[FreedomProtector]

"Rove strikes me as someone who is willing to jettison a commitment to limited government if it means growing the GOP's appeal. Of course, that may be more Bush than Rove, but I see it as a little of both. Newt attempts to find a way to communicate Republican ideals to a broader range of people without as much compromise."

Those are valid insightful points, and I don't disagree. I still believe that Rove is ideologically grounded (hard to compare what level with other people), however his job objective/title of winning elections masks or covers his ideology/philosophy.


Politics actually needs both and I believe the struggle between pragmatism and ideology is often the root of many (interparty) debates. There are some things which one should never obviously never compromise on. If one was never pragmatic about where to put resources and careful about which battles to fight, one's philosophy or part of one's philosophy would never be implemented. I believe that when compromising one's ideology as an attempt to get part of it implemented that one should explain their ideology/philosophy and reasons why it is better. This is an area were Republicans have much room for improvement.

[FreedomProtector]

Ronald Reagan was good at all three:

1) Clearly ideologically/philosophically grounded in convervative thought.
2) Was pragmatic [without compromising uncompromisable principles]...[he had to be given congress at the time]...would "rather have a bill that has 75% of what I want then none at all"
3) Explained and articulated conservative ideology/philosophy and reasons why it is clearly better then the alternative, often times humorously.