It's a sad day when the most influential conservative is a liberal. Rudy Giuliani, the pro-abortion, anti-2nd Amendment, pro-illegal immigration former mayor of New York City, is the most influential conservative in America, according to the UK's Daily Telegraph. Beam me up, Scotty. What conservative would endorse Mario Cuomo, as Giuliani did in 1994? Dick Morris, Christopher Hitchens, and Andrew Sullivan are a few of the other influential "conservatives" who made the list. There are several conservatives that I admire on the list: Mike Pence, Thomas Sowell, and Ron Paul come to mind. But in the pre-Bush, pre-bizarro conservative movement, when conservatism meant more than merely opposing the Democrats' latest bogeyman, it would have been hard to not break out in laughter at the suggestion that Joe Lieberman influences a single conservative. But times have changed, and so have conservatives. They have become more liberal. Should we mock the list, or mock what's become of the "conservative" movement?

'Conservative' is defined by a general tendency to oppose change. And of course, the amount of change in public opinion that can be attributed to a person is the most obvious indicator of that person's influence. This makes the phrase 'influential conservative' an oxymoron, at least when it comes to influencing the values of the public.

It's just the nature of that list that the best way to the top is to be a 'conservative' that defies some established values of conservatives, changing the meaning of the word for future generations.

When I look at Rudy one word comes to mind.

Douche Bag

Ok, that’s two words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2y1IM17sM

A Republican, playing a Democrat, playing a Republican!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_90nRRoXK8

The Daily Telegraph needs to better define its terms. It refers to Guiliani as having an "unorthodox brand of conservativism." Is that not a complete oxymoron?

What do you expect from the Euros? The whole continent and Islands are so far Left they're on the verge of socialism. They wouldn't know a conservative if one tried to invade them.

Although, Sarkozy's a good start.

Huckabee's my man.

Brian R.: instead of starting with a dictionary definition (The dictionary is almost always wrong or at least terribly inadequate when it comes to defining objects that are at all interesting.), why don't you look at how conservatives have traditionally understood themselves? (I suspect you are content with your strongman.) Conservatives are generally dedicated to conserving certain things (not all things); and conservatives in America are dedicated to conserving certain parts of the American tradition: esp., limited government, rule of law, economic freedom, private initiative and responsibility, Judeo-Christian culture and religion, the traditional family structure and its responsibilties. And conserving things doesn't even mean opposing change -- it means finding a way to conserve these things despite change (Change is unavoidable.).

N.B., your definition doesn't make sense, if one is trying to preserve is in part _a tradition that advocates change_. E.g., the Christian tradition demands that all individuals and communities repeatedly and perpetually attempt to change themselves to be more "perfect, as one's heavenly Father is perfect", but it is also dedicated to the permanent truth of the creed and maintaining this creed, passing it unaltered from generation to generation. Now, notice how your definition is completely inadequate to describe someone who is a conservative about the Christian tradition.

Ana1ogy: I am cheering for my beloved Texas Longhorns to lose every game. Why? Because I want the coaching staff to make changes (at QB and on defense) that they won't make so long as they continue to be average (i.e., win 10 games a season, but lose to Oklahoma, and end up in the Cotton Bowl). If they lose, if they get embarrased, they will make changes.

Given the present field of candidates, I hope that Giuliani wins the nomination. Because if he does, the religious right will vote third party or stay home for the general election, and the Democrat will win in a landslide. I suppose I'd prefer Hillary in the White House. She's pure evil, and four years of her will be enough to scare anyone into changing parties.

I made myself feel better today about the woesul state of contemporary conservatism by making a donation to The Only Conservative Running

Btw, he is closing in on setting the single day primary campaign fundraising record today 11/5.

Ralph,

We have to use the primary season to help force the very changes you want from the GOP. To do this we have to go w/ the primary contender who most espouses traditional conservative positions, and that is Paul. Seriously, do a checklist.

Who running beats his track record in Congress on these issues:

1) Pro-life
2) Anti-deficits
3) Anti-amnesty
4) Pro-2nd Amendment
5) Pro state rights
6) Anti-tax

You need to get over the empire, seriously. His opposition to the unjust and completely imprudent War on Iraq in no way means he would make us less secure and do a worse job at defeating Islamic radicals than anyone else.

You can't look dispassionately at his total package and not say he is the most traditionally conservative and the proper vehicle to get behind to push the GOP back to the right.

Small point: I'm not the federalist you are. I have no problem with the federal government wielding the power of the 14th Amendment, so long as it is wielded properly (e.g., a federal ban on abortion).

Medium point: I'm not advocating empire. However, libertarians tend to err on the pacifist side. Would Paul have invaded Afghanistan?

Large point: I just don't see Paul getting enough traction to be taken seriously. Money does not necessarily translate into votes. I'm not interested in supporting someone who will end up getting 5% of the vote. I'd prefer to just stay home. He's much better on the issues, but (unfortunately) elections aren't just about issues. They're about personalities, and when I look at Paul I see an elderly man who comes across as a bit of a crack-pot (I am not saying that he is; merely that he sometimes appears to be). It's no coincidence that the greatest Republican president in the last 75 years was a tall, handsome, well-spoken man.

If it ever could recover, it would take this country ten years to come back from a Hitlery Rotten Presidency.

The Presidency is not an "I told you so" or an experiment.

Ralph,

Paul voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. So, yes, he would have b/c he did.

However, I think it is safe to say that he would have done so strictly in pursuit of Al Qaeda (he has given speeches to that effect as well as trying to pass letters of marquee) and so would not have stuck around to nation build.

Do you mean 5% in the primaries? I am talking about pushing him on during the primary season. I hope he wins it all, but that's not my point. My point is to register and vote in your primaries for the authentically best conservative voice and support him w/ money (if one can) so that he can get the message out in the critical early primary states.

As for the federalist issue, I think it is an important one only b/c the track record of our national politics is decidely NOT in the direction of good uses of the 14th amendment power like nationally outlawing abortion. I think we would make more real positive gains ending abortion if we could just get it back to state control.

I can't think of any good uses that the Fed. Govt has made in wielding the power of the 14th Amendment so I would prefer it NOT have that power. You see what I mean? Can you come up w/ anything that has been done nationally like that which speaks to letting DC have that power?

Ralph: I think you are assuming, falsely, that the religious right would not support Gulliani over Clinton. When faced with that coice, and when urged to be 'practical', most of the religious right will support the Republican, even if it is Gulliani. Most strong in their minds will be the issue of terrorism and our battle against (terrorist) Muslims. And if Gulliani wins the Nomination, and wins the election, that would be disasterous for conservatives.

UF,

You may be right, but I think you are underestimating the religious (especially Protestant) right's commitment to the pro-life position. Even facing Hillary, I can't see them supporting a pro-abortion candidate.

Ralph: I suspect you are underestimating their commitment to Bush's "War on Terror."

Support for Israel, not abortion, is the litmus test for the religious right. For this reason, they will enthusiastically support Guliani when it comes down to it.

I think you may be right Ben-T, at least right about that segment of the religious right that will be motivated to vote for a GOP candidate regardless of who it is.

However, I think Brad isn't completely off either, in that their have been cracks of dissension in the last year or so on the religious right. I think James Dobson for example has already made absolutely clear that he would never support a pro-abortion candidate like Giuliani, and many religious conservatives have become disillusioned by the war. I could see a somewhat depressed turnout if it is Guiliani.

Frankly, I don't see any way in which Giuliani defeats Hillary, and it would clearly be a total admission of defeat if the GOP establishment makes him their candidate. Or rather, maybe they recognize that Hillary is not really all that different from their elite opinions and the fix is in leaving The Peeps as the losers.

Just read in the Post that Pat Robertson has endorsed Guiliani. It's almost surreal.

Heard that this morning. The world is upside down, ain't it?