Dear Friends:

A man who lacks convictions can't betray them. This is why crying "betrayal" at President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court falls flat. Let us instead look in the mirror and see who, after five years of the Bush presidency, has really betrayed conservative principles.

When candidate Bush vowed to make education his top federal priority, and to provide prescription drugs for seniors at state expense, conservatives reassured themselves, and others, that these were mere campaign promises. When President Bush did what he promised to do, conservatives sought to mute criticism lest it help the Democrats in 2004. When candidate Bush characterized McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform as unconstitutional, and mocked "nation building" in his debates with Al Gore, conservatives applauded. When he signed McCain-Feingold into law, and embarked upon mammoth nation-building ventures, we didn't boo.

One could just as easily cite President Bush's nationalization of airport security, the farm, energy, and transportation bills, plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, unprecedented federal financing of embryonic stem-cell research, support for affirmative action, and grandiose vision of placing men on Mars to illustrate the point. If President Clinton had attempted any of this, would we have responded in the same quiet manner? All of this leads one to wonder if the raison d'etre of the conservative movement is no longer limited, Constitutional government, but non-stop electioneering to keep Republicans in power. Power is not an end but a means.

Principles lost are difficult to recover. After selling out our principles for the president's benefit, we now have the gall to accuse George W. Bush of selling us out? It's not difficult to understand why President Bush felt it politically safe to insult his base by nominating Harriet Miers: no consequences for past assaults on conservative principles results in future assaults on conservative principles. Fool us once, shame on the president. Fool us 137 times, shame on us.

The boogeymen of "President Al Gore" and "President John Kerry" are gone. All that remains is the Bush presidency--bigger government, nation-building commitments abroad, a growing national debt, and a Supreme Court that will likely be more liberal than the court President Bush inherited. This is not only disheartening, but a blow to the credibility of conservatives. By projecting "conservatism" upon President Bush, we have tethered our movement to the negative connotations of the Bush presidency. Will future voters think "Bushism" when they hear "conservatism," or will they think "limited government, personal responsibility, low taxes, strong defense, and family values"?

Despite a Republican Senate, a Republican House, seven of nine Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans, and a Republican in the White House, conservative principles have less influence in our government than ever.

It is time to chart a new course.

Ronald Reagan, the greatest conservative leader of the past age, didn't shy away from a fight with Republicans when they fought against conservative principles. He challenged President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976. The next year Ronald Reagan took on the Republican establishment that worked with Jimmy Carter to give away the Panama Canal. Then, he was called divisive, an unwitting ally of the Democrats, and worse. A few years later, he was called "Mr. President."

Reagan's example can serve us well today. Ronald Reagan didn't take his ball and go home in the face of a Republican Party that often warred with conservative principles. He recognized that liberalism existed outside of the Democratic Party. He realized the Republican Party was just as much his party as it was Jacob Javits's party. So, he put principle above party and battled the party when it trampled on his ideals. Though he failed in his first two attempts at the presidency, he persevered and won on his third try.

True conservatives holding office deserve our support now more than ever. Republicans who continually offend our principles don't deserve our support on the grounds that they share our party affiliation. Without demonstrating negative consequences, we will never get positive results.

Conservatism can withstand assaults from Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and Nancy Pelosi. Assaults on conservatism from George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and other big-government "conservatives" come at a greater price. When Republicans push liberal policy, we shirk our duty to fight back because we strangely believe that opposing Republicans can only help the liberals. But when we do oppose Republicans who push liberal policy, we help conservatives. Ronald Reagan knew this. Why don't his present-day admirers?

Let us begin by recognizing that though our party controls three branches of government, our cause does not. Before we can win over our nation, we must first win over our party.

Cordially,

DJF

As usual, your thoughts on this are logical and very well contructed and written to perfection.

But, don't go hitting us with truth and facts. The reality is just too difficult to face.

Very depressing that for a lot of the wrong reasons, we launched our support for this guy and were complicit because we stupidly refused to believe that he would be somebody other that who he demonstated he would be.

Outside of Soros and Naral winning, what difference would it have made if it were President John Kerry?

Moving forward: WWRD?

Excellent observations. "W" was a solid Republican candidate in the face of Al Gore and John Kerry. They were weak Democratic candidates, at best. His legacy of failed conservatism will doom the GOP in upcoming elections and will leave a black mark in the annals of political history.

I admire his ability to do what he said he would, and his tenacity, but doing the wrong thing well is worse than trying to do the right thing and failing because of lack of support from Congress. They're to blame as well, as they didn't put a stop to much of the squandering of taxpayer dollars.

Initially, I was excited and thought his plan to partially privatize social security was a turn toward the right direction, but I was sadly mistaken. For his sake, I hope he turns things around. For the sake of conservatism and the GOP, I hope the Democrats' only presidential contender is Al Sharpton, or we're in for a rude awakening in 2008.

Your comments are right on the mark. Unfortunately, you are preaching to the choir.

A vote (or non-vote for that matter) based upon principles and ideals is NOT a wasted vote...even if it puts the opposition party in power for a time. The Republican party needs a wakeup call.

With a few notable exceptions, Politicians are pretty much cut from the same cloth regardless of what colors they wear. To them, the position and the power are the ends, not the means to a greater end. After achieving office, their primary goal is to a) maintain their station and/or b)advance to ever higher office and greater power.

I do not excuse GW Bush and the Republican party for their selling out of conservative principles...but I assume my share of the responsibility for putting them in the position to do so.

As long as we keep putting these twits in office, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Dan et al, while there are still certain aspects of Bush and his Administration I like, I cannot dispute the logic and facts behind your assertions regarding the abysmal spending record of this President and the Republican-dominated Congress. These guys make drunken sailors look like skinflints, and as a former sailor, I should know.

What continues to frustrate me is the manner in which certain Republicans continue to cowtow and hobnob with the Enemy, be it the First Bush being buddy-buddy with Clinton, Gingrich hanging with Hillary, or Bush II campaigning for liberal "Repbulicans" like Arlen Specter that are as dependable as a used Yugo!

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is US!"

This deal gets worse all the time....

A well-written and reasoned piece no doubt.

No one who has been paying attention the last five years should be surprised by any of this. The real unfortunate thing is that a repeat of 2004 is so possible -- conservatives being herded into voting for another Bush for fear of "President Hillary Clinton" just as they were because of the "President John Kerry" boogeyman.

In my humble opinion, it is time for conservatives to give up the fantasy of returning to Constitutional governance through a takeover of the federal government. We need to reinvestigate the glorious history of states' rights and decentralization that we have in this country and start using terms like "nullification" and "interposition" to resist the federal leviathan. Instead of playing the game of trying to elect a GOP President to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe v. Wade let's realize that five lawyers in black robes are not the final arbiters of what is or is not constitutional under our form of government -- the people of the several states are. That said, we should start talking about going 1798 on Roe and work to get state legislatures to nullify the decision -- just as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison urged Kentucky and Virginian respectively to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I do have one quibble with Dan's piece. Is the GOP really "our party"? I'm not so sure that it is if we really value things like limited Constitutional government. From its beginning, the GOP has been a party of centralization and statism with its founding father, Abraham Lincoln, being one of the biggest statists of them all.

In the interest of charting a new course I suggest people ditch their subcriptions to National Review (if they still have them at this point). No one has hurt the cause of conservatism more these past years then they have. Standing athwart history yelling stop? Yeh, right!

I quote one of Joe Sobran's recent columns:
"The older conservatives who, with Kirk, had helped create National Review 50 years ago — James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, Willi Schlamm, Whittaker Chambers — wouldn’t recognize it today. Even the Buckleys must wince when they read it now. It was founded in order to oppose Eisenhower Republicanism; it currently supports a Republican president far to the left of Eisenhower."

Do conservatives truly want "limited government, personal responsibility, low taxes, strong defense, and family values"?. Visit www.constitutionparty.com for hope!

Barry's right, to some degree. I think that 3d parties like the Constitution party are key. It is because cons tend to think 3d parties are anathema that the Republican get to treat us like a abused and cheated on wife who can still always be counted on when the jerk needs something. I'm not saying we should all bolt, I'm saying that sqeeky wheels get the grease, and we have not been squeeky with this man. Fred Branes today "the love affair" betwen Bush and the cons. What? WTF?

"A man who lacks convictions can't betray them. This is why crying 'betrayal' at President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court falls flat."

But a man who makes promises can break them, and therein lies the betrayal. As a candidate Bush said that he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. It appears that Bush has made himself a liar.

The only conservative in the last fifty years who was worth remembering is Rep. Larry McDonald, who was killed by the Soviets in 1983.

Still, to this day, he holds the best rating for his voting record from the American Conservative Union.

A good starting point for any professed conservative is to find a copy of his 1976 book, "We Hold These Truths..."

Off-topic (Dan, this blog needs a permenant "off-topic" thread):

Am I the only one who see incoherence in the liberals' outcry against Bill Bennett's reductio hypothetical?

Here's a representative quote by Eugene Robinson from today's Washington Post:

"There's no need to pillory William Bennett for his 'thought experiment' about how aborting all black children would affect the crime rate. I believe him when he says he wasn't actually advocating genocide, just musing about it to make a point."

Genocide? Can the 'pro-choice' zealots for murder really be outraged about the possible abortion of black babies (hypothetical or otherwise). Someone needs to ask them what's so objectionable about abortion, and what does it have to do with genocide.

Reagan wasn't perfect either. As Governor of CA, he was the first to sign into law no-fault divorce; which quickly spread from state to state, and was the beginning of the end of the American family. That alone did more harm to this country than anything else.

And don't forget Sandra Day O'Connor ...

Measured solely on the basis of Supreme Court justices, Reagan is worse than Bush (for now, anyway; Bush could get another chance). Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy to go along with Scalia.

Lisa raises a good point. We should also not forget that as Governor of California, Reagan signed a bill that essentially decriminalized abortion in 1967 and that despite all his talk about rolling back the size of the federal government and returning power to the state accomplished little in that regard.

am now ready to declare that the Republican Revolution has become apostate. They are betrayers of the faith.

A laundry list of shames have come from the Republican Party since 2000. From Bush's K street corruption and big government Conservatism, to his massive defecit spending, and his promise to "Rebuild New Orleans, whatever it takes" and his bullheaded refusal to commit enough troops to Iraq or place enough pressure on North Korea and Iran, or work hard enough for reform in government, whether it be in social security, taxation, or education, to the rampant corruption of Tom DeLay.

The Republican Revolution can no longer be considered a conservative revolution. What we need today is a Conservative Martin Luther, who will return the flock to the true path. I can only pray such a figure will emerge in 2008, for today, the Republican party has sucker punched American Conservatives just one too many times.

For every enemy without, there are a thousand within.

I must apologize to the rest of the Flynn Filers for so tenaciously defending the failed Bush administration for so long. I only harmed, and betrayed, the conservative cause in doing so.

P.S: Newt for President?

With all the bad news this administration has brought down on every TRUE conservative in this country, lets all step back for just a moment and dream. Ann Coulter and Ted Nugent in 2008!!Please don't wake me!!!

Ann Coulter is part of the problem. That shrill b*itch never met a war she didn't like or an administration policy she couldn't stump for.

Well put. The writing was all over the wall yet we refused to see it. Read "The Pennsylvania Treason" by Mark Crutcher. Perhaps we should send a message to the GOP by Naderizing them. Surely handing 20% of the vote to the Constitution (or Libertarian) party will get some attention.

Ben-T

Thanks for expressing the same way I feel about this administration. You have done it so much more eloquently than I.

You suggest Newt Gingrich for president. Even before Hurricane Katrina and the SCOTUS nomination of Miers, I have long thought the Republican nomination would go to either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Given the poor response of the federal government to Katrina, I suspect Giuliani will be the nominee. This is primarily because the NYC government performed so well on 911. The only thing that will stop this is if he does not want the nomination.

Btw, response to natural disasters should primarily be the responsibilty of local governments. I just don't see how expanding the federal government will make our response any better. This was the problem. The government is TOO BIG. Making it bigger will only make it worse.

Obi Juan

I'm not aware that Ann Coulter stumps for every administration policy. As I recall, she attacked the nomination of John Roberts because he is a stealth nominee.

As I stated in the previous post, I think the Republican nominee for President will either be John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. I am not endorsing them. For one thing, Rudy Giuliani seems far to liberal for my taste. John McCain I am not sure about. It is hard to understand why the main stream media loves this guy so much. I'm with Barry and other posters here who have suggested the Constitution party as an alternative to the Republican party. If we are serious, this could serve to move the Republican party in our direction and we could have a viable third party.

Ben-T,

Thanks for your well-thought out post earlier. You and I have disagreed on a number of topics - particularly on foreign policy - so it is nice to find some common ground with you.

A right-thinking friend of mine here at school (who I also disagree with on foreign policy) has had a similar reaction to the Miers nomination. He's fed up with Bush, the GOP, the prolifigate spending, the growth of government, the uncontrolled border, etc. Again, I submit that the unfortunate thing is that I can see the "President John Kerry" scare tactics employed in 2004 being used again in '08 with Hillary Clinton giving us yet another Bush.

Hey conservatives get back to REALITY

Reading the posts and listening to the so called conservative talk shows tells me otherwise.

These posts along with the conservative talk shows are forgetting REALITY

REMEMBER, despite the conservative base being fired up - the republican senate would not confirm Amb Bolton.

REMEMBER, despite the conservative base being fired up - the republican senate thru the gang of 14 would not confirm Bush's appelate court nominees

Seems to me that Bush has chosen a conservative he knows and a conservative that will be confirmed by the spineless senate

Good post.

Although I would add to it one thing. When Reagan did triumph within the party, he immediately turned and extended a hand to the faction in his party that he beat. He tried to get Ford on his ticket. Then he chose George H.W. Bush.

I agree we need to work to win over our party. But we should be mindful, as we do, to continue to see the other factions of the party as our allies-- folks we agree with more than we disagree with, who we need on our side going forward.

Interesting conspiracy theory floated on the History channel the other night. They were doing a segment on the world power structure and secret societies like Skull and Bones and went on to say that, for both parties, for the last fifty years or more administrations have been loaded with members of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR.

As an example of power, it was said that Reagan didn't choose Bush. Bush was chosen and Reagan was told to accept him.

Hmmmmmmm.

Great post. I agree w/ Ralph though that conservatives can with some reason see Bush as betraying them. However, your overall thrust that conservatives have themselves to blame for acting as lapdogs is a criticlally important one. In fact, I wish more conservatives had recognized this 10-15 years ago even (not that I did back then). As Sobran reminds us in the article Obi Juan links to, Russell Kirk recognized that conservatism as a movement was wading in troubled waters in the mid-80's and in fact by the time of his death in the nineties he was extremely disheartened with the prospects for conservatism in America. I wish more prophetic conservative voices had heeded his concerns.

ASDF,

I was under the impression that Reagan really seriously did not want George Bush as V.P. because he had considered him unmanly due to Bush's performance in the primaries (specifically in how he handled a debate I think). He was pressured into taking Bush on though by other party leaders b/c of the fact, as Gerry posts immediately above you, that they considered it pragmatic to bring the Rockefeller Republicans (i.e. liberals) together for a unified convention and race. I don't think that the various other GOP leaders who pressured Reagan into choosing Bush had anything more sinister than pragmatic political calculations in mind.

What is, however, truly a shame is that by the time Reagan left office in 1988 he either had genuinely grown to like G.H.W. Bush or possibly was already too withdrawn from politics due to the early stages of Alzheimer's to NOT support him as his successor candidate. In fact, Buchanan had earlier left the WH in the second term and wrote his autobiography with the definite impression existing that he would be the "heir" to the Reagan "revolution." I think that that is when Pat got ill as well, does anyone recall? Anyway, everything came together to give us no conservative candidate in Reagan's wake and so the one-term Bush and the Clinton era resulted. I am not sure that the conservative movement ever recovered from its dissipation by the election of G.H.W. Bush. Just look at which faction has actually been calling the shots in subsequent GOP nominating cycles . . . Dole anyone?

If Reagan had stuck to his guns and selected Paul Laxalt the world would have been spared the Bush dynasty.

Brian,

Your explanation of why HW ended up on the ticket is more likely and certainly more effectively factual.

I'm not as much a conspiracy theorist as I am a skeptic. But I don't doubt there are forces are work that we don't have a bead on.

The idea behind keeping the power exclusive to the elites, is to maintain the power base. And as Reagan was very much an outsider (not only from the true power structure but even the Republican Party), it's not inconceivable that the elite organizations wanted to make sure one of their own was in line to succeed.

As it turned out, HW came within an inch of a bullet that almost killed Reagan to becoming President. Hmmmmmmm.

Interesting read….

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

Dan is quite accurate in his observations of the shortcomings of the party just now. There are at least several reasons:

The repubs now hold the purse strings, and they have realized, like the dems before them, that this can be worked to effect re-election. They are buying votes with taxpayer money.

There is an ideological easing up when a party takes power. Gracious winners and all that.

The electorate gets complacent once their party is in power. You have to keep the pressure on. If you don't the opposition will. And this is the best answer now. Keep on your congressman. Pepper him/her with emails and letters. They read and count them. Do whatever you can to have a voice with your representatives. At all times we get the government we deserve. The government reflects the quality of the citizenry.

I understand your sentiments but I think there has been plenty of wailing and gnashing of those white things in your mouth(which your content police wouldn't let me use) for many of the things GW has done. For example school funding in 2001, farm bill in 2001, McCain Feingold in 2001, appt of Norman Minetta. You just aren't reading the correct blogs, cause the ones I read then definitely were angry about these items. On the nation-building I would say GW had it foisted on him. Either the US again looks like it's all bluster with no substance or the US has a spine in the post Clinton era. I'm not happy about this nominee but it's his perogative. Remember too with Reagan there was the immigration amnesty of 1986 (I think that's the year). That's what really started the rush with further assistance from Clinton in the 90's. Good letter though.

David,

Even though I disagree strongly with your positions on certain issues, I certainly see the point of your post. The only real reason I threw in my lot with Bush in the last election is because Kerry convinced me that he was to big of an idiot to be entrusted with the Presidency. I support the war in Iraq, but cannot in all honesty say that I'm a fan of the President. Your piece was timely and very well-written, and I thank you for it.

P.S. - It should be noted though, that I'm not really a conservative per se, more of a right-leaning libertarian.

Mr. Flynn,

I've only been a subscriber of Human Events for a few months, but their link to your website here was well worth what I paid for it.

It's SO good to know that there are still people out there (INCLUDING all your bloggers) who understand constitutional conservatism (in all it's minor nuances).

I must have read 50 posts in a row, following your article ... without ONE single (even covertly) anti-conservative comment.

That's a breath of fresh air to me.

Keep it goin'

Doog

Dan, pretty bold to make such a statement considering that your own archives don't really assert a principled opposition to Bush throughout the history of your blog. To go back to October and Novemeber 2004 of the Flynn Files, I don't see the principled criticisms of Bush, the reasons to vote third party of for Kerry. It seems you were caught up in the game, in the prospect of your side "winning" and natural validation in a two-party system against the perpetual complaints and whining of the other side. In a way, I don't doubt your sincerity, but it's a bit too convenient for you to place the blame at the feet of the conservative movement without your own admission that you are just as much a part of the problem as your open letter. Who did you donate to? Who did you endorse? Whose campaign did you do calls for, promote, push? Whom in the movement did you lobby to defeat Bush?

PS - Did you actually send your "open letter" to anyone, or was it just a blog post?

Hey Charlie Chan,

I guess I was one post too early.

Sometimes, you just gotta try to pick the BEST of the 'three evils'.

Ya see, us simple-minded people just kinda 'gravitate' towards the 'conservative side of the fence'. It's much 'easier' than being a 'deaf, dumb, blind, mute'. KWIM?

JMO

Doog

Eric Wilds, if your reading this, I don't think Ann Coulter is the Bush Cultist you claim her to be:

http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=159561&loc=/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2005/10/05/159561.html

By the way- no one is saying that Buchanan's runs for President have been entirely vindicated by the failures of both Bush Presidencies. Guess what- it does.

Charlie Chan,

You don't know what you are talking about and are obviously a newcomer to this site.

I released a book in September of '04--Intellectual Morons--that contained a chapter quite critical of the Bush Administration. In almost every review of the book by conservative outlets, they noted this and noted that they didn't like it. In December of '02 on Donahue I stated my opposition to the Iraq war, and did so again on the O'Reilly Factor the next month.

On the site itself, there were many, many criticisms of the Bush Administration (as well as criticisms of his lackluster opponent) in the lead up to the election. Here's one I posted on the day before the election:

http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/culture2004/south_park_choose_and_lose.html

Charlie Chan,

I reviewed the archives for the three months leading up to the election and found more than two dozen posts critical of President Bush. You state that my "archives don't really assert a principled opposition to Bush throughout the history of your blog." You should have read my blog before making such an assertion. Such dishonesty is ill-fitting for someone claiming the great name of "Charlie Chan." Number 2 son's head lays low in shame because of your mendacity. Here are more than a dozen such examples--copy and paste the link to read--of posts criticizing Bush in the 90 days before 2004's election:

http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/not_yours_to_give.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/republican_victories_conservative_defeats.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2004/chief_inspector_no_wmd_in_iraq.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/wrong_lessons_learned_on_illegal_immigration_since_911.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/assault_weapons_ban_expires_today.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2004/this_weeks_grim_milestone.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/republican_national_convention_speeches.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/four_more_years_of_what.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/more_conservative_less_compassion_please.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/scarcity_of_conservative_speakers_isnt_the_real_problem_for_gop.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2004/bush_has_no_right_to_restrict_political_speech.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2004/the_dangers_of_intelligence_by_proxy.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2004/americans_brits_australians_and_italians_agree.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2004/bush_on_iraq_wmd_then_and_now.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2004/iraq_situation_getting_worse_for_americans.html
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2004/cia_iraq_had_no_wmd_stockpiles.html

Dear Dan,

I just got around to reading this post, and I think it is one of the best things you've written in a long time.

As it happens, I come fresh from reading a dissection of Christopher Hitchens (and by extension, the neo-conservatives), in The American Conservative, by Tom Piatak

(which interested parties can read here:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html)

I mention that because Piatak suggests, rather bluntly, that the neo-conservatives have hijacked what is viewed as the "conservative" movement in the past 20 years, and that the Neo-cons are actually warmed-over trotskyite revolutionaries - this is, he thinks, the reason why Hitchens finds himself so at home there now.

That's a bit extreme. I would have said they are classic, hard-core European liberals, with a penchant for war-mongering and massive spending fits, but the point is the same: it's almost as if one kept using the name "Conservative" all these years, and no one noticed the switch-a-roo.

As for the Bush Family and their role in this take-over, they are pragmatists and had nothing to gain from being yoked to an ideological movement such as traditional, principled Conservatism.

The problem, as I see it, is one of principles. What do you conservatives want? This might sound a bit simplistic, but you need to rank your principles in order of priority, and - if there are certain things which aren't up for sale - then you need to not give someone your vote, no matter what the cost, and do this in significant enough numbers that those deprived of votes feel the hurt.

The other problem is one of strategy. Here in Germany, of course, there is a Parliament, so a small party like the Greens or the Liberals (FDP), can - even if they don't form part of the winning coalition - form a significant opposition and block certain measures to which they are opposed.

In the US, of course, it is otherwise, and so I believe that - pace Scully - this whole 3rd party thing isn't really going to work. It would take a major issue, such as slavery or some other massive social injustice to actually drive a third party into significant numbers. And let's all be honest and admit that abortion or other similar 'moral' issues just aren't that issue.

Also, in US politics you can't negotiate the election results.

Here in Germany, of course, we've been doing nothing but negotiating since the elections were held on the 18th of September. And the Greens didn't allow themselves to be wooed by the Christian Democrats because they said they would rather be a part of the opposition, rather than sacrifice certain principles and programs.

In the U.S., this isn't going to work, since even a third party pulling in 15% of the vote isn't going to win any states, and the electoral college is (foolishly) a winner-take-all game in the states (except for Maine and perhaps one or two others).

But there's one place you conservatives could start: election reform - the area that everyone else is neglecting. Start making it make a difference if a President wins a state by 2% or 20%. Make voting easier. Allow third parties to throw their share of the state electoral totals. Make it more free-wheeling and decentralized.

I would further suggest to you that, if one does decide to work 'within' the Republican party, and start trying to restore order, the Conservatives - those movement paleos true to Hume, Burke, Metternich, Russel Kirk and Wm. F. Buckley - are going to need to get ready for another 30 years in the wilderness if they want to recapture the Republican party from the Neo-cons.

The Bushies and the Neocons in the Republican party (just like the Clintonistas and the Hawk-Liberals among the Democrats) have gotten too used to winning, they have the donors on their side, and they're not going to go without a fight. The candidacy of Dean proved that on the other side of the aisle last year.

Lastly, you've got to work at the grass-roots level, and win hearts and minds in local elections, and state elections, before you can win at the national level.

But you know all that...

Well, that's a bit rambling, but I mainly wanted to say that, although I disagree with you on first (political) principles, you're right on about Bush and the Conservative movement in the U.S.

Who ever thought it would be a good idea to elect that idiot anyway?

Sincerely,
Ali-G
Trier, Germany

Thank you Ben,

I had already read Ann Coulter's column and I also saw her appearance on the O'Reilly Factor the other night and my opinion remains the same: Ann Coulter is a disgusting Bush cultist.

Mr. Flynn (the Michael Jordan of bloggers) always comes through in the clutch.