The speech David Cameron, leader of the conservative Tory part, gave during his party’s conference impressed many. Cameron succeeded in blowing Gordon Brown away - who gave a speech during the earlier Labor conference, in which he said little to nothing that would have excited voters - and in presenting traditional British conservatism in a way that appeals to most voters, especially to traditional conservatives and centrists and liberals. (more…)

There is an interesting development taking place in the United States; voluntary segregation. Not of races, but of income and, more importantly, liberals on the one hand, and conservatives on the other. Those who share the same views and the same values are clustering together. (more…)

The New York Times published a fascinating article about John McCain’s kind of conservatism. He is, of course, more of a moderate than an ideological American conservative, but his moderation hangs more towards conservatism than liberalism, or even centrism. As such, it’s important and frugal to look at his governing philosophy from a conservative point of view. (more…)

Although I can’t possibly say I agree with everything Joseph Romm writes in his article “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped,” I do agree with the main point that American conservatives are willfully blind when it comes to the issue of global warming. And I also agree that they have to change their attitude towards this problem. ASAP. (more…)

Why Barack Obama & Hillary can’t bring (Change)

“Zo is suggesting the candidates change the whole TALK of change thing…”
Black and White on the Grey Matters 4 (Change)
Black & White on the Grey Matters 4 (Change)

Cross-posted at Fausta’s blog

Although I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that Mr Livingstone will stop being the mayor of London, I am not happy at all. First of all, I have no idea who that Boris guy really is, I mainly know him as some sort of clown ( his hair reminds me somehow of a Dutch clown/parliamentarian/cineast ). What really bothers me, though, is the fact that ‘Red Ken’ now will have a lot of spare time, and many retired politicians and other public figures who have both an obsession with Israel ( or Jews ) and too much time on their hands have turned their obsession into an annoying hobby. Anyway, congratulations Mr Johnson, and good luck to all Londoners with their new mayor.

Kathy Shaidle reports that she and other bloggers are being sued by Richard Warman, a former member of Canada’s Human Rights Commission and frivolous lawsuit filer extraordinaire:

Canada’s busiest litigant, serial “human rights” complainant and — the guy Mark Steyn has called “Canada’s most sensitive man” — Richard Warman is now suing his most vocal critics — including me.

(more…)

My oh my, I feel like the Belle of the Ball all of a sudden. Email after email from my internet friends hitting me up to support this candidate or that one. With Fred dropping out, my buds must think I am searching frantically for some candidate to latch on to - as if I were lost without tying myself to one of the current crop of GOP con(pre?)tenders.

Believe me when I say I’m flattered. I haven’t gotten this much attention since I lost my bathing suit halfway through a 500 yard freestyle race while swimming competitively in high school.
(more…)

Lee Harris at TCSDaily examines the old slander that conservatives are from the “stupid party”. What he finds is something that I have been saying about conservatives for a long time: What fundamentally distinguishes conservatives from liberals is not, as some liberals would maliciously suggest, intelligence or sanity or morality, but rather simply a different attitude towards risk. (more…)

The liberal blogosphere has already condemned Jonah Goldberg’s new book “Liberal Fascism” as a horrible piece of propaganda, distortions, etc. while they can’t have read it yet, since they can only buy the book next week.

Glenn and Helen Reynolds talked to Jonah Goldberg about the book and the controversy. You can listen to it here.

It’s a fascinating show. Definitely a book I’ll buy (and read).

Via Dean Barnett who explains why Huckabee will not win Iowa.

It’s amazing to see that this speech could be given today as well. You can watch the speech in its entirety here.

The Princeton Tory reports that a conservative Princeton student, Francisco Nava, was attacked recently by people who disagree with his politics. He was beaten until he was unconscious. The assault came after he had received several death threats. What’s more, Princeton seems to have a serious problem in this regard, considering that Nava isn’t the first conservative who has received death threats from political opponents.

One of two assailants, identified as a white, college-aged male, stopped Nava and asked him if he would “help someone who’s been hurt.” The assailant then pulled Nava into a dark area where another male joined in holding Nava’s jaw shut. The two assailants thrust Nava’s face against a brick wall causing abrasions, according to an email sent to administrators. (more…)

At the CNN/YouTube debate, Hillary outright walked (ran) away from the term “liberal” and bear-hugged “progressive” as her preferred moniker.

Other “progressives” apparently agree.

I suggested at CS, this afternoon, that maybe it’s time for conservatives to do the same, especially those (like me) who prefer the conservative paradigm articulated by Andrew Sullivan.

Note to Michael’s readers: Greetings from the liberal side of the aisle and many thanks to Michael for the opportunity to post here while he’s on vacation.  The readers at The Democratic Daily have enjoyed Michael’s posts there, I hope his readers will enjoy mine.

In every presidential race there are always some longshot candidates that decide to make a bid, but I had no idea this guy was running… Until he dropped out:

Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III ended his long-shot Republican presidential campaign yesterday, saying he was unable to raise enough money to communicate his conservative vision to Americans. He held out the possibility, however, that he might soon run for public office again in Virginia.

Gilmore, the son of a butcher who had improbably risen to become a local prosecutor, a state attorney general and a governor of Virginia, dropped out of the crowded GOP primary field a day before reporting that he had raised $211,000 between April and June.

Gilmore said yesterday, “I think I have the record and credentials to actually be the president…”

But apparently not to many people agreed:

Since January, he has raised $381,000, while his rivals have collected tens of millions of dollars.

The Washington Post also reported today that the presidential race is heating up in Florida where Republicans “Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney both spent heavily in Florida over the past three months.”

Florida’s elevated status owes to its new Jan. 29 primary date, which places it one week ahead of the crush of early primaries in delegate-rich states such as California, New Jersey and New York.

It will be interesting to see how this front loaded primary system pans out for both sides of the aisle.

 Cross posted from The Democratic Daily.

E.J. Dionne writes:

Why can’t the left get any respect?

Whenever you use the word “left” in American politics, you feel almost compelled to add quotation marks. Today’s left is not talking about nationalizing industry, abolishing capitalism or destroying the rich. What passes for “left” in American politics is quite moderate by historical standards.

Still, cliches die hard, so you hear such 20-year-old questions as: “Are Democrats moving too far to the left?” or “Will Democrats abandon the center?”

This approach is about abstractions, not concrete political problems, and it misses the dynamic in American public life, which is the move away from the right and a discrediting of the conservative era. The political “center” of today is not where the “center” was even five years ago.

That’s why every leading Democratic candidate for president chose to appear at this week’s “Take Back America” conference organized by the Campaign for America’s Future, the leading group on the party’s progressive end. This included Hillary Clinton, whose roots in the centrist politics of the Democratic Leadership Council run deep. Clinton not only knows how much political energy there is on the left; she also knows where public opinion has moved, particularly on the Iraq war.

Conservatism as an ideology has only been discredited in the eyes of those who did not believe in conservative ideology to begin with. I find it hilarious to see progressives declare how conservatism has had its chance but how - sadly - it has proven that it does not work, etc.

Those who actually know something about traditional conservatism, however, know very well that Bush has not governed like a conservative. He has governed like a Big Government (and Big Business) Republican, not as a small government conservative. The mistake American conservatives made - of course - is that they stood by Bush, even when it had become crystal clear that Bush is anything but a conservative.

But - that does not mean that conservatism as an ideology has failed. It has not. It has not had a real chance.

Senator Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Thursday that he overheard a conversation between Senators Boxer and Clinton about conservative Talk Shows. According to Inhofe, the two said that something has to be done against conservative talk shows / talk show hosts. They want legislation to control them.

Whether or not Inhofe’s story is true, conservatives are pissed off:
- Ed Morrissey: “If Hillary gets elected President and the Democrats gain a few more seats in Congress, the Fairness Doctrine will return — and that will end political talk radio.”
- Gateway Pundit: “Hugo Chavez would be proud!”

Today is the second round of the French elections for Parliament. The BBC has an article up about it. Sarkozy’s party, the UMP, is expected to win in a landslide: analysts predict the UMP will win “well over 400 seats or more than two-thirds of the total.”

Every conservative in Europe hopes that the experts are right on this one. France needs a strong president, who is able to push through the necessary reforms. Not only France will benefit from this, the EU as a whole will. Some of the promises Sarkozy made:

to give universities more autonomy, impose tougher sentences on repeat offenders, tighten immigration, make labour laws more flexible and reduce taxation.

Again, these are all necessary reforms. He has to succeed. In order to succeed, he needs a big majority in Parliament. Lets hope the French make the Right choice.

h/t Holly

Fred Thompson spoke via video to the National Right to Life Committee’s national convention last Thursday night (h/t the Fred File). Here is the video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6zejWHd5vo]

Thompson is trying to make himself look like the conservative candidate (the conservative base has been longing for). He might just succeed in it. If he does, he has a good chance of, if not winning the Republican nomination, then at least of coming close to winning it.

Keys
- look strong on national security
- talk about the war on terror as much as possible
- talk about abortion, take a pro-life stance
- talk about (cutting) taxes
- talk about reducing the size of the federal government and reducing government power, except for on certain social issues
- repeat

Thompson is doing a couple of things very well at this point: he is especially using the Internet to the fullest. YouTube, blogs, he’s using it all.

Peter Hamby reports for CNN that conservative bloggers have united (in opposition to the immigration bill), and revolt against Bush / Republicans in the US Senate who support this bill. Peter writes:

It’s increasingly clear from Web postings and interviews with top conservative bloggers that the immigration bill has done serious damage to the president’s credibility among the conservative netroots, the grassroots bloggers on the Web.

Erick Erickson, managing editor of the popular conservative blog RedState.com, says he receives between 800 and 900 e-mails a day from readers, most of whom are “enraged” by the White House’s immigration efforts.

He goes on to quote Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, and Ace of Spades.

A small selection:
- Ed Morrissey: “The administration has not done anything to fix the border or the visa program. It’s a huge gap in national security. It’s been six years past 9/11 and the administration has done nothing to fix either one.”
- Erick Erickson: “The White House will go out and zealously promote Harriet Miers, defend Alberto Gonzales, promote this bill, but will not take a firm stand on the war. I know people who are boiling with rage that the president has been beating up his own side over this bill but won’t take the bully pulpit to beat up Democrats over the war.”
- Hugh Hewitt: “this push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President.”

This is becoming more than a serious problem for Bush and the Republican Senators who support this immigration bill. They can revive it all they want, they can vote on as many amendements as they want, but the conservative base has made up its mind: it is not going to support this bill before it is radically changed and there can be no talk about amnesty until the borders are adequately enforced / secured.

Pete Abel wrote a letter he will send / e-mail to Republican leaders. This is the second version of the letter, if you are a moderate Republican, Pete asks for your feedback (and whether you want to co-sign it). You can read the entire letter at Central Sanity.

Excerpt:

We, the undersigned, are Republicans.

Through separate but cooperative organizations – from the Republican Leadership Council to the Republican Main Street Partnership; from Republicans for Environmental Protection to the Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Choice – we are a growing force within the Party.

Republican candidates will be required to reckon with us in the months and years ahead, as we increasingly organize and mobilize for no purpose less dramatic than the rescue of our Party and the refocusing of its platform on the bedrock principles of individual liberty and limited government, lower taxes and free markets, a strong national defense and collaborative foreign policy.

Depending on your position and principles, this letter should be considered either a warning or an encouragement.

It is a warning to those Party leaders who continue to allow social conservatives to define the GOP by a set of stringent and divisive policy positions on sexuality and beginning-and-end-of-life issues. The days of these social conservatives’ dominance in our party are numbered. They are welcome in the Party, but their influence will progressively subside in direct proportion to the rising influence of the undersigned and tens of millions of others like us, who represent a majority of both Republicans and Americans.

By the same token, this letter is an encouragement to Party leaders who recognize that the narrow-minded strategies of social conservatives have made the GOP a shadow of its former self; leaders who reject the social conservatives’ alienating approach and prefer what former U.S. Senator John Danforth has labeled a politics of “reconciliation,” a politics wherein we seek to emphasize what unites rather than what divides us. If you fit in this category, we encourage you to speak up and boldly state your beliefs, without equivocation. And when the social conservatives attack you for doing so, we – the real Republican base – will be there to lend our support.

After that, Pete goes on to sum up what he and other moderate Republicans believe. Be sure to read it and to give Pete some feedback.

I do not agree with Pete on everything - for one thing, I am far more conservative than he is - but he is doing something that has to be done: moderate Republicans have to organize themselves and have to object to the overwhelming influence of the far right in (the image of) their party.

Same goes for traditional conservatives: they too have to distance themselves a bit from, for instance, the religious right. They (traditional conservatives) have to focus on their ideology first, and on the Republican Party second. Partisanship can be a strength, but it can also be a weakness. For an example of the latter, look at how American conservatives have discredited themselves and their ideology by standing by Bush for far too long.

Also read today’s column by E.J. Dionne Jr.

Pajamas Media has an article up by Nidra Poller about the elections (for Parliament) in France / Nicolas Sarkozy. I greatly encourage all of you to read it in its entirety.

Nidra writes:

Despite the muted enthusiasm and low turnout, the message is clear and coherent. Voters want president Sarkozy to implement his program. First, they resisted a heavy-handed smear campaign and chose the candidate who spoke to their needs and expectations. Then they ignored a scare campaign and gave him an unambiguous legislative majority. The losers—Left, extreme Left, extreme Right, and soft Center—are still moaning today. It’s all the fault of the electoral system, the calendar, the media, and the president himself. And they think this will mobilize voters to come out and boost them next Sunday?

Allons citoyens, do you want a legislature without Communists? Without Front National crypto-confusionists? Well, yes, as a matter of fact we do! Hear ye hear ye, how will we get ecology without a solid clump of Green party deputies in the hemicycle? President Sarkozy has already given something more than lip service to the question. Is he going to pocket this comfortable majority and slide through the first year of his presidency, just for fun? Of course not, and the people who voted for him know that.

Today he met with the teacher’s unions, offered them concessions on certain issues while asking for their cooperation on other, far more difficult ones. He intends to overcome ingrained habits of systematic obstructionism by showing sincere respect for others and making clear demands for flexibility and performance. And he has the democratic mandate to do it! Don’t forget, the French who must collaborate in the transformation of their society are the French who voted for Nicolas Sarkozy. A heft majority. They refused the Marxist ideology that is responsible for the decline of the Socialists and the demise of the Communists. Neighboring Belgium just followed suit.

The socialists are - thank God - going out. Sarkozy’s party will win the elections for parliament with a landslide. This means that he might actually be able to push through the reforms he proposed / promised during his campaign (for president).

France has major problems: Jacques Chirac was more interested in holding on to his power, than improving his country(’s economy). Chirac made an art out of ignoring social problems. Sarkozy appears to be different. After the elections for Parliament, he will have no excuse: if he fails to reform France, it is because he personally failed, not because of anything his opponents did.

Sarkozy has the opportunity to take France into the 21st century. Lets hope he uses it (and takes the EU with him).

I stumbled upon this article this morning: Russel Kirk on neoconservatives.

Provides for a very interesting read.

One of the greatest political (/conservative) thinkers of the last century William F. Buckley, wrote a column for National Review in which he calls on Bush to pardon Libby. Buckley essentially argues that although Libby broke the law, he should be pardoned, because, here it comes, he caused no real harm and he is not a bad guy. O, and the ones who say that Libby should go to jail do not care about justice, they simply want to “damage the Bush administration.”

Of course, all of the above is no reason to pardon someone. Libby, Buckley admits, broke the law, lied and, by doing so “he hindered the execution of justice.” The logical, and legal result: jailtime.

It surprises me that an intellectually honest traditional conservative like Mr. Buckley - who is a firm believer in the Rule of Law - would argue that Libby should be pardoned for before mentioned ‘reasons.’ They are not ‘reasons,’ they are excuses.

Libby caused, thus writes Buckley, no damage at all, to no one. I wonder whether Mr. Buckley watched Plame’s testimony before US Congress?

I greatly respect William F. Buckley Jr., but I would hope that he would be above overly partisan politics like this.

Whatever happened to being a compassionate conservative Ed? Cold hearted monster!

Pardon me for injecting a little conservative thought into all of this, but I have very little sympathy for Ms. Hilton. She has had all of the advantages possible in society, and has shown herself contemptuous to any sense of responsibility. The screaming and crying jag in court only came after she had thrown away her chances to get lenient treatment by lying and evading responsibility for her actions.

Ed is of course completely right. But still, somehow, some way, I continue to feel bad for her.

John Hawkins summarizes what happened yesterday with the Immigration Bill. I suggest you all head over there and read what one of John’s sources in the Senate had to say about it.

In short, it seems that “Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, and Tom Coburn, huddled and came up with a list of conservative amendments they wanted considered.” However, supporters of the bill didn’t want that, “because either some of the amendments would have been accepted and it would have killed the bill or alternately, they would have had to vote against common sense enforcement measures and made themselves look bad.”

John also asked his source why quite some Republicans support this highly unpopular bill. The source explained that there are three groups:
- “The Rovian School:” this group believes that if this bill is passed, it will “capture the Hispanic vote for the GOP for decades to come.”
- Big Business influence: cheap labor.
- Bipartisan… fundamentalists.

As an outsider I wonder: doesn’t loyalty to Bush play a role as well?

Hugh Hewitt has an interesting post up as well. Be sure to listen to the audio of Trent Lott.

Some Republicans simply fail to grasp what’s happening right now: their constituents don’t like being talked to as if they are a bunch of children who have to listen to their parents. These are not children who don’t understand what’s going on; these are concerned citizens who think that this bill is horrible and bad for their country.

Some links and comments regarding yesterday’s Republican debate.

First, go to CNN.
Second, go to Hot Air to watch two videos: Fred Thompson talking with Hannity and the other one of Ann Coulter attacking Thompson.

CNN has a couple of articles and videos up. On the immigration bill, both Romney and Giuliani made, it has to be said, some good points. Giuliani explained what’s missing from the bill, what should have been in the bill; Romney explained that he opposes the Z-Visas and why… All in all, McCain was isolated.

McCain Alone.

In that regard, I encourage everyone to watch the video at CNN in which CNN analyzes the reaction of the public to what the candidates were saying: when Romney and Giuliani were trashing the bill, both Republican and Independent responded (positively), when McCain defended the bill, interest went way down again.

One of the most interesting developments was that the candidates seemed to distance themselves a bit from Bush. Tancredo went so far as to say that Bush governed as a liberal.

Ouch.

As I pointed out yesterday, Republican candidates do not need to fear Bush any longer. Bush has lost the support of just about everyone, including many conservative opinion makers.

I watched most of the debate and my impression is that Romney and Giuliani both did very well, and that McCain did not do bad considering his support for the immigration bill.

Giuliani did well about global warming. Not something one expects to hear Republican candidates talk about like that: calling it a major problem, calling for a program like the one that put a man on the moon, etc. In that regard, one has to say that Giuliani is very courageous.

Ron Paul continues to hammer on the issue of pre-emptive war. When asked about morality, he said that the #1 moral issue in America right now is that America’s policy is that it is allowed to start pre-emptive wars. And… yes, he got applause for it. He simply stated that Bush’s strategy in Iraq hasn’t worked and that it’s time to let the Iraqis take care of their own country.

Mitt Romney responded perfectly to questions about his faith. He said: “I also believe that there are some pundits out there that are hoping that I’ll distance myself from my church so that that’ll help me politically. And that’s not going to happen.”

Very well said, that is the right attitude.

He also did well in criticizing Bush’s Iraq War strategy and his answer to the question about whether or not it was the right decision to go to war was great - Saddam Hussein did not let the inspectors do their job - if he would’ve, there would’ve been no war.

Sam Brownback said that the Republican Party should not nominate someone who is pro-life. Blitzer immediately asked whether Brownback could support Giuliani (who is pro-life). Brownback said that he believes that the GOP will not nominate someone who is pro-life because the Republican Party is a party “of principles.”

Personally, I feel a bit uncomfortable when American politicians start talking about American being “a shining city on a hill,” (a modern version of “a city upon a hill” I guess), Americans as being “noble,” America as “an example” to the world, “a beacon of hope,” and so on, but that is probably because, well, I’m not American. I certainly think that America represents great values, great dreams of freedom, of democracy, of opportunity, but… American exceptionalism overdoes it a little bit. There are also quite some things about America many, many people don’t like and I think that Americans should not kid themselves about that. America is a great country, but it’s not perfect.

Go ahead, slam me over that.

I would liked to have seen the candidates talk about health care more. This is a major issue in the US - especially someone like Mitt Romney would have something interesting to say about that. He did well in Massachusetts in that regard.

Lastly, something about Huckabee: he is a candidate who I think is truly interested in morality; where America is going in that regard, etc. If that’s your thing, if that’s what you focus on, I think that supporting Huckabee would make sense.

The Politico has an article up about the debate, declaring Romney the winner. I agree that he did very well. In second place: Giuliani. Third place: Huckabee.

I agree with most of it, although Paul would be higher on my list.

Mark Levin writes at The Corner:

I take from Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg’s comments that conservatives have been tolerant of President Bush for a long time, given his embrace of big-government from the start. And they have. But I don’t think the issue is that conservatives are generally surprised that the president is a big-government Republican. I just think they’ve had enough of it. In return for their support, the GOP no longer controls Congress and is adrift.

I think conservatives have gone a long way with the president. They rallied to him especially after 9/11, especially at a time of war, and especially given that the anti-war movement (led by the Democratic party) is so extreme and dangerous. Most conservatives have defended vigorously the president’s intelligence and law-enforcement efforts, from GITMO to NSA intercepts. But I don’t believe the president would have received the kind of support he has received from the conservative base, for as long as he has received it, had we not been attacked. But there is a breaking point. And for some, that point has been reached. J-Pod wrote a column last week arguing that if the war had been going better, conservatives would be more tolerant. He might be right.

However, many conservatives believe an intervention is necessary now or in 2008 the Democrats may well retain Congress and pick up the presidency. President Bush is the leader of the party, in charge of the RNC, and for the most part sets the national agenda. And apart from the war (although there’s a growing voice of dissent in that regard) much of the national agenda is seen as misplaced (amnesty) and reactive (global warming)…

John Cole comments: “A real profile in courage- waiting until Bush is at 26% with a few months left in his election to call him out. Bravo, Mark.”

Well, better late than never one could say. It is good to see that American conservatives finally publicly state that Bush is not a conservative and that they cannot longer support his policies. This has been at the center of my blogging, right from when I started: Bush is not a conservative, and American conservatives should stop supporting him as blindly as they once did.

Now conservatives will have to refocus. They will have to ask themselves why it is they supported a big government Republican for so long. They will have to ask themselves why they continued to support him, while any objective observer could clearly see that Bush did not and does not have a lot of sympathy for traditional conservatism. In short, they will have to ask themselves ‘how could this happen?’

Paul Mirengoff wrote an interesting article today:

In reality, Bush never presented himself as a true conservative. To the contrary, he made it clear from the beginning that he was a “compassionate conservative” who believes in a far more substantial role for government than do traditional conservatives. Moreover, Bush’s support for the “comprehensive” immigration reform contained in the current bill does not represent a betrayal of conservatives; rather it embodies the position he has taken all along.

Why then did conservatives support Bush so strongly beginning in 2000? The main answer, I believe, is that we recognized that the public would not elect anyone more conservative than Bush. Back then, Bill Clinton was completing a popular presidency that would have been even more popular but for his massive personal shortcomings. Clinton based the last six years of his presidency (the years during which he was popular) on a purported middle ground between traditional big government liberalism (the kind that got him into trouble in 1994) and traditional limited government conservatism. Conservative leaders recognized that a successful Republican presidential candidate would have to occupy some sort of middle ground too. Bush offered this, as did John McCain, the only other Republican who received serious presidential consideration that year.

Seven years later, conservatives are disillusioned. This is normal. Liberals became disillusioned with Clinton’s “middle ground” presidency to the point that large numbers of them defected to Ralph Nader in 2000, thus helping Bush become president. We have every right to be unhappy with Bush. What we lack, in my view, is the right to be outraged.

I agree completely. I once e-mailed Joe something along the lines of: “what I don’t understand about American conservatives, is that they’re all upset about Bush not being a conservative, while this was obvious when they voted for him and supported him as passionately as they did. Bush is not a traditional conservative.”

Reader Peter e-mails:

In the Opinion Journal Peggy Noonan wonders why the Bush administration showed such bad manners speaking to conservatives recently.

She complains about the administration calling Republican opponents “unpatriotic” and asks, “Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?”

Doesn’t she see this is standard procedure for the conservative movement’s operatives going back to Gingrich and DeLay and ending with Rove? These smart but slimy politicos have ridden the movement’s coat-tails to personal profit and are now riding it into the ground. If you need dirty tricks and nastiness to get ahead - maybe your ideas really don’t stand on their own. And if you allow dirty tricksters to get you to the top, you deserve to fall hard to the bottom.

Bad news for Rudy Giuliani: his presidential bid “has provoked a groundswell of opposition from disparate forces including conservative Catholics, remnants of Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns and regional political operatives seeking to break into the Republican firmament.”

The opposition is united in its determination to block Giuliani, a supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, from becoming the GOP’s standard bearer. But lurking just beneath the surface is another motive for these anti-Giuliani conservatives: cash. The groups hope to benefit from a large constituency of donors willing to write big checks to bring down the former New York City mayor. The donors include backers of Giuliani’s competitors as well as ideologues of the right.

The new organizations are relying on two fundraising models, both of which were highly successful in previous attacks. One is the drive in 2005 to force White House counsel Harriet Miers to withdraw her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. That campaign, spearheaded by conservatives opposed to Miers, raised an estimated $2 million. The other is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004, which began with a modest budget but ended up raising millions in an effort to destroy John Kerry’s reputation as a war hero.

One of the organizations involved is The Conservative Declaration, based in Michigan, but has supporters in over 30 states.

Paul Nagy, the group’s top-gun in New Hampshire, believes nominating Giuliani would be disastrous for the American conservative movement. Along with other activists, Nagy signed a letter seeking additional signatories to the anti-Rudy declaration. The letter states: “Rudy Giuliani is an unacceptable Republican nominee for President of the United States. He is pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-registration of handguns, and pro-homosexual rights. He is the most liberal Republican candidate for President in our nation’s history.”

The Republican Party really stands for a choice here. Will the Religious Right continue to set the agenda, or will traditional conservatives, libertarian conservatives and moderate Republicans take their party back?

I have expressed my belief that, if the GOP wants to be able to compete in the long run, it has to break with the so-called Religious Right. The reason for this is that I believe that the policies favored by the RR, divide America. They divide America into ‘good people’ and ‘ bad people’, into ’saints’ and ’sinners’.

Conservatism has the potential to appeal to a lot of people: conservatism stands for freedom, personal responsibility and limited government. I’d say focus on that and break with the conquer and divide crowd.