Replies

You crave power. We want to advance our principles. We can and will survive without the GOP being in power.

The issue with this is that in order to really advance principles past the theoretical level, a movement needs to have power.

Can the Conservative movement "survive" without the GOP being in power? Sure ... but can it succeed?

Allow me to give you two things to make my point in this regard more clear: "Chief Justice Roberts" and "Associate Justice Alito".

Do Conservatives really think that they can succeed without Conservatives in the Judiciary and on the Supreme Court?

Do Conservatives really think that, should the GOP lose the House (and possibly the Senate) this cycle and Associate Justice Stevens and/or Ginsburg retires/dies before 2008 that President Bush will able to successfully put justices like Roberts and Alito on the court.

Here's my own personal experience with my fellow Conservatives who place everything on "principle" without understanding how "power" factors into success. In 1992 I watched in horror as other "principled" Conservatives abandoned a decent, if moderate, Republican President for Pat Buchanan ... setting up a situation (serious primary challenge) that past elections indicated would be a fatal blow.

President Bush had a 50/50 track record on SCOTUS appointments (Liberal Souter, and solidly Conservative Thomas) ... which I'd point out was a better ratio than Reagan (2/1 with "Moderate" Kennedy and O'Connor, and solidly Conservative Scalia). We can make all sorts of speculative assumptions as to what Justices a Bush41 2nd term would have produced ... but I think it's safe to conclude that the results wouldn't have been Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer ...

As a Conservative, I'm actually ok with a "moderate" Republican as President ... so long as the Judicial appointments are Conservative (and from the looks of this Bush43 has a better record than both his Dad AND Reagan). Because when it comes right down to it, for the last 40 years the Judiciary is the real venue that ensures whether a social movement succeeds ... or fails.

I understand that power is necessary to advance principle, but I also understand that abused and squandered power does more harm than good.

As a conservative or more appropriately, a constitutionalist, I know that my rights don't come from government and even the absolute destruction of the Constitution does not effect my rights. It only means that I have to fight a little harder to exercise them.

In the short term, RINOs do more damage to our rights because the attack on them is more insidious and because they are 'our guys', they don't get the strict scrutiny that the 'other' team would for the same proposals. (please note my tagline.)

If I had my druthers, I'll take a divided government with a Dem president and a conservative Congress to blunt him or a true constitutionalist to blunt a 'moderate' or liberal Congress, but a divided and antagonistic government which produces a lot of gridlock in any form will do.

A weak congress and a RINO or Dem president spells disaster for the Republic.