The thing about Reid that is such an affront to Mormons is his attitude.

I am not a Mormon, and I think they are dead wrong in many of their beliefs, but every Mormon I have ever met (including some in my own family) has been as kind, thoughtful and courteous as can be. It has to do with the fact that they think you can “earn” you way into Heaven with good works (to over-simplify it a bit). Mitt Romney is your proto-typical Mormon. Ever notice how he never says a mean word about anyone and is always smiling? Reid on the other hand, is an absolute jerk. I mean he is as rude, crass and ungrateful as they come. There must be some new sect of Mormonism, that teaches that you get into Heaven by being a jerk. That is the only way to explain Harry Reid.

You’re smart enough to do better, but if you go along just being full of anger and resentment, seeing slights where none are intended, and ready to argue at the drop of a hat, you won’t accomplish much in life. Lesson for today, done.

Another crazy thinking, will it be possible for us conservatives to support the blue dogs Democrats? Perhaps not with money but just don’t oppose them so much. I just want us to get away from the partisan game the politicians have us playing. This might be a good way to start and a good answer to Obama challenge that “teabags” will not support Democrats at all. Please be gentle with me, I speak as a rookie and non partisan.

You seem to oppose improving where improving is possible.

I also agree with your sentiment that on a national scale replacing him is of minimal importance. However, he is the only one I have any ability to replace in 2010 so replacing him is extremely important to me.

What mschmitt said is quite right, though — your posts show evidence of the kind of pragmatic Washington mentality that corrupts nearly everyone who goes there, that has blurred the distinctions between Republican and Democrat in the perceptions of millions, and has thus allowed Democrats to make inroads into conservative territory that they ought to have no business winning.

Your support of Bob Bennett is but one example of this — he may not be a Snowe or a Collins, but he’s pretty far from what we want out there bearing the mantle of conservatism, either; and any officeholder who breaks a term-limits pledge ought to be booted out on his ass. Your apparent unhappiness with the successful primarying of Chris Cannon, though that paid dividends for us, is another example: Cannon had long since decided he was entitled to that congressional seat, and that mentality in a public official ought always to be rewarded with a swift boot out his office door, no matter what his conservative bona fides look like on paper (and that left something to be desired, too, in at least one area).

Not to mention the whole “I’ve got to defend conservatives to my moderate Republican friends” business: Those of us hayseeds out here in deep-red Flyoverland know full well what the establishment sect of the GOP thinks of us, and are not particularly concerned with making a case for our defense to a wing of the party from which we are determined to wrest control anyway. Conservatism is the future of the Republican Party; we watched moderation kill us for much of the 20th Century, we watched it happen again over the course of this decade, and we’re through putting up with it.

1) As politics is such a combative and public affair, many times, our “moderates” can make it so that we can’t use a coalition of ? 51%ers to get our goals accomplished.

2) Oftentimes, moderates are harmful in the development of policy for issues that fall outside of the traditional conservative/liberal schism. The perfect example of this is McCain-Feingold: though it was a fundamentally “unconservative” bill, it was presented as an issue where there is no partisanship.

Really, I have no real problems with moderates except in those areas, and the solution isn’t so much to kick them out as it is to have a disciplined caucus that will punish members who stray too far from the reservation. Other than that, I agree with your assessment that 1/2 of a conservative is better than none at all (though if a viable conservative is contesting a moderate in the primaries, I don’t see a reason not to support him).

In all seriousness, though; as long as you’re with us on the whole “defeating Democrats” thing, you’re OK by me — peace.

What I am reacting to – what I see in too many people at Red State, though not you – is the unconstructive inability to make distinctions and to set realistic priorities. This is not something I picked up in Washington.

Anyway, I’m glad that each of us spent the morning being irritated with David Brooks.

In the world of ideas, I believe that there are many strands of conservatism. Burke and Freidman and Aristotle are quite different in their thinking and approach, and so – to use political figures as examples – are Pat Buchanan, Jeff Flake, and Bob Dole. But in the big battles that matter most – the philosophical/political disputes over virtue and the role of government – all are men of the right against the other side in this two-party, bi-polar system. And if we are to defeat that other side, we must all pull together. Occasionally, intra-party battles can be beneficial and necessary; most of the time, they are harmful and unnecessary. Bennett is not Scozzafava. We benefit from focusing on what unites us, not on what divides us. We generally do not benefit from trying to purge “libertarians” from the coalition; or “the religious right” from the coalition; or “moderates” from the coalition. I have seen, and fought against, all of these impulses for many years, and will continue to do so. When it comes to politics, if you’re 51% with me, you’re my ally, and so long as there are those who are 51% or more against me, that’s where I’ll target my anger and efforts. I believe that resources are limited and must always be used in the most effective fashion. I am interested in practical results, not emotional satisfaction. Symbolic victories are, to me, losses.

This site is called “Red State.” The origin of the “Red State” name comes from the network use of the color red to show a state going Republican in a presidential race. That suggests that this site ought to have not merely a conservative slant, but a Republican slant. I would rather have 41 Republican senators with 2 Bob Bennetts than 40 Republican senators with 1 Chaffetz and one liberal Democrat. I think we will have more victories on issues that way.

Does all that help?

Anyway, the reason you’re getting your head knocked in a little bit is because what we see in you — and what we are reacting to — is the corrosive effect Washington politics has on everybody. Spend enough time there, and everybody becomes another David Brooks (the positive diagnosis — of course — is made by one’s inability to see why that is a bad thing).

Now do you homework, and then let’s go bag donkeys.

And here is some pleasure reading for you: http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NGIzOWRlMjlhMTBiNWVmZjUyZjNlY2Y0ZjEyNmJhNTE=