Followers will always be followers, the only thing you can do to change them is show them something shiner to follow.

The only thing that makes me question MM's judgement is her decision to marry a raving, unhinged liberal who "looks like a muppet that's been washed on 'hot'"

Great stuff but the people who need to read this message will keep on calling David Frum for his opinions, and denouncing the "evil" Ann Coulter, who, to coin a phrase, basically just does what (the acceptable) PJ O'Rourke does, but face front, and in high heels.

Someone? once said "Never assume that you can win friends and influence people by stooping to their level."

Despite her sometimes inarticulate statements I think that Palin has a lot of potential and with the proper communications team definitely poses a substantive long term threat to the far left Democrats who are now running the US govt. As for the massed frontal attack on her by the forces of American socialism it simply reinforces my long held belief that when it comes to low brow, dirty, underhanded politics, the warm and fuzzy left can't be beat. Hate is their natural habitat.

Kathy Shaidle: "and denouncing the "evil" Ann Coulter."

The word I hear applied to her more often is "mean". But maybe that's because I'm in Canada, where it's so common to hear denunciations like "Harper is mean to run attack ads that use Michael Ignatieff's own words against him". Anyway, Ann Coulter is one conservative who doesn't need to read Mary Matalin's words.

My own belief about the basis of conservatism (and my attraction to it) doesn't seem to be Matalin's. Instead I've always characterized it as being based on reason, logic, facts, and above all on the lessons gained from contemplating real human actions and their consequences over the course of history.

Liberals, on the other hand, form delusional policy on the basis of feelings, personal guilt and good intentions that take little account of human nature, which is unchangeable.

Of course, conservatives in politics disappoint me repeatedly.

This philosophy is completely wrong.

If we want to NOT HAVE big government, ultra liberal, Euro-socialist government of elitists, then we had better be a bit more inclusive than a Rush Limbough-led ultra right wing movement.

It is wishful thinking for days gone by to rally around someone who is as divisive as Limbough. Just look around you. We now live in a multi-ethnic society. I apologize in advance for the Ad Hominem, but Rush is perceived by most as a fat, old, wealthy, sarcastic, somewhat ethnocentric white man. Now how appealing is he going to be to the now non-white majority of Americas?

Get real folks! We need to broaden the conservative movement and not restrict it to a narrow ideology. Would you rather "feel good" that you did not compromise with the "chattering class" or have a government with conservative values in place?

It is your decision. You will not get both.

Socialism is a cannibal: smash, grab, and eat.

Socialism is a marching stomach: As Saul Alinsky* didn't say:
$$$ Always let a crisis go to socialism's waist.
...-

“Ribera” gets it absolutely right when he reasons that the “progressive” or Gnostic agenda always begins with mayhem.

As Saul Alinksy*, Obama’s mentor, put it, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

Crises provide handy opportunities to destroy things.

“Ribera” understands this. The true believer, he writes, must abolish “philosophical order… reason, [a sense of] logic and causality.”

He must also abolish “political order [and] morality and religion” because he “must be freed of any determinism from outside his own will and impulses, so anything the civilization brings to him is somehow suspicious.”

The Gnostic “pretends to build a new world,” but what he really aims at doing is “destroying the old one… that is, any organized and superior civilization (especially the Western and Christian one).”"

"Two Readers Reply to Borges, Blixen, and Voegelin"
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3983

And yet, how many here will still vote for Harper in the next election? And justify the sell-out as being the lesser evil?

Kathy that description comes from Dennis Miller.

And Dennis Miller is a good example of where the GOP as opposed to conservatism needs to go.

Conservative values on the fiscal side are cast in stone - markets are a science.

Social values however, are always in flux - tossing beer cans out of a moving car was acceptable 50 yrs ago - today it is decidedly not so. Sarah Palin would have had no chance at becoming the GOP POTUS nominee 60 yrs ago if she had a daughter having a child out of wedlock. (and a divorced Reagan would have been a non-starter as well). The point is that on some social issues we are decidely more conservative than we were before and on others we are not. Making social issues the hill to die on for the GOP guarantees that it will perish.

Frum makes the mistake of arguing that the GOP and Conservatives compromise their values on both of the above. Dennis Miller and a sizeable group of americans - a significant majority Gingrich and others argue - are rock-solid on the fiscal issues. On social issues not so much.

And as Breitbart and many others have argued, the GOP has got to change how it delivers its message and also be more inclusive - less black and white - on the social issues front.

Kathy - the best description of James Carville's physiognomy I heard was that "he looks like an angry fetus"

All the media pundits are just mad that they won't have some stupid salacious trash talk to fill their pages.

Instead, they will have to fill their pages with the Obama-Nation's(tm) short comings.

Sarah was just in your face enough to crack the 'poor feminist me' myth which of course drives the leftists absolutely nutters.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

I think the stage is being set for a conservative titan to emerge in the US, Ronald Reagan on steroids. Just a matter of time, wait for the endless list of stimulus boondoogles and govt ineptitudes. The democrats will be finished for decades.

I think people hate rush because of his inflated ego that's why I despise him. I find his show entertaining, but not informative.

Romney/Gingrich in '12?

Keep looking south faux-Cons.

It seems to keep you from looking at the hypocrisy and lies of your 'Conservative' government.

And here I thought the leftists were irrational....

Conservatives have one major difficulty to overcome.....having their policies, image defined by the Liberals....
**an unprecedented infrastructure for mauling conservative messengers.**
The problem is how to define the Liberals as to what they are---ivory tower elitists and rabble-rousing community organizers---when Liberals control the means of communication....eg the CBC...
To borrow the wisdom of Keith Davies, after John Turner's defeat:
**The Canadian voters are not stupid....if they have to chose between two conservative parties they will vote for the real one.**
Conservatives have no future emulating Liberals....

Finally, some intelligent and astute speculation in regard to Palins' intentions.

The "salon", big city type political pundits have never understood who they're dealing with. Palin grew up in a society much closer to the realities of life, and has learned those realities first-hand.
Now she has experienced the back-stabbing, deal making, corrupt world of modern big-city politics. That experience has been an education for her, but it will not change who she is and what she has learned in her life.

On July 26th, the day she is no longer Governor, I expect her to kick open the barroom doors and step into the (political) street, guns blazing.

First, she will sue the ass off the first media organization that defames her or her family.

Next, she will be a whirlwind on the speaking circuit, and expect to see a lot of Sarah Palin on the talk and news shows.

Palin will suddenly have a much larger presence on the internet, driven by herself and her supporters. Just because her home is far away from the big-city slime, does not mean she is not fully aware of it or unable to play that game.

She's a fighter. Even in high school, she did not earn the title "Sarah'cuda" without reason. Later, she took on, and won, against even established Republican interests in Alaska. Vacuous liberal Democrats and Katie Couric do not scare her.

Expect a lot of "shock and awe" when "Caribou Barbie" turns out to be "Sarah'cuda"

I think her chances of being POTUS in 2012 are good, in fact much better than most pundits would think. But what do I know...?

For myself, even as a Canadian, this is going to be fun to watch.

Mike has the right idea. This frees up Palin to make money, take herself out to the rest of America, and lets her fight back in the courts against all the malicious lies.

imapopulistnow espouses the frumian line of "inclusiveness" and "broadening" conservatism. Frum gets his play because he is a sellout. He is the uncle tom conservative that is acceptable for the lefties.

46 percent of voters still voted for McCain even though he offered nothing but democrat lite. Even with the utter media bias, the whole "The One" bit, the all but religious fervor over "O", not to mention blatant cheating, and still 46 percent voted for McCain.

Watering down the message does nothing to advance conservatism.

"The only thing that makes me question MM's judgement is her decision to marry a raving, unhinged liberal"

Yeah, Kathy, I've often wondered about that myself. What on earth do they talk about at home while eating dinner?? I know opposites are supposed to attract, but that is just ridiculous.

Right - Imapopulistnow is ignoring that Conservativism isn't about 'inclusiveness of types' which suggests that people are made up of different species, each separate and distinct, to be all gathered in one 'inclusive' corral. Wrong. We are one species.

Conservativism is about pragmatic government. Not ideological mantras of abstract rhetoric. Conservativism respects that all members of our ONE species are able to think, reason, and have an agenda of looking after themselves and their local environment. Conservativism puts the governing and fiscal power in the hands of the people to do so..rather than take it away and inserting governing elitism to tell everyone 'how to live'.

Oh, and a word to imapopulist...when you describe someone as 'perceived by most' - you are committing a logical fallacy - not ad hominem but ad populam..where you rely on 'the most' to substantiate your own personal opinion. Your view of Rush remains yours..not that of 'most people'.

madmike - nice post.

An example of someone never allowed into the Left
Liberal club is Richard Nixon. Objectively he is
perhaps the most Left Liberal of Presidents until
Obama. He ended the Vietnam war. He recognized
Communist China. He pursued detente with the
Soviets. He destroyed US stocks of war gases.
He appeared on "Laugh-in". None of this helped.
He is the bogeyman par excellence,
while John Kennedy, who got
the Americans into the Vietnam war,
is honored as a saint.

"Words that every conservative politician "

*Every* conservative politician?

Like conservative blogs, conservative judges, and conservative lawyers, I'm not sure they exist.

Your problem is that you fundamentally - and deliberately, frankly - misunderstand what a conservative is. Additionally, you're no conservative, and since when is advice proffered to one's enemies of any value whatsoever? You advice is of no greater value to conservatives than Judy Rebick's. If NRO is conservative I'm Benjamin Disraeli, same goes for them.

Regarding Palin, she's a broad. As impressive a broad as exists, but still a broad, and not fit to lead America on that count alone. It's funny, I was just listening to Great Speeches of the 20th century, one of the better ones was Thatcher's "The Lady's Not For Turning" speech. Now that's a worthy leader, but she had the advantage of coming from a better time and place.

ET

"Conservativism is about pragmatic government. Not ideological mantras of abstract rhetoric"

sorry ET, have to disagree here, too many "conservatives" are ideologically corrupted by their religious beliefs!!!

The problem I've seen with a lot of "conservatives" is that they don't really want smaller government. They want government working for -their- agenda.

These are people who don't understand that government only ever works for its OWN agenda, which is to get BIGGER. That is the one and only thing government reliably accomplishes. It grows. And as it grows, it eats the time, money and freedoms of the people it governs. Ours has got so big its demands are the main problem we have as individuals, taxes are our main expense.

This is why I'm so fiercely against "conservative" social policies. Government is not the mechanism by which we change society for the better. Government, my friends, is the mechanism that runs over society, chews it up and spits out the broken pieces.

Now, some troll up above made mention of voting for the CPC because it is the lesser of the four evils. Yes, this is correct troll. The CPC -is- the lesser of the evils, and by a considerable margin. I will continue to support the CPC and continue to harass and harry its officials into shrinking government wherever possible, at all times.

We didn't get the vast cluster f- of a government we have today all at one shot, it grew like fungus. We will have to shrink it the same way, one shovel-full at a time.

Please note, CPC factotums, nabobs and wonks reading this: making nice with the Opposition is not shoveling. The Opposition is there to be DEFEATED, not accommodated. Start cutting some budgets, start dismantling some empires. Get the shovel moving, by dead of night if you have to.

This concludes my cranky rant of the day.

phantom - nice post. Thanks. And nice analysis of 'government'.

Conservative 'government' ought to be about, not policies, but pragmatics. It ought to enable people to work and live, and fix their own local problems. It ought to enable an elected representation to develop laws and regulations...which we do need - but these must be kept minimal.

Governments, as you point out, tend to transform into monstrous bureaucracies with an elitist view that only these people 'know' what is right and wrong. And this set, and their rules, becomes as you say, like a fungus, growing larger and more smothering all the time.

Shrink it.

In light of the fact that Sarah Palin brought real conservatism to the dance, and invigorated the base like no one else in recent memory, it's not surprising that slimy, morally repulsive hypocrites in the media would throw truckloads of feces at her and her family. What IS surprising is the extent to which various conservative commenters have walked out on her while professing as loudly as possible to bystanders that yes, as a matter of fact, she is covered in shit.

I don't think that these urban conservative sages -- or anyone else -- are even aware anymore of where they draw their conclusions from. Notice how their criticisms (hillbilly, redneck, etc) just happen to parrot the enemy's past attack line to a tee? As Mary Matalin said, "Republicans have fallen into the Information Age's false premise that the messenger is the message. Such a mindset is tailor made for liberals, who have perfected the politics of personal destruction and have erected an unprecedented infrastructure for mauling conservative messengers." That's it: the vilifying rat-messengers dance away, but the message -- that Sarah Palin is disgusting, and stupid, and should be cut out from the herd -- sticks, and is no longer connected to those who originally dispensed it.

Remember those revolting half-suggestions of incest that were suggestively parroted ("it's not ME, I'm just repeating what's out there, and since it's out there it's news") on national news broadcasts? The specific charge may have lapsed into falsity, but the general form -- the unleashed impulse to pile on -- remains: At CTV.ca, a U of T prof opines that the timing of her resignation announcement ("...when media attention is focused on the death of Michael Jackson") -- suggests Palin is "trying to hide (the announcement) away, which again to some extent suggests that there may be more to this story than we have been told so far, that there may be be skeletons in the closet that have yet to be revealed, or will be revealed shortly, that she's trying to avoid." Jonathan Kay: "...we still have no idea why she is resigning. Is it to build up a presidential run in 2012 -- or because another skeleton is about to jump out of her closet?" David Frum: "Perhaps some scandal was hovering over the horizon."

In Frum's case, his baseless speculation-as-analysis reaches the level of divination: "Had Palin sought and won the Republican nomination in 2012 (sic) she would almost certainly have proceeded to a Goldwater-style debacle -- and dragged Republican senators, governors and representatives down with her. That would have been a miserable result. And yet it also would have been a clarifying one. Republicans would have got Palin and Palinism out of their systems..."

Gee, what a *shock* to see David Frum scuttling across a ropes to a neighbouring ship with better cocktail parties. He's been such a courageous, principled stalwart...

Anyway, I think it's absolutely, critically important that conservatives never, ever forget the way Sarah Palin has been treated by those same laughing rats who've managed to stick Barack Obama up everyone's collective a**. To forget who the messengers were, and what their tactics were, would amount to a profound betrayal of everything that matters. Conservatives need to have the brains and the heart to recognize when a war has been launched against them, and to give no quarter.

Barking Happy: "Regarding Palin, she's a broad. As impressive a broad as exists, but still a broad, and not fit to lead America on that count alone. It's funny, I was just listening to Great Speeches of the 20th century, one of the better ones was Thatcher's "The Lady's Not For Turning" speech. Now that's a worthy leader, but she had the advantage of coming from a better time and place."

Apart from your characterization of her as a "broad," I have to agree (and I've said much the same on here before). I like Sarah Palin, she has her place in American politics, and she has been attacked undeservedly as few public figures have ever been attacked. But she does not and never will come close to the intellectual stature or leadership abilities of Margaret Thatcher or any conservative heavyweight you want to name. It doesn't do conservatives any good to claim otherwise.

I repeat: there's a lot to like in Sarah Palin, but conservatism in the US has to produce a much better leader than she has the potential for -- someone with the experience and gravitas of Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney but without the baggage. Democrats, who continue to swoon over Obama, seem oblivious to the fact that there is now a terrific opportunity for a smart (better: brilliant), well-informed and articulate conservative to put the Dems on the defensive.

It's easy to see why the GOP can't stop thinking about Ronald Reagan.

Government is there for the common defense (the military) and to create and enforce the laws (police, courts). Anything more that is criminal misuse of power.

MJ:

To that point, Reagan was a very well-read, seasoned conservative. It did not regurgitate or inherit, or repeat anyone else's talking points. He wrote the script or at least part of it, because he was reading and meeting and planning through the decades. Palin's greatest "fault" is that she is a rookie dear in headlights. Her second greatest fault is that, when found in that situation, all she had to fall back on was very old talking points and a good delivery. She did not seem to have the ability to connect new circumstances and unplanned questions to a deep-rooted understanding of the conservativism. All she had was her conservative beliefs and her conservative talking points. She had a great delivery and great lines were written for her, and she had a belief system that connected with many, but that was it.

I'd be more kind to Palin than you though. I'd say you are completely accurate about her today. What happens in the future, is up to her. Does she have the ability to grasp complex issues, relate deep and old beliefs to modern realities? Or is she just a conservative Obama: a pretty box with nothing inside?

Thanks ET.

A Human Rights Commission run by Kate McMillan, ET, Kathy Shaidle and The Phantom is not an improvement over what we've got now. (It'd be hilarious though, eh? Think of the office decor!)

-No- Human Rights Commission, that's an improvement. That's Conservatism, that's what I want.

Stephen Harper, take note.

I think Palin can learn and mature; what she has going for her and what she mustn't lose, is an intense experience and connection with - everyday reality. She's not one of the cocooned elite.

That's why the cocooned Liberal left women hate her so much; she's not a botoxed, plastic surgeoned, manufactured woman, who alone decides whether to have or abort a child; who insists on total control over life, and who rejects any 'deformity'..as are the Liberal Lites.

And we know how intolerant these Liberal Lites are, how viciously destructive of anyone who is 'other', how contemptuous of ordinary people. Remember Obama's sneers at the rural, church-going people?

I'd say her focus is on 2016. Not 2012. Now, she ought to go for the Senate in 2010.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at July 6, 2009 11:57 AM

Gord Tulk - Your comments are excellent. I hope others will go back and read and ponder on them.

Posted by: ET at July 6, 2009 1:06 PM

I stand by my comments with respect to Rush Limbough and how "most people" perceive him. (I do thank you for expanding my vocabulary.)

Now that she's no longer governor, Sarah could do to the American MSM what she did to the politico scumbags of Alaska and their big oil partners, in handy best seller format.
Team up with Mark Levin for 2012 and clean house baby.
I hope she fillets Katie Couric into boneless easily digested nuggets.

"I think people hate rush because of his inflated ego that's why I despise him. I find his show entertaining, but not informative"

I would be very interested to hear a sample of his inflated ego, just for grins.

Is it the "Talent on loan from God" thing? Under many religious worldviews, all talent is "on loan from God". Just because you don't understand something does not mean that there is nothing there. I find Rush very informative. Much more so than Robert Gibbs, for example, who dodges, weaves, and simply refuses to answer questions. Or Obama, who, if he is not lying, then has a vision of truth that is temporally bound, to put it kindly.

If she gets the lefties that upset, there must be something there. There is a reason the left ignores David Frum other than to use him to bolster their argument.

To use the lefts talking points as meat in an argument describing Palin gives way too much credibility to their fallacious and outright lying reasoning. She ain't perfect. Not even "The One" is. Somehow I doubt Thatcher was born the iron baby.

ima[populist - you don't get it. You can only speak for yourself; you have no right to speak for 'most people'.

Have you, by the way, conducted a survey - a large, random survey, that enables you to come to a valid conclusion about how 'most people' think of Limbaugh?

His radio show has the highest ratings of any radio talk show. [Note: I don't have a radio and have never heard him]. And a poll put him in the 50-50 ratio of people who like him.

Therefore, your telling us that ' Rush is perceived by most as a fat, old, wealthy, sarcastic, somewhat ethnocentric white man" is totally unsubstantiated and remains your personal opinion. I suggest you remove 'perceived by most' and be honest, and say ,"Rush is perceived by me as...'

EBD - great comments. Thanks.

ATACL: "I'd say you are completely accurate about her today. What happens in the future, is up to her. "

ET: "I think Palin can learn and mature."

She'll improve, no doubt. But we all have our limitations, and my opinion, for what it's worth, is that Sarah Palin doesn't have the stuff to become President, much less be a good one.

imapopulistnow: "I do thank you for expanding my vocabulary."

But, please, it's ad populum, not ad populam (apologies -- I can't let this sort of thing pass. I know I should ...).

mj - yes, I know about the 'populum' but check it out; both 'populam' and 'um' are commonly used- and that includes in textbooks on Informal Fallacies!! My five years of Latin are long, long over.

Posted by: ET at July 6, 2009 4:10 PM

ima[populist - you don't get it. You can only speak for yourself; you have no right to speak for 'most people'.

ET - I do not think that I need to conduct a survey to sense what are the attitudes of "most people". Although I will search the internet for opinion polls on Rush Limbough. It will be an interesting exercise and I will be the first to admit that I am wrong if I discover that the majority of the population has a favorable attitude towards him.

I will admit that I was somewhat crude in the descriptors that I used and that they do reflect my personal observations of the man in an ad populam/populum kind of way.

The point I am making is that Rush represents just a narrow spectrum of the conservative ideology and that we will not be successful in wrestling leadership away from the left if we do not include conservatives with a more moderate approach.

I found the points made by "Posted by: Gord Tulk at July 6, 2009 11:57 AM" quite on target (and perhaps a bit more civil than mine.) There are many individuals who consider themselves fiscal conservatives but not social conservatives. Further social mores have and will continue to change over time.

Perhaps you are projecting your own beliefs on and assuming they are held by the majority. I don't know. (I tried to find a word that described this attribute and was unsuccessful.)

Sarah Palin represents a threat to two branches of American mainstream political interests. First the faux "old money" elitist Republican sell outs of the Northeast US. It is this group which derives comfort from the wedge issue "Palin's a stupid hillbilly" that the Democrats and their lackeys have pushed to help these Republicans block her.

Second, taking a leaf from President Reagan's playbook, the most chilling two words possible at a Democratic Party gathering of top dogs must be "Palin Democrats".

Just 11% of Republicans Say Limbaugh Is Their Party’s Leader Rasmussen Reports Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Given the deliberately partisan and ideological nature of Limbaugh's radio program, the sharp divide in views of the talk-show host by partisanship are not surprising. Still, the data from Gallup's Jan. 30-Feb. 1 poll show that Republican support for Limbaugh is not monolithic. Although a clear majority of 60% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh, a not-insignificant 23% have an unfavorable opinion. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they have no opinion of Limbaugh either way (either because they haven't heard of him or don't know enough about him to say). Almost a third of Democrats say they have no opinion of Limbaugh, but negative views of him among Democrats outweigh positive opinions by more than a 10-to-1 ratio. Among independents, negatives outweigh positives by a 45% to 25% margin. - GALLUP - February 5, 2009

Rush Limbaugh’s Approval at 19 Percent
CBS' Brian Montopoli reports on a new poll by his network that has Rush Limbaugh's favorability ratings at 19 percent:
Posted in Outside The Beltway on March 18, 2009 08:53

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). June 12-15, 2009. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.4.
"I'm going to read you the names of several public figures and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so. Rush Limbaugh."

Very
Positive 8%

Somewhat
Positive 15%

Neutral 17%

Somewhat
Negative 13%

Very
Negative 37%

Don't
Know
Name/
Not Sure 10%

Speaking of an angry fetus. If Gord Tulk thinks for a minute that conservatives (or at least Catho
lics) are going to change their views on social is
sues like abortion, he's crazy. Liberals have been saying for years that abortion-on-demand was a given but have been proven wrong time and again Like
David Warren, many of us not only worship that way, but we vote that way too. If I'm not mistaken one of you (was it Vitruvius?) quoted Marcus Aurelius that "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority ...".

ET: "mj - yes, I know about the 'populum' but check it out; both 'populam' and 'um' are commonly used- and that includes in textbooks on Informal Fallacies!!"

Nonetheless, it's cringe-worthy and a barbarism to boot. I'll fight it to the end!

MJ, you were the Latin scholar they called on for Life of Brian, right?

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi. ~:D

imapopulist - nope, it won't work. You can only speak for yourself. You have no right to speak for 'most people'. Only yourself.

You've provided some polls, which are mixed (Republicans in favour, Democrats not in favour).
I've provided some data that shows that his show is the most popular radio show in the US.

Your 500+ poll is unacceptable, both in numbers, in lack of identification of its randomness of selecting the sample population and in the question. The question is too ambiguous; it's what's called an 'open question' for the respondent can interpret in an open manner. I'd fail any student who tried such a question in my methods class.

And the question of 'favourable opinion' versus unfavourable' has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that most people view Limbaugh as a 'fat, old, wealthy, sarcastic, somewhat ethnocentric white man". Not one poll asked whether Limbaugh represented any of these qualities. Therefore, you have no right to claim that they substantiate your personal opinion.

Furthermore, the notion that Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party is ridiculous and of course it is rejected; he's not a politician but a conservative talk-show host. Period.

Again, you simply don't seem to understand. YOU don't speak for anyone other than yourself.

And these polls that you are now supplying aren't asserting the same thing you are asserting. All they ask is whether or not the respondent has a favourable opinion; that's open to the respondent's interpretation. Not one uses the terminology that you use.

You have no right to make such a claim. Speak only for yourself.

True ET. Besides imapopulistnow... NBC poll? Come on, dude.

Limbaugh has the largest audience in US radio history every day, and it keeps getting bigger. If your numbers were right, that couldn't be happening. His audience would be more like Al Franken's on Air America.

When in doubt, external reality check.

imapopulist..I think you should google 'ad populum' (or am) and see what it means. It means that you are assuming your opinion is valid because you assume that the majority holds that opinion.

Your inability to find a term to mean 'projecting one's own beliefs and assuming they are held by the majority'..is astonishing. That's what ad populum means!!!

[What do you think it means?]

Back to the Conservatives. I think that conservativism doesn't operate as an ideology, like socialism. Ideologies are, in a way, utopian. They promote perfection.

There is nothing utopian about conservativism; it has no agenda of an ultimate perfect world, 'if only we set up such and such a policy'. Instead, conservativism is an action. An ongoing action of reduction, rather like keeping one's eye on the weeds.

Conservativism is a pragmatic action, a constant vigilant process of ensuring freedom of the individual, both in his capacity to work and in his capacity to think.

Therefore, conservativism focuses on enabling the individual to work and think, it focuses on enabling a capitalist economy, a merit-based societal system, an ethical society focused around that working, reasoning individual.

To that end, its aim is to acknowledge the right of these individuals to establish common laws for themselves, to establish a system of defence and security...within a small governance.

Conservativism weeds, constantly weeds, the ubiquitous emergence and spreading of a bureaucracy that will smother the individual.

But there's no utopian policies; there's no set of actions that 'IF we establish THIS POLICY, THEN, we'll all be happy'.

Liberals, Democrats, Socialists, Communists - they are utopians. They focus, not on individuals, but on abstract policies that they insist will 'bring success' if implemented.

Like Obama's 'stimulus package' heh...
Like Obama's health care
Like Obama's cap and trade
Like his foreign policy of fawning and scraping..

Conservatives don't do this; they work on pragmatic issues, in a piecemeal, 'bricolage' fashion..together..with no utopian future. Just a process of enabling individuals to work and think.

If 'Pleasing Your Enemies Does Not Turn Them Into Friends' is a tried an true maxim, someone please tell BO surrendering defensive nuclear capability to the Ruskis is a really silly thing to do.

Pleasing your enemies seems to just get you caught responding to some fake intellectual bigot who brings "old fat white guy" to every debate.

Larry Bennett:

RCs have largely voted Democrat since JFK's days.

Unless there is a woman candidate for POTUS in 2012, the election will be fought on one or both of the following fronts: Fiscal policy and foreign affairs policy.

The GOP - the party closest to the conservative ideal - has far and away the better and more popular positions on both. Had Obama - the frst black potus nominee - not been the Dem option last year the GOP would have won.

Picking a candidate known most for their social conservative positions - huckabee and palin for example - would be a huge mistake. Socons have nowhere else to go - strident positions on their issues divide rather than unite and attract the independents and fiscal conservative dems. Focus on the winning issues - fiscal probity and a standtall foreign policy and let the sleeping, divisive dogs of abortion and SSM etc. lie.

"And yet, how many here will still vote for Harper in the next election? And justify the sell-out as being the lesser evil?"

And who will you be voting for?

It's called teh Joe Clarke Fallacy

"And yet, how many here will still vote for Harper in the next election? And justify the sell-out as being the lesser evil?"

The correct time to bail on the Conservative Party of Canada is when they table a budget with a thirty two billion dollar deficit. I voted Tory with honour and enthusiasm in 2004, 2006, and 2008, but will not do so next election.

Thing is, most people at this website were bailing on Harper when he was still running eleven billion dollar surpluses and providing the cleanest government in at least a generation and, in my estimation, ever in this unfortunate Dominion.

I will be financially supporting any and all Fathers4Justice candidates in this election as I did last election and you should too if you care about Western Civilization. I've met their people: good, honourable men who care deeply about their cause. Protip: donate under a fake name and forget about the tax deduction.

As for America, the GOP needs to affirm we live in the age of identity politics and be the party of and for White Americans. This would mean conceding abortion, gay marriage, and religion, all of which are actually more popular among Whites than non-Whites, and running on a strict fiscal restraint platform, a new Contract With America.

Demonize the Dems as the party of mooches who want to bankrupt America; at the very least it might shame non-White voters if not expose them as the whiny hand out seekers that they've become. At best, it could mean a big majority.

In order to work there would need to be a purge of the GOP of anyone remotely connected to the Big Government Bush Administration - they're hazmat, a cancer on the Republican party.

The warmongers have to go too; White people, unfairly, are developing a reputation as warmongers and that's not helpful in any way. An isolationist policy is a fiscally responsible one; Joe Lunchpail doesn't give a rat's ass about Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest, there are far too many domestic issues to deal with. Obama will be exposed as every bit the warmonger Bush was, let him wear it and reclaim the great, honourable American tradition of nonintervention.

The price of an Empire is still America's soul - that, and a billion dollar a week (!) fuel bill for the Iraq war - and that price is still too high, doubly so at a time when America is facing bankruptcy.

The candidate matters less than the policy. Obama threatened martial law to pass his budget and so should the GOP - arrest and detain anything that moves if that's what it takes to pass a fiscally conservative budget.

I voted Liberal in the BC elections this Spring, the lesser of two evils, The NDP might have been elected, and I would have considered myself respons-
ible for making things worse for the unborn and the dying. Things are beginning to turn, though granted, slowly. A new generation is beginning to wonder if today's popular ideas are what's best for mankind. Never give in!

ET: Your last post was clearly an Ad Hominem. So get off your high horse and lets discuss the issues.

First let me say with respect to your discussion of conservativism that I am impressed with the clarity and substance of your comments.

I agree with every statement that you made concerning conservativism. Let focus on one concept:

Twice you mention pragmatism. That is precisely my point although I may apply the concept differently than you had intended. I believe that if we want to have conservativism restored in North America, we need to be far more pragmatic and flexible in our approach.

We need to make sure that the conservative movement includes far more groups and viewpoints than just those held by "the true superstars of message-coherence and -delivery, such as Rush Limbaugh.." and perhaps by you and by many other posters on this blog site.

We must include those who generally share a conservative philosophy, even if they do not agree with all of the principals that pure conservativism espouses.

Those who may hold moral standards that differ from ourselves, those who believe in a meritocratic society but with safety nets, those who believe that while bureaucracy stifles free will and individual productivity, unregulated markets result in concentrated power, greed and corruption.

Do we reject someone such as Colin Powell because he does not fit into the mold of the pure conservative movement? John McCain? Doesn't the fact that John McCain was nominated by conservatives to be the Republican presidential candidate tell you something about the need to be pragmatic and flexible in one's principals?

If you think the people will elect a conservative who is 100% true to the principles of conservativism than carry on. I do not believe so.

By the way, I looked up "Argumentum ad populum" which means "If many believe so, it is so." Neither did I state this about Limbough, I spoke of perceptions, nor did I state this about you. To the contrary: "If I believe then many (most) must believe it is so".

I find it disgusting that so many people resort to the"Argumentum ad populum" style of "group think" and do not have the confidence in their judgment and reasoning abilities to think independently. (Which I am sure you will agree is a true conservative value even if we do not agree on all matters conservative.)

NOTICE: Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email.

Posted by: ET at July 6, 2009 7:17 PM

Best description of what conservative politics actually are as opposed to those conservative politics that are currently in use.

imapopulistnow: "Doesn't the fact that John McCain was nominated by conservatives to be the Republican presidential candidate tell you something about the need to be pragmatic and flexible in one's principals?"

It tells me 2 things:

1) You don't know that conservatives did not nominate McCain
2) It's a losing strategy (you might to check out the results of the election)

Which principals would you like us to be flexible on? Free speech? Junk Science? Our stance on crime? Private property?

"Posted by: ET at July 6, 2009 7:17 PM

Best description of what conservative politics actually are as opposed to those conservative politics that are currently in use."

I don't see how you can make this distinction -- between "real" conservative politics and conservative politics that are "in use."

I think the real distinction is between conservative principles and conservative politics. It's in the nature of politics (and democracy) that one side's (or several sides') principles sometimes get compromised. It happens to conservatives when they are in power. We're delusional if we think it isn't so.

The best and most successful conservative politicians are the ones who stick closest to core principles and restrict their compromises to the less crucial issues.

Hi, I just tuned in.

Basically, conservatism is small government, minimal regulation, a strong military and defense, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and decentralization for the purpose of local control.

All conservatives in the US believe in these principles. A fairly small minority of Republicans pick and choose among them.

The vast majority of liberal Republicans are very wealthy people who went to the same schools and have the same social background as liberal Democrats. Think of TV's Richard and Emily Gilmore as opposed to Luke, a hard-working guy who owns a diner.

The vast majority of us conservatives are a lot more interested in politicians who share our principles than we are in people trying to get more out of their role in politics than simply doing a good job of making sure these principles are being advanced.

A lot of people in politics are like some people in the stock market: it's not good enough to simply make money; they want to turn it into a drama that satisfies their desire for self-aggrandizement.

We conservatives just want an intelligent person who's wedded to our principles to go to Washington, to do a good job, then quit and go home. We don't care whether they've read Proust. We don't care whether they have contributed to the Guggenheim or whether they have a lifetime subscription to the New Yorker. We don't care if they personally know a writer at Vanity Fair.

We conservatives make up something on the order of 80-90% of the Republican Party. Our problem is that we have let Democrats get into our primary process in the eastern states. And as a consequence we wind up with a lot of subversive Democratic Party influence choosing our candidate for us. That's why we had McCain.

Oh yeah, Gen Powell voted for Obama. The most liberal president in the history of America. He's not even a Republican particularly, and he's certainly not a conservative.

Whoops! And I should have added low taxes.

G in d: excellent observation re: poluttion of eastern primaries with dems. The GOP leadership is meeting this month toake changes to prevent that next time around.

"Our problem is that we have let Democrats get into our primary process in the eastern states. And as a consequence we wind up with a lot of subversive Democratic Party influence..."

I hear ya. Ever hear of Liz Trotta? She's a "conservative" who gets hauled out on Fox once in a while to give her take. So anyway, this woman, a former NY bureau chief for the Washington Times and former reporter for CBS news, appeared on Fox a couple of days ago and basically did the Democrat attack line on Sarah Palin. When asked about the matter of biased coverage, Trotta said:

"She asks for it, doesn't she? This is one of the rare cases where I think all the Liberal stylists like Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins and the rest of them really have a case; I mean, (Sarah Palin) just begs for adjectives like flaky and wacky.."

The host said "Well, they're even going further than that, I mean they basically are insinuating mental illness when Maureen Dowd writes about 'crazy town', and her being nutty, I mean, are they going over the line?" Trotta: "No. I mean, (Maureen Dowd's) was a well-written, funny piece, and um, you know there's one other element here and I think most writers are afraid to bring it up, they sort of skirt the idea, that this is a woman who has used her good looks and her gender to really get ahead in the political world. That's something that of course the men don't want to admit, and certainly not the women, so what are we talking about here? We're not talking about a great statesman of profound experience whose banner is integrity; we're talking about somebody who was, right from the get-go, has been a flashy person who gets into a lot of trouble, and really has no credentials for any job...."

In other words, here's this coifed, bejeweled, well-connected "conservative" spokeswoman of sorts essentially saying Governor Palin is a nutty, mentally ill, talentless slut without any credentials who's practically begging for the abuse she receives from the media.

If Palin leaves public life -- if she ends up moving to the Kerguelen Islands, or something -- she will have at least have revealed a definite faultline in the conservative movement between the nasty urban priestly snobs who are no different in attitude than the old-money Democrats, and the actual, living, breathing, 80 - 90% real-life conservatives. In the simplest terms, it's the David Frums to one side and the real-world (non-policy wonk) folks to the other.

Seems like there's a lot of self-appointed Republican sages quite willing, for personal reasons, to make cozy with the Urban Dem pals they more closely resemble anyway, who don't like the uncultured conservatism of those folks who saw Sarah Palin as a force, and saw in her a chance to actual feel *represented* by someone who was neither socialist nor part of the old money crowd. These members of the commentariat have been showing a kind of a "we've got to keep the party out of the hands of those ignorant hillbillies" attitude -- as if that's somehow going to strengthen conservatism. They've got it ass-backwards, IMO.

Gord Tulk, I'm glad to see the GOP moving on this. I think that conservatives are going to become a lot more active on the primary level. In some precincts a half dozen people can come in and dominate the process. Obviously power in the primaries is the name of the game.

EBD, yeah, we make a big distinction between conservatives and Republicans now.

This whole group along the Washington - New York axis are cut from the same cloth.

I've been told that in European countries like France conservatism means stuff like more loyalty to the monarchs and other nationalist matters. Perhaps these Palm Beach and Martha's Vineyard Republicans are a little bit like that.

But believe me, in places like Palm Beach people are rich, Republicans, and ultra snobs. And they have a lot more in common with liberal Democrats than they do with conservatives.

The good news is that none of these spokesmen and none of these wealthy snobs have any influence on the rank and file conservatives in the US. They all live in a world of science fiction and are far removed from the mass of conservative opinion.

Never mentioned “real”.
As ET has said, “….conservativism doesn't operate as an ideology….”, “….Conservativism is a pragmatic action….” as opposed to the socialist ideology of Liberals and Democrats that consists of high minded nothingness based mostly on syntax and teleprompter.
It has been presented here many times the socialist and for all practical purposes their cousins, the fascists, insist on telling the plebeians what is good for them. This is a ‘little bit’ technique where little bit by little bit they reduce the plebeians to thinking that it must be so.
It is necessary at this time to bring in conservative politics of Reagan. That some don’t like to hear of Reagan does not in any way change the consequences of the strong and non compromising principals of his actions.
Reagan told the air controllers that their time is up, they go to work or be fired. Did not compromise. Fired the air controllers. Tough action? Yes. Did they know the options? Yes. Their choice.
Reagan told Gorbachev in Iceland that if he (Gorbachev) does not want to talk the agenda, they had nothing to talk about, went home. Did not compromise, in due time it the US got what was proposed.
Reagan told Gorbachev in Berlin, to “tear down this wall”; he (Reagan) was made fun of, a simpleton. Did not compromise on that and it has come to pass.
You see, the world is not going to come to an end if somebody does not want to agree with you. You have to have a good argument, though it is true that socialists don’t deal with reality so it may take a hammer and a sickle to make them understand.
You may compromise on having 5 paper pushers at an embassy instead of 4; you don’t compromise on essential principals.

Well, you know, I think fair or unfair....I do think it is a more concentrated criticism
Hillary gets on so many fronts, I think that's unfortunate...but fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice...to even mention it, really....I mean you've got to plough through that...you have to know what you're getting into... I say this with all due respect... to Hillary Clinton...and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo also but...when I hear a statement like that... coming from a woman candidate... with any kind of perceived whine...about that excess criticism... or maybe a sharper microscope put on her...I think, that doesn't do us any good...uh, women in politics... women in general... wanting to progress this country... I don't think it bodes well...a statement like that... because... fair or unfair, it is there... I think that's reality... and I think it's a given, I think people can just accept that she is going to be under that sharper microscope...so be it... work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree... that you're capable... that you're going to be the best candidate... it bothers me, a little bit, hearing her, bring that attention to herself... on that level.
Sarah Quitter Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA15XU23kEc

What were you saying, EBD, she doesn't beg for abuse from the media?