They are currently relying almost exclusively on support from racist scum, fundamentalist nitwits, rural welfare queens and fearful gun nuts, all supported by a generous infusion of cash from tax evading, inheritors of wealth.

None of these groups are truely conservative in the slightest. However, they would not like being called what they really are, so they have stolen the conservative tag.

Most real conservative policies would be the antithesis of what these bigoted, moronic, irresponsible blow hards want.

The die was cast in the late 60s when conservatives lured this human refuse to their side (Southern Strategy and other cheap political stunts) rather than undertaking the difficult task of articulating and promoting responsible policies. Now the rabble has taken over.

Are you sure you're a real conservative? :-)

I think conservativism is ideally a part of the American character and a legitimate, in fact welcome, philosophy, so I wish you luck in your hope. The problem, as you point out, is that there is no original "purity" to which it can return. Conservativism has unfortunately always relied on fringe groups, whether they were isolationists, racists, fundamentalists, or greed mavens. Its most popular current leader is the biggest blowhard of them all. Limbaugh is a man who has the distinction of being wrong on nearly every prediction he's ever made--yet people still dance to the tune he calls.

In short, what you ostensibly would like to become--I'm not sure you could ever get there, practically speaking, without the people you seem to, rightly, despise.

But just to be clear, here: it's those bad ol' conservatives who are bigots, right? Certainly not you...

Conservativism is a perfectly valid philosophy. The problem is, the conservative movement has been married to the GOP since at least the early 80s. Right now, the GOP is being pulled apart by two different factions. One group is made up of people who only want to support idealogical purists. These people would actually rather lose an election than support a candidate whose conservative credentials are suspect. Arlen Specter may soon fall victim to those group. This groups is the Rush/C-PAC wing of the GOP.

The group are those who are less concerned with ideology than they are about regaining power for the party. This is the Karl Rove wing of the GOP and they've had the upper hand for the last 8 years, but it looks like they're falling from grace.

Gee, what a pity.

The bear has nailed it again. There certainly is a legitimate basis for true conservatism. And our country very much needs a "loyal opposition". That is, a coherent, intelligent alternate vision for The Role of Government.

The problem is that American "conservatism" signed on totally to The Bush Regime. Oh yes, there were a few notable holdouts, such as Pat Buchanan and David Brooks. But overall, "conservatism" in America was happy to redefine itself as the hate-America shrieking as manifested in the rightwing media. If that media had not chosen to excommunicate everybody who didn't drool contempt for America -- and call for its failure -- it's just possible a few decent Americans might still be taking rightwingers seriously.

The rightwing defined itself -- BY ITS OWN CHOICE -- as the shrill hysteria characterised by Rush, Coulter, et al. There's no point in whining about "the media" and playing victim. It was the rightwing media that defined the rightwing.

...he IS a Conservative, and made that point rather strongly. Why would he be calling HIMSELF a bigot?

(shaking head in disbelief)

Wow Ebencooke, I am having a very hard time understanding how you have come to any of your conclusions.

The Rep's signed up for W but especially toward the end he did quite a bit that I would not call conservative. I do not see how they hate America either. I think they feel that you need to accept what ever the president does especially if he is a Rep, as good and not question it. As far as the media being controlled by the right wing, well I do not see that at all. Talk radio probably but that is because people listen to it. Everything else seems that they have taken one side or the other.

I think the problem with the Rep version of what a conservative is, is too restrictive to ever be popular except to those on the extreme. I think my views are more conservative on fiscal matters and more liberal on social matters. While I agree with the philosophy that big government and government intervention is a bad thing, I also think that the ability to get an abortion should not be infringed upon. Obviously my view would not be appreciated by the Rep party.

As I write this it does seem pretty interesting that the Rep party is for more freedom from governmental control except when it comes to abortion where they seek total government control. I just think that the very nature of our two party system has caused both parties to migrate toward the extreme, making it very difficult for someone with a more moderate view to accept either party. I am a Dem but I do not think it the government should reward bad behavior and hand out money for every cause where a person might have to put some effort in if they did not get the handout.

Personally I love listening to Ann Colter because she is so extreme that it is incredibly amusing. What makes it even more amusing is that she does not waver a bit so you are sure to get a good show every time. While I think she believes in the conservative cause, I think how she presents herself is not much more than a bit. I do not see that in Rush and really have not heard him very much but it seems like he is serious and does not bother to have any support for what he says. Hannity, the same thing, half the time he comes to conclusions using flawed logic or information.

Wow Ebencooke, I am having a very hard time understanding how you have come to any of your conclusions.

I can easily see his conclusions. I've been waiting for the next William F. Buckley to emerge from the right. One who can articulate the conservative point of view in an articulate and succinct manner. Sadly, I think I'll be waiting a long time. In the absence of an intelligent spokesperson for conservativism, we've got a collection of shrill and factually challenged people like Hannity, Rush, Coulter, and Beck filling the vacuum. Sure, they put on a good show. But does anyone think that scholars will be quoting any of those four 20 years from now as erudite political thinkers?

No. And that's a real problem for the conservative philosophy today. It's loudest voices are the least intelligent.

Raptor... it's quite simple how I come to my conclusions about the decay of "conservatism". Did you catch the spectacle yesterday of Michael Steele, RNC chairman, humiliating himself and begging for absolution from Rush Limbaugh? This is a CHOICE Steele has made. Perhaps he just wants to save his job, or perhaps he truly had an epiphany, listening to Rush pronouncing the fatwah upon him. Either way, it was his CHOICE to publicly acknowledge fealty to Rush Limbaugh. And Steele's not the first.

My point is that mainstream Republicans have almost all CHOSEN to embrace the most hysterical droolers among them as their annointed leaders. Doesn't matter if the choice is done out of fear, naked self-interest, or principle. It all comes down to the same thing... This is what Republicanism is today.

If you can't see the "hate America" strain in it all, perhaps you missed the spectacle of Coulter expressing her wish to see more terrorist attacks upon the USA (to be sure, she wished the terrorists would only murder Americans she disagrees with politically). And, of course, Limbaugh proudly double-downed on his wish for America's failure.

Simple question: When have you EVER heard any conservative principles expressed publicly -- by a Republican politician or pundit -- that did not consist of enumerating the many many categories of Americans they despise? I've listened to Rush many times.. Never heard ANY positive vision of where he'd like to see America go. Always, it's a constant drone of hatred for the Americans he hates.

It's very simple... if you openly hate most Americans, you're not a patriot.

I actually like George Will, and enjoy listening to him on 'This Week' every Sunday morning. He is no William F. Buckley, but he is not in the same category as Hannity, Rush, Coulter, and Beck (I am not very familiar with Beck, by the way). Not even close. Not saying I agree with George Will, mind you---I think he is a bit of a nutcase on the global warming issue, for instance. But he is a more reasonable 'voice of conservatism' than almost anyone else out there these days.

Harvard Lampoon once had an hilarious parody of a George Will column, by the way. I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Two Sundays ago, 'This Week' was especially interesting, as they had on, in addition to George Will, Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini. Discussing, of course, the economic/financial crisis.

George Will lost a lot of the respect I once had for him last week when he was caught misrepresenting climate data. Basically, he wrote in his column that exact opposite of what a group's conclusions were.

I used to think he was the last of the articulate conservatives. Now, not so much.

Greatbear452:

George Will lost a lot of the respect I once had for him last week when he was caught misrepresenting climate data. Basically, he wrote in his column that exact opposite of what a group's conclusions were.

I used to think he was the last of the articulate conservatives. Now, not so much.

Yeah, I'm with you, though I use to be with LeRoy on Will: I thought he was good at provoking thought and providing an alternative (for me) viewpoint. But you're right about the climate change article he wrote. What gets me is that he omitted parts of a key quote he lifted from the article to prove his point. It's one thing to (plausibly) say you don't understand an article, it's quite another to manipulate the sentences and phrases the article uses to prove your point and disprove the original article's own.

If it wasn't for Olberman. Maddoc, and Matthews, I would be shouting in the streets. The conservative right have Rush. Olberman can think circles around him.

Red.

they are all the same...clowns at a circus. they are all self-aggrandizing,smartypants dinks. they should be shouting in the streets, instead of yapping away on tv and radio. thank god for the remote and the mute button. they don't represent the majority of people, who are, i believe, quite moderate, either left or right, and are sick to death of this constant snark and snipe. people who watch and listen are only interested in gazing into a magic mirror ( mirror mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all? you are you are you are). if this is the national discourse...the becks, limbaughs, maddocs, olbermans, coulters, etc....we are all engaged in the biggest circle jerk in the history of the world.

I think of all of them Beck is equally hysterical and sometimes overly dramatic but at the core he thinks both parties are screwing up in a big way. I totally agree with that concept and think that the parties do not represent what most people think.

I know I will get hell for this but I like listening to Mark Levin. Loud, boisterous and very opinionated and one sided but for the most part he provides documentation for the rant of the day. Some times he provides more documentation sometimes less but it allows you to check out the basis for what ever he is yelling about. A lot of the others just say what they want or use information out of context which is even worse. I agree that using a section of an article to make a point that is totally contrary to what the writers view is, is flat out dishonest.

I do not listen to Rush but I did hear all of what he said that included the I want Obama to fail and it also was really taken way out of context. When W was trying to get us to go into Iraq and if you were against it at that time would you find fault if some newscaster said that I think going to war in Iraq is wrong and I hope W fails in convincing the congress and the public to go to war. Rush said that he did not want Obama's socialist policies to succeed. You can argue if the policies are actually socialistic and they certainly lean that way, but I just think this is one more example of phony outrage at a misused quote.