No, it means that in order to be a successful politician you have to walk the line between a lot of competing interests, and it's usually not possible to eget everything you want.
So the choice is between compromising ibn such a way as to advance your agenda a little at a time, or howling the cant of your pure ideology in the political wilderness while the othere guy advances HIS agenda.
But that's not what's happening... What's happening is "compromising in such a way as to retreat our agenda a little at a time"...
some people will never understand.
I know you have both been here long enough to remember the innumerable times that this appeal was made to persuade conservatives to support Bush in 2000. The offer was accepted, and followed through... until now. This was a key opportunity, at the very core of the conservatives' interests, and it appears to have been carelessly squandered. I realize that there is a small but nonzero chance she may actually turn out like Thomas. Given the historical percentages, there's less than a quarter chance this will happen.
But make no mistake. It was the President's act that precipitated the fallout. This is do-or-die for the conservative voter not persuaded by the President's considerable personal charm. Conservatives are simply expressing the natural reaction to a knife in the back, at the hand of a trusted friend. Y usted, George?
"No, it means that in order to be a successful politician you have to walk the line between a lot of competing interests, and it's usually not possible to eget everything you want. So the choice is between compromising in such a way as to advance your agenda a little at a time, or howling the cant of your pure ideology in the political wilderness while the othere guy advances HIS agenda."
You've got this all wrong.
The problem facing conservatives, after 5 years of GWB (and four of the other Bush) isn't about not getting everything, but about getting nothing. None of the big items on the conservative agenda, anyways, and that includes proper judicial nominations for the high courts.
After witnessing this administration, we are not seeing some sort of "conservative gramscian" movement (positive movement). Nor are we at a standstill (no movement). What it looks like is that we are going backwards (negative movement). Conservatives might be mollified with no movement. But:
1) regressing on the federal role in education?
2) adding an entitlement the size of the federal retirement pensions?
3) surrendering to opposition calls against Federalist society-type judges?
4) federal spending out of control? Worse than any Democrat would, or could, do?
5) rapidly increasing deficits and debt?
GWB is essentially a Democrat in action, with the backing of "ideological" conservatives.
If we are going backwards to such an extent, then how on earth can you suggest we are incrementally increasing conservatism? Either you are blind, or you are lying.
Now, if you are truly interested in seeing incremental gains, the solution is to go "ideological." Have the party run on a clear agenda of reform. Some elections we will win. Other times we will not. But more often than not, we will win. And because of that ratio (winning more than losing), once conservatives do get in office and work hard at implementing reforms, real progress will be made.
The answer IS NOT to have Republicans in office 80% of the time, just to implement big government style laws and spending 90% of that time, with the other 10% spent on mollifying the base. That is the recipe for regression.
Accept that conservatism will not win 100% of the time, and you will wind up with advancing the main agenda points in the long haul. Clamouring for all the power all the time guarantees we will lose the battle to save the Republic.