I've promised this for, what, 2 1/2 weeks?  Every time I had something started, I've run into something that caused me to drop it.  Not this time; not even a glitch that rejected my attempt to publish this morning.  Heck, I'm glad that I was delayed because some things happened that caused me to rethink my answer (at least my national answer; things just got even worse in Wisconsin).  Now, on with the post....

If one were to simply look at what the Republican Party has put out there lately, from the anmesty bill to the three purported front-runners for the 2008 Presidential nomination, from the focus of tax cuts as not cutting the flow of money to and thus the size of government to the massive expansion of the federal government in areas that it has no business being, one could say that conservatism was not only out of gas, but dead and in the casket waiting to be buried.  Indeed, in its push for the amnesty bill, the White House attempted to bury conservatives who opposed amnesty by using tired liberal name-calling.  Those few announced candidates who can accurately be described as conservative aren't getting any traction, at least according to the opinion polls.

However, we're not quite dead yet.  Sites like TownHall, Free Republic, Hot Air, Boots and Sabers, and even my little hole in the wall are thriving.  Conservative talk radio is still so successful, the Democrats are scheming ways to shut it down.  We've just defeated amnesty despite the wors...er, best efforts of the leadership of both parties.  Even if they're flaming liberals, Republicans still at least attempt to speak our language at election time.  Heck, even the Democrats are so insecure in their liberalism that they're once again trying to run to the right (from The Wall Street Journal).

On the Presidential nomination front, the two most-liberal of those three front-runners are skipping the historically-important Iowa straw poll in August, likely because their internal polls are showing something that the public opinion polls aren't.  We have the 6'5" gorilla of a (more-or-less) conservative forming an exploratory committee in the wake of the third less-than-inspiring debate.

So, we're not necessarily out of gas.  Rather, we're at a crossroads trying to decide which way to go while a tornado of bad liberal ideas is almost on top of us, indeed, so close that some of those bad ideas are raining down like so much debris.  We need to find conservatives to run against the bipartisan members of the liberal Party-In-Government.  We need to hold everybody's feet to the fire.  Now, I am not an expert, so I can't tell you who to run against who; you'll have to do your homework and figure that one yourselves.  However, I do know that we have to get that done now or we will get swept up and spit out.

Sorry about abandoning things here.  I haven't been motivated much the past month and a half; heck, I've gone days with posting nothing back at my regular site.

I guess you could say that lack of activity both here and there answers a question that is the basis of an ongoing 4-week series the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is running - "Is Conservatism Out of Gas?".  WPRI asked a heap of prominent Wisconsin conservatives to answer that question.  Some focused exclusively on Wisconsin (it is a Wisconsin think tank after all), others focused very narrowly on specific issues, some went national, and all (at least as of this writing 3 weeks and 2 days into this) had some interesting things to say.

I highly recommend reading them.  I could try summarizing each take here, but that would not do the essays justice (besides, I've done so back at the main blog).  I will note that there is a general theme that there has been a disconnect between the Republican Party and conservatism, and that factor, not any "death" of conservatism, is what cost Republicans and conservatives the 2006 election.

Also worth reading is a very unofficial "answer" from Tom McMahon.  That special edition of his 4-Block World didn't have the question on it - indeed, it showed up the same day as the first answer on WPRI, but it stands out as sort of a contrast to the "group think" displayed at WPRI.

I'll have my own unofficial national answer up here tomorrow later today, and I promise that it will be a bit more positive than my Wisconsin-specific answer.

Revisions/extensions (10:10 am CDT 4/2/2007) - Harry Reid and Russ Feingold aren't waiting to introduce their certain-and-swift defeat bill.  I'm angry enough to link to the salty-language edition (do not say that I did not warn you).

(H/T - Owen at Boots and Sabers).  There is a salty-language version back at my main site because I was quite angry when I first considered it, and I figured I may as well clean it up somewhat here (not that I'm any less angry upon further consideration).

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signed on to Russ Feingold's defeat-by-next-April plan, which features a mandatory 120-day start on retreat and no more funds for the Iraq front after 3/31/2008. Reid promises that the Feingold certain-defeat plan will be voted on by the Senate when (hopefully not “if”) the weaker forthcoming conference plan is vetoed.

A few things:

- Feingold said, “Congress can’t afford to be characterized as backing down at this point…. If he vetoes it, he’s basically challenging us to accept his will.” Isn’t your desires for dhimmitude and an emasculated Presidency what you and the Democrats are trying to cram down the President’s and our throats, Russ?

- If a pork-laden, mealy-mouthed “soft” defeat date could only get through the Senate by a single vote, what makes those two think that a hard-and-fast certain-defeat will get through? Hey dummies, the first rule of compromise is that you start with what you want and go down to what you will accept, not the other way around.

- If the goal is merely the handover of Iraq to either al Qaeda or Iran, why start small and ratchet up when there is no arguable victory in small ball? I think the goal is to find 16 Repubicans willing to do what no Democrat did in 1999. Impeachment, as we found out, is more a political exercise than a legal or even a Constitutional one, and Senators are more likely to vote for a conviction on a trumped-up charge of defying Congress than for breaking an actual law. Considering that Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith have embraced retreat-and-defeat, and Hagel recently brought forth the “I” word in glowing terms, they’re at least 1/8th there. As an aside, I wonder if Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama realize that they’re nowhere on the Presidential succession list, and that the power of incumbency, even one ill-gotten, is nigh impossible to overcome.

First, what you probably already know.  Michelle Malkin and the gang at Hot Air have created the John Doe Manifesto in response to CAIR and the flying imams seeking out the passengers who "snitched" on them.  Sign on.

Next, what you probably don't know, but may well have a chilling effect on the blogosphere if we Spartacuses fail.  Up here in Wisconsin, there is a hotly-contested race for the State Supreme Court between Washington County judge Annette Ziegler going against trial lawyer Linda Clifford, with effective control of its direction up for grabs.  Owen Robinson, co-founder of Boots and Sabers, got slapped with a complaint to the Wisconsin State Elections Board because he put up an unofficial "Blogs for Ziegler" button on his site.  In response to that complaint, the Badger Blog Alliance has launched a "I am Spartacus" campaign.

I guess that makes me John Spartacus Doe.  Please don't let me be lonely out here, because if those that want to silence everybody that doesn't agree with them 110% aren't stopped now, sooner or later they will come for you, and there won't be as many (or anybody) left to defend you.  After all, there are 112 Representatives on record saying that they do want to silence you even if it means surrendering to the representatives of this country's enemy.

 (Slightly-edited version back at No Runny Eggs)

In part 1, I predicted that Fred Thompson will take the Republican nomination. In part 2, I predicted that Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination. Now, I really go out on a limb (or maybe not).

First things first, it’s not going to matter much at all to the Democrats who their VP running mate is. They’ll have the gender gap maximized by Clinton, nothing the Pubbies do will reduce the racial gap, and there are no moderates left in the party of the donkey. On the Pubbie side, it’s another story. They will not be able to resist the pressure to put a moderate-to-liberal at the bottom end of the ticket, and who the Dems put at the bottom half of their ticket will influence which moderate-to-liberal goes there. If it’s Barak Obama, they will try like hell to get Colin Powell there. If not, or if Powell refuses, it will be Rudy Giuliani, as John McCain cannot abide being second fiddle, and in the end he is not as liberal as Giuliani.

By choosing Giuliani (or Powell), the Pubbies will also avoid having McCain run an insurgency independent campaign, which would hand the Presidency to Clinton. They would have taken away the only constituency that would have possibly stuck with McCain, the country-club Pubbies.

If you thought the 2000 and 2004 campaigns were nasty, you haven’t seen anything yet. The charges and countercharges will come hourly, and there will be no media outlet, be it “old” or “new”, “mainstream” or “alternative”, that will even pretend to be impartial. Now, where did I put that coin?

(Slightly-edited version back at No Runny Eggs) In part 1 of the series, I explored the Republican half of the Presidential pool. Here I take a look at the other half. At this point, there are only two real contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. While both are highly liberal, like the rest of the Dem field, they have at least attempted to follow the Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter/John Kennedy model of triangulation. The Democrats surely have to realize that the last 3 times they successfully took the White House from Republicans, going back over 47 (to be 48 by the time the election rolls around) years, they ran a candidate that could at the least fake some sort of conservatism. The remainder of the Democratic field simply cannot pull that off. The thing that could work against both Clinton and Obama, however, is the Dems do not tend to settle things early. One could make the case that John Edwards could get the sympathy vote, but there is going to be too much time between now and Iowa. Yeah, there’s some buzz about Al Gore, but I discount him because of the “loser” rule. Nobody saw hide or hair out of either Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale after they lost their runs. John Kerry recognized this and bailed early. Also working against Gore is, like the also-rans, he cannot possibly fake being a conservative. So, the battle is going to be between Hillary and Obama. Obama’s the blanker slate, so he didn’t have to practice as much triangulation as Clinton. However, Clinton is extremely ruthless. Give the nod to Clinton. Part 3, a very- (or is it too-?) early look at the general election, up next.

(Cross-posting from the original)

I still haven’t quite figured out who I’m backing in the Republican primary for President, but since Dad29 decided to call me out, I better start. First, let’s take a look at the announced front-runners:

Rudy Giuliani -
Why is he a front-runner? It’s easy to say that it’s all how he led New York City after 9/11, but that’s actually an outgrowth of his law-and order background. He did clean up the uncleanable city long before 2001. Also, he has been tacking towards the right, claiming he’ll appoint constructionists to the court.

Why he won’t get the nomination? Outside of law and order and taxes (though I don’t recall whether his conservatism on that is genuine or freshly-found), he is extremely liberal. He is pro-abortion, pro-activist government, and staunchly anti-gun. Also, his personal life is a shambles, and that still sinks Republicans, even RINOs and RepublicRATs.

John McCain -
Why is he a front-runner? Because the media says so. I honestly can’t think of another reason.

Why he won’t get the nomination? Where do I begin? McCain-Feingold? Pro-illegal alien? Pro-taxes? A continuing shunning of the heart and soul of the Republican Party?

Mitt Romney -
Why is he a front-runner? Because he’s the Republican version of Bill Clinton, and because of the liberal tendencies of both Giuliani and McCain, he’s been able to position himself as the big-name “conservative”.

Why he won’t get the nomination? Because he’s the Republican version of Bill Clinton, the primary voters and caucusers know that Romney is anything but conservative.

Then there’s the announced dark-horses, including Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and (just because I’m in Wisconsin) Tommy Thompson. Tancredo is a one-note pony who thinks that hitting $1 million is a big deal (H/T - Sean Hackbarth). Hunter, who has a few more ideas, has the same limitation as Tancredo (being a “mere” Congressman) and less cash. Tommy is the Midwest version of Romney with a “charm” that doesn’t work on the far sides of the mountain ranges. The fact that I can’t recall the other dark-horses off the top of my head tells you their chances (namely, none).

That leads us to a pair of unannounced candidates. First in the docket, Newt Gingrich. He was the architect behind the Contract with America, the last lasting major conservative achievement in Washington. There are, however, three problems: first, the personal problems that led him to leave Congress would doom his candidacy. Second, up until recently, he had been tacking leftward. Third, by saying he wouldn’t decide until fall whether to run, he would be entering the race too late. Republicans tend to stick with early front-runners; indeed, George W. Bush all-but-sewed up the nomination in 1999 (knocking out everybody of note except McCain).

Second, there’s Fred Thompson. He’s very articulate and for the most part is conservative. There is a giant problem; he voted for McCain-Feingold while he was still in the Senate. I could’ve swore the First Amendment was quite clear on that issue, even if the Supreme Court on first consideration couldn’t see it.

Now, to answer the money question, which is actually easier since I don’t quite have a horse in this race yet. Fred jumps in and starts emptying the pool. First out is Tommy, followed closely by Hunter (Tancredo will stay in just to be Don Quixote). Hopefully Gingrich decides that discretion is the better part of ego and stays on the sideline, because he could very well play king-maker. If he stays out, the battle will be Fred versus McCain/Giuliani. The schedule does not favor McCain, despite his recent conversion on ethanol. However, he’ll draw enough of the country-clubbers away from Giuliani to give Thompson an insurmountable lead.

However, if Gingrich does jump in, it’s a nasty 2 1/2 (with Quixot…er, Tancredo being the half) versus 2 battle. Prior to 2000, I would have said with confidence that it would have been either Thompson or Gingrich winning (more likely Thompson). However, the Republican Party has become too much of a big tent to say with confidence that a conservative would come out on top. Partly because I’m an optimist, I’ll say that Thompson takes the nomination.

Up next, the Dems' half of the pool, followed by a very-early look at the general election.

My regular home is over at No Runny Eggs.  From time to time, I'll cross-post stuff from there here, but don't expect too much.

Revisions/extensions (9:25 pm CDT 3/27/2007) - 'Tis a bit odd using a rich-text editor.  I'm too used to inserting my own code.