Geraghty nails it...

Jim Geraghty has something everyone should read. It's reading I'd recommend to Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson, in fact.

So, just to review... we've got a Republican who is a member of the National Guard for 30 years and a practing attorney — how that translates to "career politician" is beyond me — who is actually within striking distance of winning Ted Kennedy's seat. He would be the vote that restores the filibuster; Democrats are openly talking about his election meaning the end of ObamaCare; with it would probably go cap-and-trade, Card Check, perhaps amnesty, the continuance of bailout nation, raising the debt limits, and so on. It would be the biggest psychological blow to big-government liberalism since the 1994 Republican Revolution, and probably trigger another slew of Democratic congressional retirements.

But he didn't vote the right way every time, and so now we're going to throw away the political upset of the century, an allow Martha Coakley to win with a plurality, because the third-party option polling in the single digits checks all the boxes on the checklist.

I don't think that Joe Kennedy, the independent, is going to get enough votes to be a factor in the race. But if he does - and if conservatives voting for him over issues like this make the difference and put Coakley in the seat... well, at a certain point, you begin to wonder if your political movement has enough strategic sense to be worth participating in, or whether it's all a waste of time.

The opportunity to "radically increase the number of TRUE tax cut and spending cut candidates on the ballot this November" sounds great, but some of us would like to #%*@$ stop ObamaCare before then.

Erickson's jihad against Senator Bennett, and Glenn Beck saying both parties are the problem miss the big point. Worse, how are those who DO work hard for a Scott Brown to know they can trust Erickson and Beck when the going gets tough?

I'm someone who thinks that The 5000 Year Leap gets it more right than not. I tend to lean to the right. But at the same time, I do despair of conservatives showing any semblance of a grasp of the need for things like strategy and long-term thinking. Beck has made the effort with the 100-year plan he has talked about, but aside from him, it's been absent more often than not.

The right, it seems, never misses the chance to miss a chance.

A healthy attitude...

Chris Cannon's attitude is the type of thing I wish we had more of in DC.

Quite frankly, his defeat is a bad sign. He had a 96% ACU rating in 2007 - which is not exactly a failing grade - or at least it didn't use to be a failing grade. I guess now, the commissar wing of conservatism will go after you year after year until they get you.

They don't want principle. They want blind obedience.

That is not what conservatism is about.... or at least not what I thought conservatism was about.

I'm not leaving conservatism.... conservatism's leaving me.

Unpatriotic Conservatives, 2008 style...

In 2003, David Frum wrote a brilliant takedown of anti-war conservatives. It pulled very few punches, and laid out a compelling case that they were clearly .

Today, though, there is a new batch of unpatriotic conservatives who are perfectly willing to sell out our troops by sitting out 2008 - perfectly willing to let Obama win, despite the deleterious effects he will have on the country. If there are better words than unpatriotic and selfish, I'd like to hear them.

Quite frankly, they are going about immigration all wrong. We do have some problems, particularly with gangs and drugs. But how do we deal with that aspect of border security when we waste our time raiding meat-packing plants and construction sites? We don't. But it provides plenty of bloody shirts for people like Michelle Malkin to wave in the immigration debate.

But when they will, through their inaction, elect someone who is likely to surrender in the war on terror, someone who is stupid enough to meet with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and someone who will likely appoint Supreme Court justices who will be more inclined to engage in judicial putsches on issues like gay marriage, it's time to call them out.

What is truly the most important issue facing America, immigration, or the war on terror? I think most Americans would argue the latter. Holding our troops hostage over immigration is despicable, and it will not win friends.

What does the GOP need?

Governor Schwarzenegger's comments about the GOP's need of re-branding will probably touch a few nerves. But in a sense, he is right, albeit, it's not so much "re-branding" the GOP needs, but to instead ditch the "new brand" that largely emerged from 2005 to the present.

From 2005 on, a certain group of conservatives (not all, but a very vocal segment) have decided that at some point, they had a monopoly on principles. Those who did not toe their line on certain issues (most notably immigration, but you can include Terri Schiavo and the nomination of Harriet Miers on that list as well - if you want, you can even include No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D as well) were often derided as RINOs, unprincipled, or worse.

The result... well, I'll let you read some views from SJ Reidhead, The Anchoress, AJ-Strata, and myself.

Take some time to peruse those blogs (outside the posts I linked to), and see if you can describe where SJ Reidhead, The Anchoress, AJ-Strata, and myself tend to stand on issues.

I dare to say that most people would think that the four of us are probably in the mainstream of George W. Bush's political coalition. They'd peg us as Republican and right of center.

Yet all four of us are feeling less and less welcome in the GOP, and that is largely due to the fact that people like Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Ann Coulter have routinely talked down to us as if we were somehow not good enough to be in their club, and a lot of party leaders have gone along with their commissar act, and have not called them out on it. then of course, when this "new brand" of strict compliance was no savior at the polls, they demanded even stricter compliance, claiming a lack of principle was the problem.

The fact that people may have looked at their "true conservative" brand and decided to reject it does not seem to have crossed their mind at all. So they try a harder and harder sell, ticking off more and more people. By insisting on a coalition of the pure, they are literally shrinking their base of support. As long as the GOP goes along with that, then they will find their base of support shrinking as well.

So, maybe the GOP needs to tell the commissar wing to stuff it.

Conservatives out of touch...

OK, what would you consider to be the most pressing issue facing America this week?

War on Terror? Energy? The economy? Nope, none of those are the pressing issue of the week, according to Michelle Malkin. No the big issue of the week is Beyonce's new clothing line.

Good fucking grief.

If you wonder why conservatives have image problems, this is an example right here.

They obsess over the trivial - and woe unto those who suggest that there is a bigger picture or more important things to deal with. And they wonder why I prefer to think of myself as a Donald Bellisario Republican as opposed to a conservative?

Why Malkinbots don't get it...

Right Wing News shows how Malkinbots manage to blow it.

His beef is over a young woman brought into the United States as an infant who had had several liver transplants due to a liver disorder.

Let's repeat one phrase here: As an infant. In other words, her presence here in the US is not due to any criminal action or intent of her own.

And this is what we are seeing by allowing the problem to fester for a long time, rather than solving it when we had a chance to do so with much less difficulty.

Now, what do we do about people who were brought here at young ages, who have not committed crimes, other than to grow up here? Or whose families wanted nothing more than to save their lives?

Most people don't blame kids for this stuff. And the type of stuff in the comments of Right Wing News will be found repulsive by most Americans. There is a reason that non-generic Republicans tend to do a bit better. PArt of it is the tone-deaf attitude conservatives seem to be showing.

Not the GOP's problem...

This commentary by JB Williams shows why I can't stand conservatives these days.

Why? Because he seems to ignore the fact that conservatives have done their fair share of bridge-burning in the past few years.

In recent years, some conservatives have taken a position that anyone who is not 100% with them to be enemies. This has been particularly true on immigration, where accusations of treason and the "anti-American" label are common. then there are cases where those who dare depart from the latest wisdom of talk radio and the conservative intelligentsia get called "party hacks" who "sold their souls" as well.

So what is to be done by those who receive such fire?

Me, I'm inclined to respond with some serious return fire. As far as I am concerned, it makes no sense to try to please people who view me as a traitor or party hack. You want to call me that, don't expect me to work with you.

Conservatives need to stop blaming others for their failure to close the sale with Republican primary voters - that is who elected the delegates that will make John McCain the GOP nominee.

Well, well...

AJ-Strata has found something interesting. Seems that Tom Tancredo's hard-line position on immigration is out of step with his district.

This is not surprising. Multiple GOP primaries have gone to candidates who favor a comprehensive approach, much like Senator John McCain has. They do not seem to be able to prevail in Republican primaries.

And that is the real issue. Social conservatives do not seem to be able to close the sale with significant chunks of the Republican primary electorate on issues like immigration to the point of rejecting a candidate on this issue. So now, they find themselves losing Republican primaries.

That is not John McCain's problem, and he is under no obligation (contrary to assertions from people like Rick Santorum) to accommodate them. To the contrary, the conservatives need to re-think, and ask themselves why they cannot close the sale. They certainly are not inany position to dictate terms to John McCain.

It's not about cake...

I have a lot of respect for MacRanger. Being a guest on his show was quite an experience, and well worth pursuing. That said, with regards to John McCain, he is way off base.

The fact of the matter is that "true" conservatism did not close the sale with the Republican primary electorate in 2008, particularly on what seems to be the litmus test of the past few years, immigration.

And I find it quite telling that people like Mark Levin don't seem to get it, and in fact, seem to be taking issue with people like the folks at Powerline Blog, who point out (correctly) that conservatives are not in a position to make demands on John McCain. Levin's comments are just typical of the poor strategic and tactical sense shown by conservatives in the last few years. And poor strategy, tactics, communications, execution, and interpersonal skills will not be negated by how principled a person is.

Finally, one last note: Losers do not get to dictate terms to the winners. If conservative want McCain to respond to their desires, they have to go to him, and they need to move his way. It would be respectful of the Republican primary electorate. It may even be a matter of their political viability - because it is very likely that the Democratic nomination will end with a significant number of disaffected Democrats, and McCain will more than likely be able to appeal to a lot of them. And if he wins, with folks like Levin loudly campaigning against him because he lacked sufficient purity, he and Republicans will have every reason to ignore conservatives.

Arrogance on the right...

Let's get this straight... Kevin James thinks that after the results of the 2008 Republican primaries, he can dictate terms to John McCain on immigration?

Mr. James, it is very simple, the candidates who backed your position (particularly Hunter and Tancredo) lost, and were barely asterisks in the polling data. Even Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (in the most disingenuous flip-flop of 2008) couldn't ride it to victory.

You are not in a position to dictate terms to John McCain. The voters in Republican primary elections from across the country have chosen him.

And if I were John McCain, I'd be pissed off, and would probably tell you where you could go.

Foolishness on the right...

It seems the GOP wants to remain the stupid party.

Never mind the fact that John McCain, a very vocal supporter of comprehensive immigration reform who has utterly rejected the Malkin-Tancredo hard line, has clinched the nomination. It seems that some conservatives will be pushing a hard line.

It has not won elections, it cannot even reliably win Republican primaries (only winning when there are multiple candidates supporting the approach favored by the majority of Republican primary voters in a given race).

Yet they insist on it. Conservatives are clearly out of touch with the GOP on this issue.

Regain my trust, conservatives...

MacRanger is ready to sit out 2008. If he thinks this is going to get me to address his concerns, he is sadly mistaken.

So, I am going to set him straight here.

I was supporting Mitt Romney for the nomination - at least up until earlier this week when both the election results and the conduct of one of his supporters combined to make sitting out the GOP primary my only real option. I do not view the apparent nomination of John McCain with dread, and much of this is due to how conservatives have acted over the past two and a half years.

I am pro-life, and think abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother faces imminent and unavoidable risk of death or grave bodily harm should the pregnancy continue. I generally support a flat-rate income tax. I'm in favor of a string national defense, and carrying the war on terror to victory. I think the federal government spends too much for too little return on social programs, and if they cannot show results (or improvement), then the funding needs to stop. I want something done about the future of Social Security and Medicare, which combine for about 15% of any given paycheck. I want the borders secure - and illegal immigration effectively controlled, but I recognize a big part of that is a guest worker program, and I do not think a 21st Century version of the Maginot line is the answer. I think judges should not make the law, nor should they lightly overturn decisions of the state legislature or Congress - this forms the crux of my support for various amendments to define marriage as one man and one woman. I also believe in live and let live.

I should fit in with conservatives. But recently, I cannot stand them. They have set litmus tests: To be a "true" conservative, you needed to toe certain lines on immigration and other social issues.

I don't. And for that, I've been called "traitor" based on the immigration debate, including just this past May by Paul J Cella of Redstate. That site has also at times hosted others who proclaimed those who disagreed on the Miers nomination party hacks who had "sold their souls" - all because they didn't join the neo-Borking.

As I said in my open letter to that site in October, I have better things to do than to politically empower those who view me as a "party hack" who has sold his soul and/or a traitor to this country. And those who do engage in such conduct, who decide to claim that those who disagree with them within the GOP have "sold out" or worse, should not be surprised when the recipients of such comments decline to support them in primary campaigns - or hold it against the candidates who the name-callers support (which may have cost Mitt Romney support in California).

This was even before the conduct of the latest primary. Between anecdotal evidence from Article6Blog.com, the admission of Huckabee's own research director (in an interview with Article6Blog), and a Vanderbilt University study make it very clear that a significant chunk of conservatives decided to disqualify arguably the best-qualified candidate for the nomination on the basis of his religion.

Of course, the denials of religious bigotry will come hard and fast. But they need to address the evidence. Which now leads me to ask a tough question: Can I trust the social conservatives - specifically the religious right - at this point in time?

Between their conduct on immigration and the treatment Mitt Romney got in the primary, the answer, at least in my mind, is a big NO. Trust, once gone, is going to be hard to restore.

The last straw in terms of the loss of trust is the fact that right now, if my three nephews were to ask, I would have to tell them that I do not think they can be President, despite what good they do in their lives. Furthermore, I would have to tell them that the reason is because of the church they belong to - one they have been raised in (and which several generations of my family have belonged to). One of these nephews has a father who is going to serve this country in the Global War on Terror (and there have been Mormons who have served our country in time of war since the Mormon Battalion was formed during the Mexican War, and which includes Medal of Honor winners like Bernard Fisher and Mervyn S. Bennion, as well as Lyman Swenson, commanding officer of USS Juneau during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal).

I cannot work to politically empower people who seem to hold my faith in contempt. And, after the way the 2008 Republican primaries have evolved, it seems that the social conservatives largely hold Mormons in contempt. The Vanderbilt study reported that half of evangelicals would vote for a more moderate candidate if the conservative was Mormon.

Anti-Mormon bigotry was not the only reason Romney failed to win the nomination. But it was one of the primary reasons (the other was that talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Rick Roberts, and even Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have manged to be bigger Bush-bashers than John McCain has ever been accused of being), and I think a lot of Bush loyalists who would otherwise have voted for him instead went with McCain.

How can conservatives regain my trust? They need to start by showing they can be team players. None of this stay home in 2008 nonsense. Otherwise, I will be more than willing to reciprocate for their lack of support. I don't like taking those measures, but it's what has to be done, I suppose - it seems to be the only thing they will understand.

Second, they need to make it clear that they understand that the Mormon-baiting used by Huckabee's supporters was wrong, and they need to make amends. This sort of thing is a two-way street, and if they want folks like me to back their preferred candidates, they need to be willing to do the same.

When Mark Levin and others are willing to tank an election, they are playing the worst form of "gun to the head" politics. To hold our troops hostage is despicable, and needs to stop. If anyone would deserve the label of "traitor", is it Levin and these others.

Third, accept the fact that people might be willing to disagree with you on principle and respect them for having principles, and guiding themselves by said principles. If you cannot prove pandering, don't make the charge.

That is how conservatives can start to regain my trust. It's up to them. But believe me, I will go independent after November 4 if I do not see progress on this. There is a price for things like failure and distrust - and I will impose it.

Call it...

The GOP has apparently made its decision for the nomination.

In one sense, it is nice to see the talk-radio hosts and pundits ignored by the Republican primary electorate. But the problem is that a large chunk of the social conservatives, specifically the religious right, have now been outed as religious bigots.

Harsh? Just the harsh truth.

Just look at the stuff Article6Blog has unearthed in months of coverage. And while the anecdotes are not proof in and of themselves, they are backed up by the Vanderbilt study. So, fundamentally, there was a large portion of the conservative movement that decided to disqualify Mitt Romney due to where he went for church.

At this point, I will sit out the Virginia primary. The attack on McCain's service as a POW was way below the belt. In November, I expect McCain will be the GOP nominee I vote for. After then, it's about 90% likely that I will probably re-affiliate as an independent, joining AJ-Strata and The Anchoress, among others. I may be talked out of this, but it will take a LOT of doing by McCain's people.

That's just how it will be. I have things that I am very satisfied doing, and the time I will now have for them will be well-spent. Because, quite frankly, conservatives pushed me too far.

It's the resumes, stupid!

The paraphrase of James Carville in the title is probably my best explanation as to why I am becoming very disillusioned about conservatism in general.

For the Presidential nomination, assume five candidates:

Candidate A was a preacher for 12 years before starting in politics, spending three years as lieutenant governor before becoming governor in a small Southern state for ten years, where he did a so-so job and had a string of ethics complaints, and a tax burden 47% higher than ti was when he took office.

Candidate B is a naval veteran decorated for his actions while a prisoner of war who later ran for Congress before being elected to the Senate for several terms. He has not always gotten along with his party.

Candidate C had a lengthy record in business, and is responsible for the successful launch of at least one business that is a major nation-wide chain. He served one term as governor, during which he handled several hot-button issues in a statesmanlike manner, and also was able to turn a deficit into surplus without any tax increases.

Candidate D is a former prosecutor who was mayor of the nation's largest city for eight years. During that time, he presided over an incredible drop in crime, particularly the murder rate, and he also managed to cut taxes a number of times. His performance in a major crisis won rave reviews from just about everyone. His personal life is a bit touchy, and one appointee who performed very well, broke a number of ethics rules.

Candidate E is a lawyer-turned-actor who served 8 years in the Senate before returning to acting.

Which resumes would you whittle down to be your finalists? For me, the answer is very clear - C and D would be very close to the top spot, with B as the respectfully close third. A and E would not merit consideration for the job.

And yet, conservatives seem inclined to reject C and D for reasons utterly unrelated to job performance. Candidate C, it turns out, belongs to a religion that isn't considered mainstream by some. Candidate D's personal life and lack of ideological purity seem to be a problem as well. Candidate B's problems are of his own making - in disagreements with the base, he has gone out of his way to tick them off.

And so, the two weakest resumes are now in contention for the GOP nomination, push forward by conservatives who dominate the primaries. And one of the candidates with an extremely strong resume is apparently losing support because some people have made an issue of his religion (including a state co-chairman for one of the candidates, and ads run by another).

Is this supposed to fill me with confidence in conservatism?

The special elections and thoughts on immigration...

The only thing remarkable about the special elections is how much like a normal election they were.

Virginia's 1st District saw the GOP candidate outperformed by Bush's performance in 2004 by less than a percentage point. In Ohio's 5th district, Bob Latta's margin was not much different from the ones racked up in 2004 and 2006 by Bush and Paul Gillmor. It was a rounding error at most.

And here, the right claims a mandate for a hard-line immigration policy. I don't buy it. These results hold little, if any, difference from what you would have had in a normal election. so what really changed? Nothing - two strongly Republican districts sent Republicans to fill out vacancies left by Republicans who died in office. No mandate here. Not even a shift in the numbers that would have indicated something was up.

Which brings me to immigration in general, and why the GOP is making a mistake. When I see rhetoric claiming that those who sought comprehensive immigration reform were pursuing the dispossession of America, I have to wonder what is with the right. Do they really believe America can be dispossessed by gardeners, cleaning ladies, restaurant workers, and nannies, among others? That speaks of either a lack of faith in America or a raging paranoia. Either alternative is not something I want holding some of the highest offices in the land.

It does not help the cause of those at Redstate when they also imply that their opponents are motivated by sedition (and this is mild when compared to Cella's pronouncements of treason in earlier posts). To claim such is simply not true in many cases, and certainly it speaks little for their desire to compromise as well.

In essence, on immigration, we have an impasse. We cannot deport all the illegal immigrants in this country, not without major changes. There is talk of a new national ID card, and requiring proof of citizenship - in essence, we would go to an America where we could be asked, "Your papers, please."

Is that the America we want? My answer is no. In essence, we would be creating the kind of internal controls that Hillary would love for her purposes - and she would not be using them to control illegal immigration. We also see what John Edwards is willing to impose on people as well.

And looking at people like Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo, I get the sense that some on the right will be pursuing the same thing. And gladly so. They have their ideas of what America should be, and they strike me as being very willing to use the government to enforce it.

Perhaps this is why some were right - the government needs to stay out of a lot of issues. I really do not think it should be involved in whether restaurants are smoking or non-smoking, how people decide to breed dogs, whether they want to go online to put some money on a baseball or football game, or things like that. Watching the GOP Congress in late 2005 and most of 2006 was, in so many ways, embarrassing.

The House GOP took their ball and went home when they didn't get their way on the immigration issue. Then they passed a lot of bills on small issues that really didn't matter while our troops dealt with airlifters that had cracks in their wings and the housing crisis crept up on us. They then had to pile on with the left rather than point out blatant incompetence by the likes of Kathleen Blanco, who made Frank Jack Fletcher and George McClellan look like decisive leaders in a crisis.

Priorities and common sense matter. And the right cannot seem to figure that out yet.

Make or Break for Mitt...

Mitt Romney will make or break his Presidential campaign with a speech on his religion.

If he pulls it off - he will probably emerge as the front-runner as "not Rudy" in the GOP primary.

The best reactions come from Article 6 Blog.

It does appear that Mike Huckabee played the Mormon card - and did so in an adroit fashion. He took advantage of a number of things - and not all of his gains can be undone if Romney pulls this off. At best, he has to get Huckabee to overreach on this - to openly play the religion card.

Romney is off his game a little bit. This is what decides if Romney makes it, or if we now will see a presidential candidate who has excellent qualifications will be shot down due to what amounts to religious bigotry. If Romney is shot down, then conservatism and I will part for good due to irreconcilable differences.

Reality on the Right?

John Hawkins may be getting some idea of the problems on the right.

One of his points, though does strike me as funny.

We Don't Reach Out To New Constituencies: Conservatives have started to get into the bad habit of allowing ourselves to be perceived as hostile to potential blocks of new voters, for no good reason.

When Ken Mehlman was Chair of the RNC, he regularly reached out to black Americans. That seems to have stopped with his departure from the RNC. In the fight against illegal immigration, the Democrats have tried to falsely portray conservatives as being anti-Hispanic and some conservatives have unwittingly helped them with careless immigration rhetoric. Pre-9/11, the majority of Muslim Americans voted for the GOP because they shared our concerns about the culture, but some conservatives have started talking about all Muslims as if they're the enemy, instead of specifically hammering away at terrorists and their supporters.

You don't win in politics by needlessly alienating people or writing off whole blocks of the population that might be willing to vote for you. Granted, the GOP can't be all things to all people, but it doesn't hurt to make the best case for your principles to all potential constituencies.

In essence, the hard line that conservatives - including Hawkins - demanded on immigration has probably scuppered Hispanic outreach for the next decade at the very least. It was an effort that was proving far more fruitful than outreach to the African-American community, I might add. The GOP got 44% support from Hispanics in the 2004 election. That number dropped to 30% in 2006. That was about the time conservatives revolted and demanded the hard line, with no compromises acceptable. Just look at the abuse dished out to Jon Kyl, no squishy moderate on issues, when he tried to reach a solution that wasn't to the hard-liners' liking.

As one of those who supported the President on the immigration bills, it is nice to see Hawkins admitting that he may have been wrong. I certainly hope he will follow up this column by supporting conservatives like Jeff Flake, Linda Chavez, and Chris Cannon in their efforts to pass immigration legislation that will actually address the problem, and reflect reality, rather than the hot air that comes from the likes of Tom Tancredo and Michelle Malkin.

Open Letter to Redstate

I've not been around you folks for a while - at least as an active poster. I've lurked some, but no longer felt comfortable posting. That discomfort will remain for a LONG time.

But Erick's recent missive warrants a response. He wonders why there's a bit of disunity. Well, here's my perspective.

I'm generally right-of-center on a lot of issues. I am pro-life, and feel abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. I like lower taxes. I support the traditional definition of marriage. I want judges who will show restraint, and not use their positions to make law.

So, why am I at this point, not with you folks? Because, quite frankly, since about September 2005, I have found myself suspicious at best of those who presently speak of conservatism, as well as its leadership. It was, in large part, driven by the Harriet Miers and immigration debates. It was not the disagreements, but it was the way they were pursued - largely the absolutism that reigned, plus a little bit of bad faith.

On Miers, I believe the bad faith was in trying to force the withdrawal of her nomination. In 2002, and 2004, the Democrats were rightfully upbraided and beaten because they were filibustering nominees and denying them up-or-down votes after hearings. The names Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown come to mind. Miers never got the hearings, or the up-or-down vote. And those who were saying she should got labeled on Redstate as "party hacks", while he held himself up as acting on principle. Well, you got Alito out of it, and that may have worked. At least for now.

The immigration debate, though, was worse. There, it really was the final straw for me. There is a big split between Wall Street Journal Republicans and the social conservatives on that issues. But it didn't help when the insinuations of treason started flying. And then it went beyond insinuations. What proof of treason was there beyond the fact that people disagreed with Paul J Cella's immigration position - even if it was for strategic/tactical reasons? And this is in the face of what I would call real treason, when the New York Times and Washington Post were blowing intelligence programs that are crucial parts of preventing the next 9/11.

Finally, to top it off, it failed. Just look at the 2006 mid-terms. The results are plain as day, when Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. This was what the 2005-2006 conservatism did, and now it wants to call the shots, when it has shown highly questionable competence in a strategic sense. For all of Bush's faults, he was able to win two Presidential elections, and in 2002 and 2004, he delivered gains. And if one just compares the 2004 and 2006 exit polls, we can see how he did it. He managed to stay competitive among the various groups that Republicans weren't in 2006 (moderates, independents, and Hispanics, in particular).

In essence, you racked up three strikes of your own. Strike one, conservatives managed to look hypocritical on a signature issue that I agreed with you on (judges), and then got sanctimonious with those who disagreed. Strike two, conservatives viewed disagreement with them as treason, when the real thing was there for people to plainly see. Then, strike three, the conservatives' actions - in essence, you decided to bench George W. Bush as the play-caller, despite his electoral success - led to a shellacking at the polls.

Conservatives have managed to dig themselves quite a hole with their absolutism and strategic incompetence, and quite frankly, I have better things to do than to politically empower those who view me as a "party hack" who has sold his soul and/or a traitor to this country. In case you didn't notice, non-support or outright opposition is what happens when people do that sort of thing.

Now, you get to deal with the political landscape as it stands - a landscape that Redstate itself helped to create. I don't envy you. But, I have new endeavors on which I must focus - and, quite frankly, I've had the impression that you never really wanted my help.

Sincerely,

Harold C. Hutchison

Fail to properly plan, plan to utterly fail...

One of my biggest beefs with conservatism is that these days, they seem utterly unable to strategize in pursuit of their agenda. Instead, they seem to rely on a twist of the Absolute Moral Authority approach that we have seen Democrats use in issues like SCHIP and the war on terror.

Take SCHIP. The Democrats' tactics should have been easily foreseeable. They would use kids - and they would be willing to play the "no health care for children" card. Yet, rather than come up with a plan that would avoid going into the teeth of the attacks from the left, the conservatives walked right into it.

What is worse, is that when people DO want to strategize, there is almost universal disdain.

"This is not a matter of strategy, this is a matter of principle!" is the usual cry that comes from the people on the right who usually walk into the left's attacks in such cases. They seem to think that taking these attacks is a badge of honor. I say, it is not. It is foolishness at best. Those who display such follishness should not be calling the shots at a Litle League baseball game, never mind for one of two major political parties in the United States.

They don't seem to recognize it. As such, one must ask what the real objective is for them. Do they just want the issue to complain about? Or is it something else?

When did blackmail become a family value?

I'd love to hear James C. Dobson's answer to that question after his New York Times op-ed.

If you ask me, I guess he's not too concerned about the sanctity of life from terrorist bombings. Particularly if he is about to indirectly elect Hillary Clinton. Of course, his actions are in the name of principle, and so, according to the logic conservatives seem to be embracing these days, they cannot be questioned.

I call bullshit on that.

I hope the GOP will show that it doesn't give in to such blackmail.