[Saundra Duffy]

He's right, of course, and I think the conservatives need to GO ON THE DEFENSE about it, before it's too late. For victory & freedom!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

Is that the same as "seething with righteous indignation"? Just asking.

[Saundra Duffy]

Bump for Bucko!

[smith288]

Sounds like a rant, a righteous rant...but a rant none the less.

[Faraday]

George Bush isn't conservative blah, blah, blah. Fine. What's your program, pal? How do we advance the conservative movmement?

(BTW, some answers to the stupid question posed by the author include: 1) National missile defense, 2) Supporting gun rights, 3) Maintaining a high profile pro-life position, 4) Rebuilding military strength and preparedness, 5) Opposing the Kyoto treaty, etc.)

[Camber-G]

... conservatives need to GO ON THE DEFENSE about it, before it's too late ...

Very true, but may I make the sugestion that we also need to GO ON THE OFFENSE about it also ?
Thanks.

[conserve-it]

Thanks very much for posting this article. Truth is always welcome. Now we can sit back and wait for the Bush is GOD folk.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The cure for the "movement" is to work your asses off to get people elected. It's not rocket science. Just go door-to-door and prosletyze like the JW's do. Talk to blacks and hispanics and asians, too. Get them on board. The elections will take care of themselves. The demographic shifts that hurt Bush in 2000 will get worse by 2004 and worse by 2008. Not all white voters will vote GOP.

[Ohioan]

I do not think we should go on the defense. We need to be on the offense.

However, I would not make the President the target. I would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions and, where possible, attack ideas not individuals. Indeed, it is not necessary to even discuss personalities in attacking the lunacy that prevails in both parties in Washington. If Conservatives can stir up enough opposition to the whole Rabbit hole like attitude that prevails in Washington, you will be surprised how many of the politicians start getting cold feet.

Of course, we also need to fight every Primary battle we can, to nominate as many real Conservatives as we can in both parties. I am not suggesting not to attend to the electoral process. But the President has 2 1/2 years to go, whether we like it or not. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and try to persuade everyone around him that we have the better message than those who are pushing him to the Left.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Cold Heat]

When was the last time you saw President Bush put principle over party?

Huh?

The fact is, that he does it all the time!

Newt backs Bush at every opportunity on almost everything.

Mr. Brewer has alot to learn.

[Khepera]

I would like to know what this guy thinks "Conservative Values" are. The Libertarians say they are promoting "Conservative Values" by legalizing Drugs, Prostitution and, Abortion on demand. They promote erasing our national borders and allowing anyone to enter our country without so much as a please or thank you. They promote homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle with all the protections that can be awarded and these are just the tip of the iceberg. If that's the Conservative values of which he speaks then he can keep them to himself.

[Dan from Michigan]

Will you stand behind those who have Righteous Anger or will you continue to back spineless, whichever-way-the-wind-blows "conservatives"? You tell me.

Almost agree. Rightous Anger doesn't do a damn thing. I see a lot of TALKERS out there.

Joel, are you a talker, or a doer? At 24, you say you are a political novice and a rookie. I'm 23. I'm treasurer of MCRGO-PAC. I'm treasurer of a campaign(he withdrew). I've been on several other campaigns and am working on a couple here. I'm a member of the MSU and Livingston County GOP(I joined the party last year after being an indy). I'm running for precinct delegate right now. I'm a liason between MCRGO and other campaigns.

Rants don't do it. Action does. Too many conservatives are all talk and no action. Writing rants isn't action.

[MEGoody]

This fellow may, indeed, be correct. But the fact is, there are far too many who would consider themselves conservative who don't get out and vote. (I can't tell you the number of Christians who have told me that we are not supposed to vote - it's too worldly.) So of course, to get elected, a conservative almost HAS to pander to some degree to the Demheads. I'm sure you might be able to point to a couple of examples where this hasn't been the case. But by and large, it is the rule rather than the exception. I hate it, but that's the way it is.

[Max McGarrity]

BTTT

[x]

At 24, anything is possible. At that age, we are all convinced that great changes in politics are possible, desirable, and not all that hard to achieve. Life teaches us otherwise. Major changes come about once in a generation. Persuasion, argument, education, organization and propaganda all prepare the ground for possible changes, but it's usually some crisis that triggers and forces change. In the absence of such a crisis people's natural small c conservatism makes them likely to resist changes based merely on ideological arguments. And even the desirable, long-awaited changes unleashed in times of crisis bring less worthy and less well-thought-out changes in their wake.

The comparison of the politician and the statesman is worth developing. But even the statesman knows that if he is not elected or reelected he can achieve nothing. And a statesman is not the same thing as an ideological warrior. The statesman has to have an idea of the country as a whole beyond this or that ideology.

It would be interesting to know just who the author's ideal statesmen are. We tend to take someone like Churchill as a model statesman because of his principled stand against Hitler. But that involves foreign policy. We forget that in his domestic political battles Churchill was ineffective when he stood firm on principle or ideology, and was not firm and uncompromising when he was effective. In 1945 Churchill stood firm on the issue of freedom versus socialism and lost by a landslide. When he came back to power, he compromised, fudged or finessed every ideological conflict. A half century earlier, at the beginning of his ministerial career, Churchill the Liberal did indeed stand on principle and for a time succeed, but they were the wrong principles.