On Goldwater and the legacy of the conservative movement's enigmatic father

The American Conservative's Daniel McCarthy has a superb essay about Barry Goldwater's legacy, and the current strain of liberal revisionist history of the man Pat Buchanan called "the father of us all."

I highly recommend this weekend reading.

Highlight:

...But if the Republican Party is full of pretenders, where does one look for Goldwater’s true heirs?

To answer that question, one has to look to the sharpest division that split the Goldwater movement of the ’60s. It wasn’t the division between libertarians and traditionalists, it was the division that separated idealistic libertarians and traditionalists alike, the campaign amateurs, from the campaign professionals. The conservative movement still pays lip service to economic liberty, social order, and military strength—but on all three points, Republicans have become hollow men who have preserved the rites of Goldwaterism but who long ago lost its spirit. That was an amateur spirit—in both the best and worst senses of the word—and it drew together in common cause traditionalists and libertarians as different as Brent Bozell and Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess.

...The conventional wisdom overvalues politics and undervalues the philosophy of the movement: it overlooks the ways in which Goldwater succeeded far beyond the electoral success of a Johnson or a Nixon—or a Bush. The Conscience of a Conservative continues to be read today because it isn’t a political tract, a soulless campaign book of the sort generated by every other modern presidential effort.

The idealism and amateurism of the Goldwater people inspired a movement in a way that political professionals never could: indeed, the cynical professionalism and win-at-all-costs mentality of today’s conservatives, best represented by Karl Rove, has had the opposite effect. Goldwater galvanized America’s youth—Young Americans for Freedom grew directly out of Youth for Goldwater. Under the professional Republicans of the past decade, on the other hand, conservatives have lost whatever momentum they had with the next generation...

Huckabee is liberal

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund attack's Huckabee's liberal record on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson show:



You can read the full WSJ article here.

Money quote from Phyllis Schlafly:

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

RINO Bill Owens piles on:

Governors who served with him praise Mr. Huckabee for his ability to work with others, but say he was clearly a moderate. "He fought my efforts to reform the National Governors Association and always took fiscal positions to my left," former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a supporter of Mitt Romney, told me.

Doug Lamborn: Defending those that condemn him

Great commentary from Backbone America about the current state of Colorado's 5th Congressional District. Do people even know why they don't like Doug Lamborn anymore besides the fact a couple of Jeff Crank bloggers go around and tell them not to? Can someone point to two votes that they would have made differently then Doug has if they were in Congress? Two votes out of hundreds, please point to them!

From Backbone America

Lamborn among the Lilliputians
by Dave Crater

Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO5) couldn’t have known when he first waded into Colorado politics over a decade ago that he would wash ashore on Lilliput. Such seems to be the case, however. As you remember, Jonathan Swift created two fictional islands in his 1726 classic, Gulliver’s Travels, Lilliput and Blefuscu. No disproof having been established, one assumes that both islands are, still today, located in the South Indian Ocean, separated by a channel 800 yards in width,
and inhabited by people “not six inches high.”

More to the point for the purpose of current politics: When a shipwrecked and still asleep Lemuel Gulliver washed up on the shores of Lilliput and was captured by little people who tied him down before he awoke, he discovered that the two islands were permanently at war over the correct way to eat a boiled egg. Still today, the inhabitants of Blefuscu are firmly convinced the correct way to eat a boiled egg is to start at the rounded end. The Lilliputians are equally convicted that, still today, no civilized person eats a boiled egg any way except sharp end first.

Though Gulliver is a giant compared to the Lilliputians, he does not return their hostility in kind, but rather helps to aid them in various ways before, for no other reason than his refusal to take part in their selfish perfidies, he again earns their fickle and shallow scorn.

Naïve people here in Colorado sometimes refer to Lilliput as the El Paso County Republican Party, but we really should get into the habit of calling places and people by their proper names. The little people in Lilliput are particularly active these days, doing their best to tie up Congressman Gulliver — er, Lamborn — before he permanently awakes and takes to himself for many years to come the title of Congressman, a title which the Lilliputians believe rightfully belongs only to a Lilliputian.

The chief Lilliputians in Lilliput these days are one Mr. Jeff Crank and one retired General Bentley Rayburn. To be sure, both are accomplished men by Lilliputian standards; indeed, they appear to know it. Gulliver is equally accomplished and, refreshingly, doesn’t appear to know it. More to the point, by the standards that Gulliver considers genuinely meaningful and which are in truth the only things that can turn a Lilliputian into a Giant — old-fashioned notions that include courageous loyalty to true principles and good men above one’s personal ambitions, and doing the right thing and telling the truth even when it’s not popular, and doing it for a long time — it appears Gulliver is, still today, as lonely as he was in 1726.

The Leading Lilliputians are currently squabbling over who is justified in taking on Gulliver in a primary next year. One says it is properly he because — well, that’s never been entirely clear. Part of it must be a result of his having come so close to beating Gulliver two years ago. As for the rest of it — well, perhaps he eats the round end of the egg first.

The other Leading Lilliputian and his Supporting Lilliputians say he’s a general, and thus a true leader. The question as to why a true leader would challenge an incumbent Giant like Gulliver — remember, a Giant is not necessarily someone who is popular, but someone who does what is right and tells the truth, and has for a long time — does not appear to have yet been posed in Lilliput.

To cap things off, if a newspaper article on Sept 19 was any indication, it appears the Leading Lilliputians are so hostile to Gulliver that they may have overcome their own mutual antipathies long enough to make something of a Gentle-Lilliputian’s agreement: if either is behind in the polls close to election day, that one will drop out of the race. “There is no formal agreement,” mind you – personal interests are not to be sacrificed until it’s clear there is really nothing to be sacrificed and fulfillment of spite toward Gulliver becomes the only remaining objective. “It’s not going to be my ego that causes [Gulliver] to get re-elected,” one Lilliputian said.

The next day, the other Lilliputian’s supporters were again assaulting both his rival and Gulliver for only the vaguest of reasons: “[Gulliver] was not a leader in the (state) legislature, and he won’t be in Washington,” one said. “And [the opposing Lilliputian] has nothing to set him aside, nothing of stature.” Translation: we don’t like Gulliver and the other Lilliputian eats his boiled eggs pointed end

So what does our modern-day congressional Gulliver do amidst these Lilliputians? What Gulliver has always done. “[Gulliver’s] campaign said they had no comment,” the latter story reports. He faithfully continues his accustomed course in the world and in the halls of national government, praying for the welfare of the Lilliputians even in their spite toward him. It’s safe to assume Gulliver realizes life and politics in Lilliput are, still today, fickle, and not likely to change any time soon.

As has been pointed out, Congressman Lamborn definitely is the giant in this story defending the Lillputians to his own peril. I caution those, that continually throw bombs thinking they will not be rebuked, that the giant is presumably getting tired of it and that the same campaign team that smacked you around in 2006 will grow tired of it as well and will have to deal with the Lilliputians.

Must read for conservatives...

In case you don't read the Sunday edition of the Denver Pravda (Post), I highly encourage everyone to read this excerpt from David Harsanyi's new book "Nanny State."

In fact you should send this excerpt to your favorite Republican state Representative and Senator as a reminder that "good government" is small government.

Choice quote:

In his 1996 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton felt the need to let Americans know the era of big government had ended. This curious assertion was meant to allay the growing concerns of Americans, who had begun to see government as stepping over the bounds of its charge.

Clinton’s words rang hollow. In many respects, the big government was simply refocusing, consolidating, and beginning to cast its eye toward regulating private matters that had previously been out of bounds. “Big” intrusive government was now also in the hand of local city councils, which could often put the big boys to shame.

Though Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich started getting crabby about the nanny state in the mid-1990s, by the time George W. Bush, a Republican—purportedly the party of less intrusive government—was elected to his second term in 2004, the new and improved nanny state was only expanding its authority. “We have the responsibility that, when somebody hurts, government has got to move,” explained President Bush on Labor Day 2003. Twenty years ago, this kind of brazen promotion of the state would have been unheard of coming from the lips of any respectable Republican—and barely any Democrats would have dared to give voice to it.

In 1997, vice president and future presidential candidate Al Gore explained that government was “like grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.” The word “nurturing” was perhaps too delicate for conservative Andrew Card, George Bush’s chief of staff during the 2004 presidential election, who framed the idea in a more red-state, family-friendly lingo, explaining that the president “sees America as we think about a ten-year-old child.” This was an evolution of sorts from Bush’s fairly restrained proclamation in the 2000 race that “government must be carefully limited, but strong and active.”

Today, politicians of both parties brazenly endorse nanny policies in response to the slightest anxiety or unsettling development. Many Americans have felt the government’s evolution from strong and active to smothering grandparent.

Problems with Huckabee

Tomes have been written about how conservatives are struggling to find their candidate in the 2008 Presidential race. Rudy, Mitt, John --all the front runners -- have dubious to down-right liberal records.

While many are turning to some of the second tier candidates, especially Mike Huckabee after his surprise "victory" at the Ames Iowa Straw poll, conservatives should take a closer look at these candidates before they jump of their respective band wagons.

Mike Huckabee, of all the second tier candidates, seems the mostly likely to challenge the unholy trinity (McCain, Romney, Giuliani). But Huckabee is far from the "authentic conservative" he claimed to be when he entered the Presidential race.

I can't lie, part of me likes Huckabee.

There is not doubt that he will be 100% pro-life and 100% pro-gun. However, Huckabee's populist rhetoric and big-government solutions have me running scared.

Yesterday, Huckabee called for a national smoking ban. (You can watch the video here.)

While I'm not a smoker, the issue of federally mandated behavior control is at the heart of nanny-government. While I enjoy going to Colorado restaurants and bars and not smelling like John Boehner's ash tray, but there is a larger, small-government issue at stake.

This sort of populism is a branch of the tree of George W. Bush's so-called "Compassionate Conservatism" that he has used to grow the size, scope and authority of federal government. Bush's brand of nanny-big government "conservatism" has expanded government to levels that the Clinton's only dreamed about. To all appearances, it looks like Huckabee is part of this big-government crowd.

Adding this idea to Huckabee's comments about main street vs. wall street, his opposition to school choice vouchers, as well as his references to the "club for greed" should give all conservatives pause.

It is also informative that long time Arkansas political writer John Brummett believes that Huckabee is cut from the same political tactics mold as Bill Clinton:

Mike Huckabee has always had a more liberal side than the left thinks and Hillary Clinton a more conservative one than the right thinks. ...

First, the liberal side of Huckabee:

Fresh from his Iowa straw vote impetus, which came courtesy of his conservative side, Our Boy Mike appeared at the monthly newsmaker breakfast of the Christian Science Monitor. What he pronounced prompted an official with the Club for Growth, the extreme economic conservative group that's been trying without success to bedevil him, to say disapprovingly that Huckabee sounded like he was doing "John Edwards' poverty tour."

At this breakfast, Huckabee declared that:

-People aren't doing as well economically as broad indicators suggest. Costs of health care, gasoline and college tuition have them struggling to break even. The next president must be sensitive to that.

-It's ridiculous to say God belongs to any school of political thought. One's religious values must influence more issues than abortion. Those values should make one an environmentalist who cares about poor people. (He didn't say anything about "environmental wackos," which he uttered last century in one of his right-sided moments.)

-Governors without much foreign policy experience can succeed in foreign affairs, as evidenced by the performances of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and, get this, Bill Clinton. Huckabee didn't mention the similarly situated George W. Bush, coming back later under questioning only to say he meant no disrespect to the current president and that history will judge Bush more favorably than contemporary views.

Part of this is tactical by Huckabee. But part of it is genuine. He is a political quilt with patches of pettiness, meanness, hyperbole, hypersensitivity, ethical impairment, generosity and open-minded compassion.

(H/T: Politico.com's Jonathan Martin blog.)

Bottom line: a Huckabee presidency would be a Pyrrhic victory for the Conservative Movement.

Government is not the answer

The Economist has an interesting piece on the state of liberalism in America. The piece included the results of a poll, released by the Democracy Corps showing that liberalism is far from flourishing.

83% of Americans believe that if the government had more money, it would waste it.

Additionally, 57% of Americans actually believe that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life.

H/T to NRO's The Campaign Spot.

Hastert to screw conservatives, again

As I discussed earlier, former Speaker of the House, Congressman Denny Hastert is no friend of the conservative movement.

It's too early to pop the champagne to celebrate his retirement, because Hastert may be lining up to screw conservatives again. It is being rumored that Hastert may resign in November to ensure succession by his hand-picked (and liberal) associate.

From Evans-Novak Political Report (via Politico.com):

According to the Evans-Novak Political Report, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) will be resigning from Congress in November, instead of retiring at the end of his term. If true, this could have significant ramifications in determining his successor.

A shortened special election campaign would likely benefit the candidates with the highest name recognition and the deepest pockets. Among Republicans, that status belongs to dairy owner Jim Oberweis, who has run unsuccessfully in three previous statewide bids for governor and for the Senate.

Conservative state Sen. Chris Lauzen is Oberweis’ main challenger, but he has feuded with Hastert in the past. Several Illinois Republicans speculate that Hastert’s decision to resign stems from wanting to help Oberweis win the nomination. [emphasis added]

What is wrong with Al White?

Sunday's Grand Junction Sentinel (GJS) has given Al White the opportunity to whine about the heat he is receiving for his poor voting record.

White is registered as a Republican, but is FAR more likely to be found voting with the Democrats than his Republican colleagues.

White supports extra-constitutional rights for guys, supports gun control, raising taxes, and consistently votes to expand the power, authority and size of state government.

When he is called out on his horrible voting record he whines to the GJS:

“I don’t think we in the Republican Party should try and identify those of us who are Republican enough and those of us who are not Republican enough,” White said. “Nor should we have discussions about purifying our party, as I have heard several members suggest.”

White said discussions about Republican purity “sounds very Adolf Hitler-ish to me.”

Who is Al White to call ME "Hitler-ish"?!?! Yes, this man is an elected official. More:

“There are suggestions that by getting rid of the likes of Al White that the party would be better off,” White said. “And my point would be that if you get rid of Al White, you’re going to end up with a Democrat, and that Democrat is going to vote for Democratic leadership.

“Al White, regardless of what you think of his votes in support of his district, will continue to vote for Republican leadership in those votes when they come up.

Anyone who talks in the third person needs to have his head examined. What's worse is that House Minority Leader David Balmer comes out and strongly defends White.

However, Assistant House Minority Leader David Balmer, R-Centennial, said he has not heard any rumblings of discontent within Republican circles.

“Al White is somebody who has sacrificed for many years to serve our state and our Republican Party,” Balmer said. “He has labored in the trenches, and I really appreciate all he has done. Everybody in our caucus appreciates the many hours Al White has put in to serve as a (Joint Budget Committee) member, which is often a thankless job.”

Balmer said the Republican Party respects its own diversity and would not force anyone out of its caucus.

Joining the off-key chorus is party Chairman Dick Wadhams:

Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams said that even if party members were upset with White, voting for the governor’s “property tax increase” is hardly grounds for political exile.

“He’s a great legislator and he’s a very good Republican,” Wadhams said. “I do not question his loyalty to the Republican Party at all.”

Wadhams acknowledged that the mill levy vote could be an issue in a Republican primary if White runs for term-limited Sen. Jack Taylor’s seat in 2008, but one vote “does not disqualify Al from being a Republican legislator at all.”

And Democrat Governor Bill Ritter:

During a bill-signing ceremony in Glenwood Springs this week, Ritter commended the Republican lawmaker’s support of a controversial property tax measure.

“He is a person who takes the real issues of his constituency to heart and works really hard to make sure he’s working on behalf of the people he represents and, again, works across party lines and gets a great deal done,” Ritter said.

Following a bill signing in Grand Junction, Ritter reiterated his appreciation for White’s style and promised to always bear in mind the Winter Park lawmaker’s politically risky vote of support.

“Al White showed a great deal of political courage and it is something that I will remember for a long time to come,” Ritter said.

So Bill Ritter, Dick Wadhams and David Balmer all agree that Al White is a swell guy, and should be rewarded with a State Senate seat.

This kind of thinking, of blind loyalty to anyone who claims to be a Republican is what got the Republican party in it's current mess.

It is unfortunate that party leaders like Wadhams and Balmer have missed this important lesson. Support of candidates like Al White will lead to another horrible election year for Republicans.

The Right on Dobson

Conservative pundit Dr. Chuck Baldwin recently weighed in on Dr. James Dobson's recent comments about Fred Thompson's apparent lack of Christian faith.

I think Baldwin's analysis is spot on.

Please know that I cut my eyeteeth as a political activist with the so-called Religious Right. I was the Florida Moral Majority Executive Director and participated in numerous local and national meetings that featured the Religious Right's most eminent spokesmen. My personal history with the Religious Right goes back more than thirty years.

That said, it is my studied opinion that many, if not most, of our national conservative Christian leaders have lost touch with the reality of our nation's ills and how to cure them. I hate to say it, but it seems to me that they have become either perilously shallow and unthinking or myopically focused upon their own success. Either way, the leadership being provided by this once-great group of champions seems to be seriously deficient in both discernment and resolve.

For example, just last week, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson laid an egg of gigantic proportions when he brazenly proclaimed to U.S. News & World Report senior editor Dan Gilgoff that Republican presidential aspirant Fred Thompson was not "a Christian."

In an attempt to smooth over Dobson's gaffe, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger said that Dobson "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian-someone who openly talks about his faith."

This debacle might seem like an insignificant misstatement by the Christian radio guru, but it's not. It represents the kind of shallowness and naïveté that has come to dominate the Religious Right.

Schneeberger accurately articulated the thinking of James Dobson and many conservative Christians today: In order for a politician to be acceptable, he must be someone who "openly talks about his faith."

Understand, too, that shortly after the moral recklessness of President Bill Clinton, it would have been necessary to include another requirement: an acceptable candidate must be one who keeps his pants zipped up. However, this is no longer a litmus test for the Religious Right, as I will demonstrate in a moment.

How is it that Christian conservatives have come to put so much stock in the religious rhetoric of a politician on the campaign trail? How is it that they expect a candidate, especially a presidential candidate, to "openly talk about his faith?"

Please recall that it did not do Jimmy Carter much good to openly talk about his faith. The Religious Right was almost unified in its opposition to Carter. However, the ultimate hero of the Religious Right, Ronald Reagan, was never known to carry his religion on his sleeve. He was not one who "openly talked about his faith."

It has been the George W. Bush presidency that has helped turn the minds of Christian conservatives away from a politician's actions and policies to his or her rhetoric. Bush has been given a free pass (by Christian
conservatives) on his unconstitutional, liberal, big-spending, socialistic, and imperialistic policies, because he "openly talks about his faith."

Never mind that President Bush's presidency more resembles Bill Clinton's than it does Ronald Reagan's. Never mind that if George W. Bush did not have an "R" behind his name, one would assume that he was a protégé of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. Because Bush "openly talks about his faith," he is accepted, defended, and lauded by the Religious Right.

If that is not shallow, I don't know what is.

Illustrating further the depth of Dobson's shallowness is the way he and other leaders of the Religious Right are treating the philanderer Newt Gingrich. Dobson told Gilgoff that the former House Speaker was "the brightest guy out there" and "the most articulate politician on the scene today." Jerry Falwell added his praise for Gingrich, saying in his Liberty Journal, "He is a true American statesman and a brilliant political innovator." Falwell has also invited Gingrich to be the commencement speaker at the graduating ceremonies at Liberty University this year.

This about a man who has a history as a serial adulterer. A man who used the occasion of his wife's hospitalization for cancer treatments to tell her he was leaving her for another woman with whom he had been having an affair.
This about a man who had to be taken to court to pay what was due his abandoned wife. This about a man who was a major culprit in the House Banking Scandal, having written 22 bad checks at taxpayers' expense. This about a man who, just five months ago, brazenly called for the curtailment of free speech. This about a man who, after having orchestrated the GOP revolution of 1994, used the power of the Speaker's office to try and intimidate the conservative House freshmen into compromising their conservative commitment, including trying to force them to support tax increases. This about a man who is a long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a think-tank of internationalists working toward global government.

But now Dobson, Falwell, et al. apparently hold Newt Gingrich in the highest regard, with Dobson gushing over him during the very interview when Gingrich admitted his adultery, and Falwell saying that Gingrich has made a "fresh commitment to God." Just in time for the presidential campaign. How convenient!

However, poor Fred Thompson now has the "smell of death" put on him by James Dobson with what is sure to be a ubiquitous moniker, "He is not a Christian." Does James Dobson really believe that it is better to be an admitted adulterer who "openly talks about his faith," than to be a faithful husband who doesn't?

When will conservative Christians wake up? When will they come to understand that when it comes to political office, we are not electing Sunday School teachers? We are electing men and women to do one thing: faithfully discharge their duties to the Constitution of the United States.

What matters more than religious rhetoric is whether or not our elected representatives fulfill their oath of office and obey the Constitution. (Of course, it should be obvious that we cannot be expected to trust a man who has no fidelity to his marriage commitment to be faithful to his commitments to the American people.)

America is in serious trouble, because our political leaders (from both
parties) are continually ignoring and overtly disobeying constitutional government. They treat the Constitution (and their loyalty to it) as a pile of dung. This irresponsibility has brought our nation to the brink of the abyss.

We are almost ready to lose our national identity, our culture, our standard of living, and even our military superiority.
Our education system is in the toilet. Our manufacturing jobs have almost vanished, our nation is being systematically merged into a "North American Community," and James Dobson's focus seems to be merely that our future president is a man who "openly talks about his faith?"

Obviously, James Dobson just doesn't get it. It would be far better to have an honest, God-fearing man in the White House who is more concerned about faithfully following the Constitution than he is about giving a bunch of religious lip service.
And that means we need to pay far more attention to his record than to his rhetoric. The day that our conservative Christian leaders and pastors wake up to that truth is the day that we can begin to restore this constitutional republic.

Loyalty or Principle?

This is better late than never, I guess.

Peggy Noonan, Reagan’s much vaunted word smith, had an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal this past Friday, The Trouble with Loyalty. Noonan explains, far more clearly than I ever could, why principle is important, and why that should color our decisions at the ballot box.

Money Quote:

We were marking a birthday. I was seated next to a politically experienced businessman, an acquaintance of many years. He kept talking about the presidential race. I asked who he's supporting. He was surprised I had to ask.

"Hillary," he said. I nodded.

"Tell me why," I said. "I've known her for years," he said. "I'm a loyal person."

I waited for him to say more. But he didn't.

"Your reason for backing her is that you're loyal?"

"Yes," he said. As if that were enough.

I was puzzled. You're loyal. So what? You have a virtue, good. But that doesn't mean the person you're loyal to should be my president. That's not enough. [Emphasis added]

I believe in loyalty, I just believe loyalty must be placed upon principle, not personality. I have loyalty toward candidates, only in so far as they respect, represent and vote for the principles that are important.

I will not vote for or support candidates that are not pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-traditional small government conservatives. My vote is important, as is the time I volunteer and the money I give to on candidates.

To honor the sacrifices of those who protect my right to vote freely, I can’t waste my vote on someone who does represent what I believe are the ideals and principles that make this country great.

Commentary: "Flawed" Republicans or true conservatives

In a recent post the PoliticalPaleHorse brings up some of the interesting dynamics of the Republican and Conservative coalition.

PPH cites George Will’s latest column on the Presidential contenders and their various departures from conservative orthodoxy. While I believe that the be-speckled and bow-tied Will is one of the finest center-right columnists in the country, he misses the systemic problem with the Republican coalition. Will believes that to remain in power, that Republicans, and in his mind by extension Conservatives, must accept a “flawed” candidate.

My response is simple, what good is the power and prestige of the White House if the man (or woman) in it doesn’t share the same principles as the men and women who elected him to that office?

The Republican Party lost in the last election because since 1994 national and state Republicans have presented little more than the “Lite” version of Democrat policies.

Of late, the Republican message as been simple, and sickening:

We’ll build government, but not as much as them.

We’ll fund your entitlement, but not as much as them.

Trust us, we wont take as many of your guns, as much of your money or restrict your freedom quite as much as the Democrats.

This same Democrat-Lite dementia took hold of Colorado Republicans long ago. The 2004 election showed the Colorado Republicans slipping back into the sea with the losses of the State House, State Senate and the U.S. Senate seat.

At issue is the makeup of the Conservative coalition and the degree that Republicans have – or haven’t - respected this coalition.

The original conservative coalition of the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s was the joining of two separate groups, the traditionalists and the libertarians. [It should be noted that these labels are used within the confines of mainstream political thought, and don’t refer to the literal Libertarians] The traditionalists found voice in thinkers like Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr., while the libertarian elements of the coalitions fell under that banner of Friedrich Hayeck and Whittaker Chambers. All of these great minds wrote for Buckley’s National Review at one time or another.

These two separate ideals were brought together under Hayeck’s fusionism. Essentially, fusionism is the use of libertarian means to reach traditional goals. This understanding of fusionism was birthed during the Goldwater years and brought to maturity under Reagan. I submit to you that true conservatism is this fusion of libertarian and traditional philosophies. The great California State Senator Bill Richardson, founder of Gun Owners of America, once said, “we’re all traditionalists.”

The problem with Colorado’s Republican coalition, is that it has been controlled by moderate-to-liberal Rockefeller style Republicans who have abandoned both the traditionalists and the libertarians.

The Main Stream Media’s favorite catch word is that the far-right is only focused on God, Guns, Taxes and Gays and the fiscal-conservatives are the true moderates. This argument is flawed because the true divide lies between the fusionists – the libertarians and the traditionalists united – and the liberal, populist, "Democrat-Lite" elements of the Party. Make no mistake about it, when the MSM mentions “fiscal-conservative” they’re not refereeing to small-government, free market principles, they’re referring to liberal Republicans.

The question, ultimately, comes down to this: are you a Republican or a Democrat-Lite?

A healthy debate between elements of the fusionist movement will only continue to strengthen the conservative movement.

The few Republican electoral victories of the 2006 election came to those candidates and causes that exemplify true conservatism; Representatives like Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn, or State Senators like Mike Kopp, Scott Renfroe or Ted Harvey, etc.

What Will misses, and PPH recognizes is simple. Electoral victories for Republicans will come from a full return to the fusion of traditional and libertarian elements of the Conservative Coalition.

The McCains, the Romney’s, the Guliani’s of the world can squabble over control of what is left of the Republican Party. Until true conservative leadership returns to both the national and state level Republican parties, electoral victories for Republicans will be few and far between.

(If Josh Lyman were conservative… considers himself to be one of the true-believers in the fusionist philosophy – a real traditionalist with strong libertarian tendencies. When not battling with liberal Republicans, he enjoys drinking scotch and reading National Review's The Corner.)