vote to Carter's 41%. It was an incredible change of the winds: a candidate that couldn't even get nominated winning by an incredible margin.

Is 2008 so different? Let's take a closer look. The Republican Party is groping in the dark right now, hoping for a president that can re-orient it. George W. Bush has done a fine job, as did Richard Nixon, but he has done damage that cannot be simply ignored. It is going to take someone in the true Reagan tradition to do just that. This year, that man in the GOP race was Mitt Romney. Thompson had the issues, but only Romney had it all. Like Reagan was, he is the governor of a traditionally liberal state. His changes on issues over the years (such as abortion) are just as suspect as Reagan's tax hikes in California. Other similarities: The Soviet Union? Terrorism. Economy? Weakening.

John McCain is in the same position as Gerald Ford was. Yes, McCain was a virtual nobody, unlike Ford (who was the president until 1976). But while this may make his success more remarkable, it does not change the fact that he is not what this blind party needs. He was chosen on a whim, by people who simply followed his momentum and chose the phantom of electability over what really matters: conservatism. McCain's back-room deals with Huckabee and Giuliani did no damage to him either.

As we look back, we can use this historical perspective to determine what course of action we as conservatives need to take. It may seem back-handed and even ugly at first, but consider it before you dismiss it. We need John McCain to lose in November.

It is a crazy notion, one that many Republicans may shudder at at first; after all, voting for that (R) is something Republicans have been doing religiously ever since the Reagan Revolution. Democrats cross over to us far before we cross over to them. After all, how did they take Congress in 2006? Republicans stayed home.

McCain is a liberal. He would be perfectly at home in the Democratic Party if you look at his record. I won't spend the time examining this, but just a few points that are worth noting before you point at me and say, "But still, he's a Republican!"

• McCain-Feingold: Co-wrote this bill with Democratic senator Russ Feingold, effectively removing several elements of free speech from the election process.
• McCain-Kennedy: Co-wrote a bill this summer with Democratic senator Teddy Kennedy, effectively creating amnesty for illegal immigrants and providing no money or resources for border security.
• Has stated his opposition to overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.
• Has stated that Samuel Alito is "too conservative".
• Was part of the "Gang of 14" that opposed many of Bush's court nominees.
• Fought Bush's tax cuts (which have since lowered the deficit by hundreds of millions in the middle of a war) every step of the way.

The list goes on.

The fact is, we now have 3 Democrats to choose from: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain. The problem with McCain is that as a Republican, he will incur all the responsibility of liberal policies (that have failed at every attempt of implementation) onto our party, and cause a new party era for the Democrats that could last decades.

In 1976, Carter's victory was the best thing for the GOP and, in turn, for the US. Had Ford won, Reagan's outcome would not have been as clear, and we could still be tip-toeing with the Soviet Union right now. The fact is, it was liberalism's failure that put Ronald Reagan and even George W. Bush into the White House, and it will be liberalism's failure that puts a true conservative back in again. The problem is, that failure must be attributed to the official Democratic Party, who currently controls Congress and will most likely expand its majority this year as a large group of Republican terms expire. If they control Washington, they will have nowhere or no one to hide their failures behind. Sure, we have four years of disaster, but this will be followed by many more years of prosperity.

So who will play the part of Ronald Reagan in 2012? I seriously believe Mitt Romney is our man. He has established himself as a top-tier candidate, and his comparison with John McCain has made him look that much more conservative. He has the resources, relative youth, and the backing among conservative leaders that will propel him into the mix in four years. I can hardly speculate on this event so far into the future, but it is something to consider. I don't even think McCain will run in 2012, even if he wins this year; he will be 76 years old come that election.

So who do I choose? I am going to have to say Hillary Clinton. There is definitely something to be said for experience, and at least I won't have to put up with Barack Obama's irritating voice and use of the word "diplomacy". She is also on the right side of the war, which is the most crucial part of this term right now. Furthermore, should she win, we probably won't need to deal with Obama in 2012 as their candidate.

I admit, these are some nutty conclusions, and I do not draw them lightly; but I hope you understand that it is what our great party and country need.