Absolutely correct. But, Reagan is dead. W was the guy elected. Sure he disappointed both of us but Gore would have been worse. That is fact. Now we have the Messiah. McCain is not my guy but elections have consequences. Conserv opposition simply has failed. It will not stop the security over freedom that we believe in Socialism will be rampant. When 4 million disappointed conservs did not, did not vote for John, that ended any, any Pub conserv chance for perhaps 4 terms to turn this around. The WSJ wrote last week, if SCHIP is passed, and it will be, then federal health care is in the cards for sure and the Pubs cannot stop it. That is fact. So of course W could have been , should have been, but he wasn’t. We got a faded look at a guy who protected the nation but failed to implement conserv ideals. This election past, simply eliminated those views for a generation. That too is fact since just where do you see opposition forming and groups talking a return to free enterprise democratic capitalism and a democratic-republican form of historical American government. I do not see it anywhere.
Phil, thanks for the reply and you make such valid points that this post may read like War and Peace. Reagan is truly dead and I don’t join with other cons in thinking we need to duplicate his policies(just his beliefs). And yes W got elected, in fact I voted for him in 00 and 04. Thing is, I knew he wasn’t a solid con back then but I also knew that his message of compassionate conservatism was the only thing that was going to beat Gore. Bush Sr rode in on the popularity of a two term president by beating Dukakis over the head with his liberalism compared to the success of Reagan’s conservatism. We cons were looking at the same thing with Bush Jr v Gore. Gore was going to try to beat any republican over the head with their conservatism with the popularity of Clinton’s liberalism. Now with compassionate conservatism, I thought Bush found an end run around this problem especially with regards to faith based initiatives. Think about it. It was Bush saying that he would take our tax money and turn it around and give it back to the states and the people to spend as they saw fit(with some caveates). On top of that he promised a tax cut at a time when the federal gov’t touting a surplus. A tax cut should have kept the next pres from spending that surplus and have sent it back to us. Now we cons all have our inclinations and I am a fiscal con first, small government cons second, a traditional con third and a social con last. But I have the highest regard for social cons and the positive influence they have on governance. The church based charities operate on a shoestring and yeild the best returns on their efforts. In short, I bought into Bush’s compassionate conservatism early on and it didn’t pan out. He kept his compassion right there in DC with his increased spending and his willingness to use the federal government to get his way. Let me back up. There are 3 groups to blame for why conservatives and the republican party that relies on them to get elected are on the ropes right now. Numero Uno is President Bush because if he had just articulated that conservatism has compassion as one of its key ends and that compassionate conservatism isn’t just some subset of the conservative movement we’d be ok right now. “Hi, I’m one of those compassionate conservatives and not one of those mean conservatives”. Give me a break. 2ndly the republican party got happily and quickly into bed with the beltway and business almost as soon as they rode into Washington on a reform movement back in 94 with the contract with America. And this leads me to our third culprit which is us conservative voters. We let this happen. We wanted our party to win at all costs(that “it could have been worse” theme). Every con became a con second and a republican first. Every republican pol was free to do whatever they could to get re-elected including embracing leftist policies, becoming corrupt, getting hot and heavy with K Street and playing dirty politics. So there ya go. For fiscal cons it should be about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. For small government cons it should be about limiting the size of the federal government while proving that local government is almost always better at handling problems than the fed is. Traditional cons should be fighting for the return of our institutions and our culture to their previous roles as arbiters of stability not venues of social reform. Finally social cons should keep reminding us all that there is a higher purpose and that what we do here now for ourselves is nothing compared to what we need to do to honor God. Me, I am not so pessimistic. Not since the depression has it been so obvious that government sucks, that they are not good at governing. The republicans need a reformer in the truest since of the word. Obama didnt promise that, he only promised “change”. You can change a diaper. It still fills up with crap in a few hours. The next republican has to be a conservative reformer not a cafeteria style conservative like Bush was. Or an insider/elitist like McCain. The people are SO pissed off at the federal government and Obama has given no beliefs that he will set things right. Reagan gave us a theme which was that government is not the answer and that indivigual initiative is. Four years of an Obama presidency screwing things up may just give conservatives the opening we need. Hello camel, meet straw.