[hispanichoosier]

Rush is dead wrong about the desirability of an intra-party fight and so are the idealogues who threaten to wreck the GOP.

You make a well-reasoned argument, but I think it is you who is wrong. I do want an intra-party fight so that we--the so-called ideologues--can finally exercise power instead of chafing under the governance of party leaders who care little about important issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) and who treat politics as a game instead of as a war. The absolute last thing I want to see is the GOP turned into a mushy, stand-for-nothing party.

[jveritas]

Can the "ideologues" get over 50% of the total votes in general election?

Pragmatic and compassionate Conservatism is the best formula for winning and achieving our goals little by little.

[Paladin2]

"chafing under the governance of party leaders who care little about important issues"

You mean like Trent Lott, McCain & Specter?

[GraceCoolidge]

I do want an intra-party fight so that we--the so-called ideologues--can finally exercise power instead of chafing under the governance of party leaders who care little about important issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) and who treat politics as a game instead of as a war. The absolute last thing I want to see is the GOP turned into a mushy, stand-for-nothing party.

You make an excellent point, and I think most conservatives share your desire for a more ideologically conservative party. Here's what worries me about your position, though: even if you are correct and ultimately true conservatives prevail in an intra-party fight, what if the price, short term, is something like a Hillary Clinton presidency? I don't think the kind of fight you envision is something resolved within a year or two between elections. Is the long term victory worth the shorter term losses from a divided party that would put government control with the left? And if so, how long would it take the conservatives, assuming they prevail intra-party and electorally, to undo the damage from Democrat control? There are high prices to pay no matter which course of action one favors, I think.

[XJarhead]

I do want an intra-party fight so that we--the so-called ideologues--can finally exercise power instead of chafing under the governance of party leaders who care little about important issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) and who treat politics as a game instead of as a war. The absolute last thing I want to see is the GOP turned into a mushy, stand-for-nothing party.

I don't either. What I don't understand is fighting a battle like that in an election off-year. Isn't the time to have that fight during the primary, where the guy whom we choose to carry the standard in the general election is selected?

At this point, we already selected our guy, and he won the general election. There is no more conservative option available right now. The makeup of our elected officials is not going to change. So the only fight we can really have right now is between elected Republicans and elected Democrats. And to the extent Miers isn't what we wanted, she likely is a lot better than what the Dems would have offiere.

Weakening Bush now doesn't strengthen the conservative wing of the party. The only people it strengthens are the Democrats. The time to fight the battles you wish to fight is in the primaries in 2006 and 2008.