A stunt like this is a very large mark against a guy who did his best to assure conservatives that he was going to stand up for them.

I think Eric Holder was right about us being cowards about race; just not the way HE thinks we are cowards about race. Shelby Steele called it White Guilt in his book by the same title: we are afraid to confront blacks who use racism as a cudgel to get the policies they want.

I think on the Sunday show, to some extent Michael Steele was reacting as a black man, not as a Republican or even just as human. There have been other black conservatives who’ve had tsimilar thoughts, some of whom may even have voted for Obama in November, but whose opinions I respect. There is a certain sense in which rooting for Obama’s failure is the same as rooting for the US to fail in Iraq (I believe the comparison to be more fundamentally flawed than true, but there is a connection which leads down the wrong path). And I think the combination probably hit him like an unexpected gut punch so he reacted accordingly in what he said.

Then Michael Steele did neither Obama, nor any of his minions can do: he called Rush and talked to him. And after they finished talking, he spoke as a Republican and a human. He agreed the Rush and he have more in common than differences, and that the coordinated attack on him and Rush by Obama and the MSM made it clear that he and Rush would have to work together, because there are things more important to the future of our Republic than any petty differences between them. This action alone makes him worthy of our respect.

I disagree with Steele on many things. He is from the libertarian wing of conservatism, and I hail from the the paleo- wing. But Steele is not in the same class of Rinos as Frum, Douthat, Whitman, or Spectre. I am likely to frequently regard Steele as an opponent, but never an enemy. And I DO regard the other people on that list as enemies, as surely as I regard Obama himself as an enemy of the spirit of liberty for which has historically invigorated America.

(The visionary/idealist and ideologue has an abiding sense of personal purity that feels sullied if they feel that they are accepting less than 100%. Now we do need a few purists to keep us honest, but a movement entirely consisting of purists will spinter and self-destruct or turn violent. This is characteristic of the far left, as humorously displaying in The Life of Brian” but I see this almost religious intensity in certain far-right groups too.)

The distinction I think is that the squish has no core principles and therefore is driven by their own psychological needs for validation, which usually comes from feeling like they’ve “done something” because that is the way they feel they make a difference in the world.

The pragmatist, on the other hand, starting from a principled position, is willing to step up to get their hands “dirty” in order to implement their ideas their ideas in the real world where they can’t get everyone to do it their way.

The distinction from the squishes is that for the squish, negotiation and compromise are the end, because they’re psychologically invested in that – where as the pramatist see negotiation and compromise as a necessary means to an end – and are will to back off and either walk away or slug it out in the trenches.

First, paleoconservative refers to the nativist-protectionist extremists like Pat Buchanan.

You’re trying to define a division between “secualr conservatives” and those who put more focus on “social” issues, many of whom are religious – or what liberals like to call the “religious right”. But the latter is more a creation of the leftist imagination than reality, and Palin and Jindal wouldn’t be part of the “religious right” even if that entity actually existed.

But really, if you want to understand conservatism, the place to start is to see conservatism as restiing on three legs: social issues, fiscal issues (which includes the small government values), and defense issues.

Some who would call themselves conservatisms rest on three legs, some rest on two, and some rest on one. Beyond that, there is the question of priorities and how much weight one puts on each leg.

The challenge that we face is to draw the boundaries as to what combination of legs and priorities comprises conservatism, and what does not. It’s not two opposting movements.

And beware when you attach names to these poles – the liberal mindset these days tends to be personality driven, where conservatives are content-driven, and attaching names is strictly for convenience – individuals do not constitute the definition of the conservative movement. Not even Rush

Then there is the principled person from the left or right. In order to get something accomplished, he has to move off his most favored position. It then becomes a balancing test of how far from his most favored position he is willing to move in order to get a majority or a consensus for action. At some point, you have to walk away from a deal and accept getting nothing done because the price of getting something done is too high.

Then there is the squish, and I include most Republican elected officials in the squish characterization. These people are COMPELLED to DO SOMETHING. They cannot bear the confrontation of walking away from their opponent/adversary and saying “no deal.” Consequently, there is no bright line of principle beyond which these people will not go. They will go all the way over to the adversary’s side if necessary to make SOMETHING HAPPEN. They are sad, sad people to have to work with and, especially, work for – you always feel the saw working on that limb you’re standing on.

I hope they decide for real conservative as the answer to #1. I don’t know if the answer to #2 matters that much to liberals. If they go paleoconservative, there will be a much starker contrast with liberals, which is probably a good thing. I wonder if that may push away the business types, though (who also won’t feel comfortable in the Democratic Party). If they pick secular conservative, where will religious conservatives go? Can the GOP continue to hold together both groups? Maybe.

You see, when it comes down to horsetrading and building coalitions for specific policies, this is where the conservatives here and someone like you can sit and and figure out where we stand on the different issues and see what accomodations we can make and where are differences are not bridgeable.

The problem is when you start at that stage. What many of us (and I think this is what Rush at his core is trying to get to) understand, that many moderates do not, is that you have to start with a coherent set of principles and belief which structure you thinking so that you can formulate and evaluate specific policies. Figure out what is core, and what is derivative.

The radicals of the left under whose tutelage Obama was raise and formed have a vision that is diametrically opposite that of conservative (and what we would argue is fundamentally American) values – we value individual freedom, limited government, sanctity of contract, common defense against external enemies – for instance.

Implementation is up for debate (and you raise some valid questions regarding the possible contractions between values and policy. But the conversation I can have is going to be radically different depending on whether you (hypothetically) generally accept these conservative values or subscribe to opposing values.

What is frustrating about “moderates” – and I encounter plenty of them – is that they often are so concerned about appear “reasonable” and seeking conciliation that they end up finessing supporting any set of values (since values by defintion are polarizing) and end up focusing on the current wind direction among the electorate – which can shift the other way tomorrow and blow everything away.

Rather,e need to ascertain truth, not seek calm as a prime directive. We need to elaborate a set of conservative principles and apply them to move the debate in our direction by building a solid foundation. You know, the old parable about building on rock versus sand.

“Public opinion” is sand.

I also apologize for implying that conservatives are one bloc with unanimous positions. Liberals are not that way, and neither are conservatives. The loudest voices on DKos and here and other places tend to shout down the dissenting views.

As for my own positions, here is where I stand on compromising. I would support nuclear power (instead of increased oil drilling) as at least a stopgap measure, and potential into perpetuity. I am nervous about what to do with the waste, but I am hopeful that there will eventually be a solution to it.

I am cautiously optimistic about clean or at least cleaner coal. I think the first priority needs to be getting off foreign oil by any means necessary, including using coal. Then we can debate about the merits (and possibility or lack thereof) of getting off our own oil and coal. I think a huge amount of the tension in the Middle East is either created or exacerbated by the money other countries pump into Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Dubai, etc. in exchange for oil. To me, that is a bigger priority than the environment, at least for now.

I am not happy about the pork that was in the stimulus bill, and I am annoyed by liberals who want to pretend that there was none. That being said, I’m willing to accept the relatively small amount of pork in exchange for policies that I mostly agree with, including the stimulus in general.

I am conflicted about abortion. It is a difficult issue for me. I do not support abortion after viability (say 5 months) except in very rare cases. I support free choice for abortion before viability. I accept that this is not an easy logical position and I don’t feel great about, but alternative positions seem worse to me. I think of it as the lesser of two evils. I don’t support partial birth abortion.

I am somewhat conflicted about the drug war because I know people do often have problems from smoking pot. That being said, it’s not as harmful as either alcohol or cigarettes, in my opinion, and I think we are better off taxing it and going after the harder drugs.

I think we probably can agree on some things, and I think that is what politics is supposed to be. Agree where we can and fight like hell on the things we can’t. I personally think Bobby Jindal is a very smart guy with a pretty amazing story. If a conservative is going to be president, my first hope is that they are at least a good person, which Jindal is. I think he probably is the best choice for conservatives, and I’m nervous that the media (which has definitely been biased for liberals) will attack Jindal unfairly. I also don’t give a crap about whether his response speech was good or bad. Whatever, no one is going to remember it in 2 years.

I also refuse to get caught up in worrying about what Rush Limbaugh thinks or does. I don’t think he wants America to fall into a Depression. I think that he sees no way Obama’s policies will work (so far, he’s right). It is not Rush’s job to hope Obama succeeds. Liberals sure as hell did not hope Bush succeeded in Iraq. To me, Rush is no different or worse than Keith Olbermann on our side.

Longevity. He’s been around for decades, so he brings the view of experience, from the Reagan era to the Bush era.

Independence. Since he never had to run for office he never had to compromise his views. They are pure.

Clarity. Rush is a phenomenal speaker. He is better than Obama. I was riveted Saturday night. I’m amazed that he could be so entertaining for 1.5 hours when only scheduled for 20 minutes.

Rush quite simply deserves the deference that he gets from the Republican Party. I’ll stand with Rush before I stand with Republicans.

“trying to give…. strategies or tell…. what to do.”

“Compromise” you say?

The former President has compromised the entire Republican Party and Conservative principles by the way.

So there’s nothing more to compromise … except our spiritual beliefs which are sacred to us.

Liberal ideas to win?

Check out the line “I won” by the seating President Obama. So get real. You have won the White House. And good luck!

By the way, liberal ideas have been running show since 2006 particularly in the matters of the economy, Bush policies, actions and inactions in the last 2 years of his Administration were generally “liberal”, if not under the hat of “false bipartisanship.”

Bush a bipartisan? YES. Just remember how many liberals were working in the Bush Administration in the last 6 or 4 years. Just remember the line “We want you to succeed” by the previous President. Bush is really a “bipartisan” President…. in the same feather with McCain.

What we think?

• Bipartisanship….. NOT healthy IMHO;
• Please know this thing about what the conservatives really think: Majority of us really hated the Bush positions in 2008 including the First Stimulus Package;
• Nowadays, liberals like you have their beloved Real Democrat President in the WH. Now, you are completely getting what you have wanted for so long…100% pure Liberal band. Please…. take the responsibility of making it happen and for whatever it worths to the country.
• As per MSM, we are a very minority party, a dead party, our principle are just things of the past. That’s what the Dems and the MSM want us to think. So that’s fine with us. We are now really like in the original black slaves…. mocked and chastised in the public. The difference? We will never cry and never give up.
• Our plan of action: Nothing unusual. Like the founding fathers, we will continue to fight for our rights, make earnings and profit for our respective families, and try as much as possible not to become “dependent” of this so-called Big Government of yours.
• What we do and think for the time being? We watch, analyze, and make concrete actions..

Your helpful comment on torture is an insult. It’s somewhat akin to “Have you quit beating your wife?” No one on our side supports torture and we never have.

Good of you to allow us to continue to be against killing babies. You’re right, it’s one issue it would be difficult to compromise on. The death penalty? I’d give you an abolition of the death penalty if you’d give me an abolition of abortion. That’s a compromise I could live with.

I’ve got mixed feelings about the drug war. I’m about to the point where I think we’d be better off legalizing it and taxing the heck out of it. But then I look at some members of my family who have destroyed their lives with the stuff and I go back the other way. And the stuff they’re using isn’t the harder stuff, it’s pot (mostly, but pot truly is a gateway).

We HAVE been pushing for Nukes, and wind and geothermal and ethanol and everything else in addition to oil. As you say, liberals tend to be antinuke (due to their 60′s protest mentality).

I’m glad you want someone to argue against your side’s policies. Sounds like they frighten you too. Can you step up and argue against some of the more hair brained stuff? Or at least argue against the stimulus bill that was 80% pork 20% stimulus? Or argue against the massive increase in debt that Obama proposed in his new “new deal” budget? Or take a stand against the shutdown of free speech your side is advocating? Or take a stand against anything? Something? Please?

Compromising on those core values does not make any sense for anyone. I am thinking more about policy. I wouldn’t expect conservatives to compromise on abortion as it is related to the core value of a culture of life. But on that note, there could be compromise on the death penalty, which would reinforce that notion that life is of utmost importance, even when some people don’t deserve it. Same thing goes with torture.

What about the drug war? No compromise on harder drugs, but what about loosening the war on marijuana use? Would fit with your core value of keeping government out of people’s lives when they are not hurting anyone else.

What about really pushing hard for nuclear energy rather than oil? Liberals hate nuclear energy for some arbitrary reasons, but moderates could be convinced. At the very least, it could work as a stopgap until renewable energy is actually practical.

I’m not saying conservatives should compromise on these issues, but I do want there to be a strong opposition party (which I don’t think the GOP currently is) that forces us all to argue our policies.

Freedom? This is our core principal.
Personal Responsibility? You can’t maintain a free society without it.
Equality under the Law? Likewise, freedom depends upon the law treating everyone the same.

Which one could I abandon to get you to agree with me?

WRT negatives:

In a fair playing field, Obama’s negatives will make him look like a DEMON as compared to the so-called negatives that your liberal MSM are throwing at Jindal and Palin.