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.

A principled candidate loses...

It looks like Chris Cannon has been primaried out by the Tancredobots.

It's not a good thing, and not just because the commissar wing will be celebrating. The fact of the matter is that a principled Congressman has been booted out (albeit it took multiple attempts) because he just would not kowtow to people like Tom Tancredo and Michelle Malkin.

It looks like I will be going independent after this November.

Quick quiz...

OK, if you are the head of the Department of Homeland Security, what should be your first priority?

A. Tracking down and catching terrorists
B. Checking the paperwork of American businesses

We know where hard-liner Mark Krikorian answers that question when he goes after former POW and current Congressman Sam Johnson.

Now, why ignore the threat of terrorists and gangs like MS-13 to chase after people working the 40-hour-week just to send it on down the line?

Why would he send comparatively scare resoruces to chase businesses instead of deporting folks who had committed violent crimes?

Inquiring minds would like to know...

EDIT: And with this lack of common sense on Krikorian's part, is it any wonder that Lindsey Graham wins his primary by a 2-to-1 margin?

Graham wins by a landslide...

The commissar wing's attack fails again. Lindsey Graham, a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, beat zampolit wing favorite Buddy Witherspoon by a 2-to-1 margin.

In other words, a silent supermajority of the GOP in a conservative stronghold was okay with a candidate who stood for comprehensive immigration reform.

It seems that the conservative alternate media (talk radio, National Review, etc.) is once again out of step with the GOP.

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.

Weyrich proves untrustworthy...

Memo to Mitt Romney: The next time you run for President, do not trust Paul Weyrich.

The reason: The ad that Weyrich signed on to. (Article 6 Blog has some info here.)

What changed between the time Romney ran for office and even suspended his campaign, and the present day, when he is one of those mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential nominee? I can think of only two things: 1. Romney dropped out and ultimately endorsed McCain, citing the needs of the country and the GOP and 2. Mike Huckabee's complaints that conservative leaders didn't back him.

So now, Weyrich seems to be caving in to complaints from Mike Huckabee. In one sense, you cannot blame him for the second factor - his bread is buttered by these people.

That said, there things that must be said openly: Weyrich's flip-flop makes him untrustworthy. He's not someone who will have your back. He seems to be an individual whose personality is that of a Soviet-era zampolit.

It should also be noted some major Huckabee supporters were behind the ad. I guess they're saying Mormons need not apply for VP as well.

State of 2008...

Ed Morrissey has a good run-down on the situation.

What is most notable is that the hard-line candidates, Huckabee (well, at least given what he is promising and his use of the politics of religious identity) and Thompson, have failed.

In other words, the GOP has spoken, and the zampolit wing has been rejected. The three left standing are all capable individuals who can serve honorably in the

That is the good news.

The bad news: There will be a heck of a fight. The purists will sit on their hands, no matter which of the three remaining are left.

The GOP will be better off without them.

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.

Alberto Gonzales: Betrayed by the Right, but unbeaten...

The resignation of Alberto Gonzales is a tragedy. As AJ-Strata puts it, he was "lynched" by the left. Can't exactly be too upset over that - the left tends to do that to accomplished people who they need to take down one way or another.

But there are those on the right who knew what the left wanted to do that, and then aided and abetted them, either by piling on, or by just sitting on their hands. And their piling on is yet another reason why I've just stopped giving a damn about conservatism. There are better ways for me to spend my time, money, and talents than helping to empower those who seem to think that because I don't toe their line, I am a party hack who sold my soul - or worse.

Remember, two-thirds of the Bush fundraisers are sitting on the sidelines. Many of them have been loyal to the President on a personal level... and it must gall them to see the crap thrown at him from self-appointed commissars, who self-righteously proclaim he is a sellout, and how they are willing to stand on principle.

And they wonder why folks like me can't stand them or why I'd rather be spoiling my brother's guinea pig rotten than spend time supporting their causes. Well, maybe if they stop implying I am some sort of sellout because I have disagreements with their positions on a number of levels, including strategic and moral grounds, then I might be inclined to resume support.

But conservatism needs to grow up first.

Does conventional wisdom apply?

AJ-Strata asks a good question about whether conventional wisdom even applies any more.

I think it really doesn't. In essence, if George W. Bush made one mistake after 9/11, it was not making things clear to his political base that the situation had changed, and they'd better be ready to adapt it - even if it meant howls from the punditry, the talk show hosts, and other self-appointed commissars.

Even so, it was not apparent at the time that failing to do that to his base was a mistake. There were no visible signs of a problem until 2005-2006, and by then, it was too late.

But the GOP in general seems to be tired of this, and is adapting. The top two declared candidates are men who are known more for their track records of solving problems and getting things done than their ideological purity. Both are pretty damn brilliant, too.

For all intents and purposes, the commissars are being screened out by the GOP primary electorate - simply by who leads the Presidential race.

That's good news, if you ask me.

The necessity of compromise...

If there is a better indictment of the absolutists who have been nit-picking Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani to death than today's column by Eve Fairbanks, I have not seen it.

The money quote:

“By the fruit the tree is to be known,” Lincoln wrote. “An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. If the fruit of electing Mr. Clay would have been to prevent the extension of slavery, could the act of electing have been evil?”

This is where my biggest beef has been with what I have called the zampolit wing of the Republican party. They simply are not willing to accept less than perfection, and those that do work to get some forward progress on an issue are party hacks who sold their souls for votes.

Well, they can only do that for so long before someone decides that enough is enough. Sooner or later, those derided as "party hacks" will start swinging back. Of course, they often get blamed by the purists, who claim that had they would not have been forced to criticize their ostensible allies if the "sellouts" had just been willing to stand on principle. It's never the self-proclaimed "base" that is at fault... it is those who don't kowtow to the self-appointed commissars who host a radio talk show, or write a column, or who have a blog.

And they expect that every time they do that, things can go back to normal. Well, they are wrong. Perhaps they should ask themselves if they would work with someone who constantly snipes at them, and not only that, then turns around and expects all to be forgiven after uttering some of the most vicious slanders possible.

The time for forgiving has passed. They have a choice - they can actually treat those who agree with them more than they disagree with them as people whose help they need to win elections and thus influence policy, or they can act like commissars while I find better uses for my time. Why should I lift a finger to politically empower those who think I have sold my soul?

Messed-up priorities...

If you want to know why I have found myself less and less willing to call myself conservative, and instead, like my co-blogger, calling myself a Donald Bellisario Republican, you need to read this New York Times article.

We are facing a global war on terror, with various Islamists trying to kill us by crashing airliners into buildings and blowing themselves up, and they are more interested in ideological purity on a bunch of side issues rather than finding someone who can keep a party whose likely candidates are utterly incompetent in matters involving national security from gaining the White House and solidifying its hold on Congress.

There are objective conditions here. We have one country with a history of state-sponsored terrorism that is led by a man who seeks the coming of the Twelfth Imam. Another country is carrying out genocide in Darfur. There are terrorist groups out there, waiting for a chance to strike.

And folks like Steve Deace and Sam Brownback want to nitpick Romney's record on side issues.

Contemptible.

64-35...

AJ-Strata live-blogged the immigration vote in the Senate.

The fact is, there is a silent majority among Republcians that supports comprehensive immigration reform. This silent majority has been largely shouted down by part of the minority that is very vocal, very angry, and somewhat questionable.

Now, some opponents, like MacRanger, are decent people who have come to a different conclusion than people like myself and AJ-Strata.

The thing is, the GOP is going to have to have a Sister Souljah moment with the loudmouths. They held sway in 2006, and the GOP took a significant hit among Hispanic voters as a result. It wasn't the entire reason they lost congress in 2006, but I'd be really amazed if a drop in the share of the Hispanic vote from 44% to 30% could be spun as helpful to the Republican party.

Stabbing the Troops in the Back: Why "Friendly" Fire Isn't

Well, we now have another threat to abandon the troops and their mission. This time, it's from "conservatives."

Their message is simple: either Bush backs down on supporting immigration reform, or they will pull the plug on funding for Iraq.

"Treason doth not prosper, for what's the reason? For if it doth prosper, none dare call it treason."

Well, I dare call it treason.

It's official. I'm no longer a conservative. I'm a Donald Bellisario Republican--national security first, last, and always, and to hell with everything (and everyone) else.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I haven't left conservatism. Conservatism left me.

Townhall: Home of the Cyber-McVeighs

At Townhall.com, "Peppermint" writes about assassinating US Attorney Johnnie Sutton in a bit of "fiction."

The rest of "Juliet's Diary" is equally perverse; it presents civil war and murdering one's political opponents as good old harmless fun.

This is why I'm not active at Townhall: I don't want to be on a Department of Homeland Security watch list.

Apparently, nobody at Townhall has flagged the post as offensive--and even if they did, Townhall doesn't seem to disapprove. I notified Townhall of this three days ago. It's still up there. I guess they're OK with it. And why shouldn't they be? Ann Coulter wrote "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln." My, my, that's not anything resembling incitement, is it, Annie, dear? I sent a couple of my Marines to the brig back in the day for much milder statements than that . . .

If Townhall wants to be the Official Website of Timothy McVeigh Wannabes, that's one thing. But it cannot simultaneously fill that role and be a serious participant in political debate. Unfortunately, they are joined at the hip with the Salem Radio Network, which hosts one of my ex-favorites, Hugh Hewitt. Looks like KCBQ (1170 AM) comes off my car radio's presets.

Memo for the management at Townhall: SET THY HOUSE IN ORDER. Assassination fantasies are off-limits, bigtime. Even if they're from your top-rated columnists.

Time for Tony Snow to Tell Some Folks Off

Laura Ingraham has succumbed to Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The key quote:

"You keep repeating that, but nobody believes you," she said. "Nobody buys that this administration is serious about the border."

At that point, if I were Tony Snow, the conversation would end. Probably with a Costco-sized package of Marine Corps Noncommissioned Officer Top Secret Code Words.

Demanding perfection... rudely.

It seems the right is not only demanding perfection, they are being very rude about it. These folks have led the GOP to one election defeat, yet they continue scorched-earth tactics that will not only ultimately fail, but which will also eventually make Hispanic Republicans are as rare as black Republicans.

That isn't the only people who will be driven out of the GOP. Moderates, the business community, and farmers will also take their political support elsewhere. And thus, the hard-liners will have their pure party - and will also be a minority. If anyone needed any proof that the base of the Republican party is as blind on immigration as the base of the Democratic Party is about the global war on terror, one just has to look at how they are acting.

Why Rudy will probably win...

I am, when it comes right down to it, a Mitt Romney guy. He gets the global war on terror and what has to be done, and I am far more certain of his ability to do well in making judicial nominations than I am of the other top GOP candidates. That said, after last night's debate, Rudy Giuliani is the likely GOP nominee, and he is very likely to win the Presidential election in a landslide.

It is something I am very much at peace with. Giuliani has been focusing on the Dems, and rightly so. It is a party where 61% are willing to consider the notion that Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Yet at least two major conservative forums who I will not mention have been trying to nitpick the front-runners on abortion. It has been part of an increasing absolutism on social issues since the 2004 election that has, quite frankly, turned me off to social conservatives.

If you disagree with some of them on immigration, they insinuate treason. If you objected to the stridency of others, you were a party hack. That's from the tamer of the two sites. The other site allowed users to label those who backed a comprehensive immigration plan Quislings constantly, even an otherwise conservative candidate got the label.

If the powers that be at those sites expect people to sit down with them after they were called traitors and soul-sellers, they must be smoking some very interestingly flavored tobacco. It seems that a fair chunk of the GOP are as well. The conservatives didn't just try to push people out of the big tent, they were crapping in it. We saw the results in November, 2006. Lately, they have demonstrated to me that they seem to lack the perspective (see the recent trashing of Mitt Romney over a 13-year-old donation to Planned Parenthood by his wife - while ignoring the fact that Barbara Bush and Laura Bush both appear to be pro-choice themselves). Their focus on social issues and inside baseball also show a glaring inability to prioritize.

Are they seriously arguing that an appointment to the Appropriations Committee is somehow a bigger deal than Nancy Pelosi's efforts to hamstring our troops in Iraq? Or turning back Pat Leahy's attempts to give al-Qaeda's worst access to our courts? Or defeating Democratic attempts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine via a "Hush Rush" Act?

If that is their sense of priorities, then they have a problem. It's not about principles - I tend to agree with most of their end goals. I just have no confidence in their judgement. If this means a divorce from conservatism, so be it. The only place conservative should come before country is in the dictionary.