By this logic, the democrats should all run as Republicans and maybe capture the Republican nomination as well (since we're not allowed to criticize another "Republican").

How on earth was 2008 about Republican purity? What planet was I on in 2008? 2008 campaign began and ended with everyone but the RuPaulians chanting "McCain is the most *electable*. It's vital we get the 'moderates', therefore let's pretend McCain is electable." That is the exact opposite of a purity test. It's more like the "I'd vote for a syphilitic camel rather than Obama."

BTW, this rapid search for the most RINO, I mean electable, Republican is being trotted out again and Mitch Daniels is the candidate the Ruling Class is going to sell with the help of the media.

Who best reflects the policies you think will help the country. That's how you choose a primary favorite. Then encourage them to fight and defeat others in the primaries. That's how you pick a party nominee. Like Donald Rumsfeld says, I want to see that horse run around the track a few times before I bet on him.

If you want a shortcut to the above you will elect Obama. Or if you vote for a third party, you will elect Obama. Or if you vote for Ron Paul, you will elect Obama. This avoidance of conflict is one of the self-defeating flaws of modern conservatives. "Better we lose the country than I get a disapproving look from the Mayberry Women's Auxiliary Club."

With the inevitable but occcasional unfortunate exception, we do not seek purity, we seek to keep shit out of the mixed vegtables. This is not called seeking purity. It becomes foolish, after so long a time, to seek to change politicians when it is the process which can be relied upon to change the politician--even when one appears who is not at first worthless.

Times change. I question that Reagan would now repeat his admonition against speaking ill of other Republicans. The legacy of Reagan, a great man and better than we expect to see in '12, was George 1 and 11, a Clinton, and The One. We will listen, impurely, to a person who intends to end this train, not drive it. Unrealistic, certainly. But what is realistic is going to be redefined, as always, against our will. It is the nature of great leadership to understand the shape of those things that otherwise become obvious only in retrospect.

Gerard,

Hate to say it, but this time I'll have to side with the majority. Just not following how 2008 could be seen as a "purity" year. I recall you chiding me to get on board, back McCain, or else the message would be garbled & the battle would be lost before it started...or something...well, I complied late but I still complied. How'd that go?

I'm in your corner when it comes to the name, though. "Purity test" was stupid. As James points out, that was not & is not the goal. "Visionary" would be a better descriptor. "Anti-toxin" would be better still.

Best of all would be Dennis Prager's catchphrase: Would rather have clarity than agreement.

We don't need o have that Purity Test, We don't need to stop speaking ill of Republicans. We need to shit can the Goddamn Party. The TEA Party can give a start in the direction, get some Libertarians in there and there are some GOP'ers that will jump ship.

As for the rest, it's baseball bats in the alley and ship them home bloody. No nice, the first one that makes a noise like that gets two in the hat!

I'm not sure what the writing was supposed to be about, but I do know it sucks big time.

Let me remind myself and everyone else that Obama seemed larger than life. McCain, even with Palin "dragging down his ticket" won nearly 60 million votes to Obama's 69 million - not exactly a landslide even for The One. I joke about Palin - she is twice the man McCain is - I actually heard one particularly stupid female voter say "I can't vote for McCain because of his age. If he were to die, I couldn't bear to think of Palin as president." And another replied to me after I declared Obama an extreme Leftist, that Time magazine said he is a moderate. I started banging my head against a wall and I continue to to this day. I don't want a president Romney or a president Gringrich.. but for CHIRST'S SAKE WE CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF BARACK OBAMA.

ABO!! Anybody But Obama!! Does anyone think that we would be in the deep doodoo we're in now if McCain had been elected? No, me either. Yep, he wasn't the perfect conservative choice, but he was light years ahead of what we got from Obama. Duke it out in the primaries, but when the candidate has been chosen, close ranks and support him/her. The perfect candidate does not exist, but the absolute worst one has the job right now.

I get it. Thanks Gerard.

Don't confuse "anybody but Obama" with "this guy will win." Elections are about choosing A or B. About half of the voters will not support your choice, no matter who you pick. Pick a candidate that doesn't fill the role as the Great Bland Hope.

Any GOP candidate will be called stupid, tool of the capitalists, destroyer of Social Security, and racist. You can't pick a candidate that won't generate those lables and the consequent media attacks against the "sexist, islamophobic, xenophibic, homophobic, intolerant, racist, bigot" of a candidate. That being the case you need a candidate that is agressive and communicates well.

There is no hope in looking for a candidate that won't trigger vicious opposition form the commie-libs. That was the promise of McCain, and even McCain was demonized.

We have to relish the fights, practice for the fights, and win the fights. If you don't like conflict move to another country. It's your job as a citizen to fight for your liberty and hire people to fight for your liberty. Avoidance of conflict is how we conservatives contribute to the loss of our country. The commie-libs contribute by breaking everything that sustains this country and inviting enemies to attack the USA.

"You have a Republic if you can keep it."

I posted this at Neo-Neocon earlier tonight:

The problem is, if we vote for “ANYONE BUT OBAMA”, then that’s what we’re likely to get.

An elitist, authoritarian, big government Republican isn’t much of an improvement, if any.

It would cement Big Government into our future, permanently. The old Republic would be truly dead and buried.

I, for one, have had it with voting for the lesser of two evils, and I do not intend to do it again. I know I am not the only one who feels that way. If the Republicans nominate another RINO squish, then more than likely it means a second term for Obama. That in turn will mean that the ballot box has been exhausted and it is time for the cartridge box. So be it.

I will not vote for Romney if he is the Republican nominee.

---

Romney? No. Gingrich? No. Huckabee? No. Paul? Get real. Cain? Maybe.

There's one, and only one, potential Republican candidate who I would enthusiastically and unreservedly support. But so far she hasn't announced.

Rickl has it right, these are the people outside the GOP thought parade: Cain, Bachmann or Palin. Cain is a strong individual that can terrify the Donkeys. Are they going to start with the Plantation Nation crap?

And we have to untie from the social conservative dock for the election; sail the fiscal sea. There enough rough water out there to sink the opposing Dem ships.

Just what is it about the recent election which has made quite a number of conservative websites *coincidentally* say "homosexuality is a given, deal with it"? Some coincidence. Nothing but garbage!

Without a conservative "culture" (i.e. the social conservatives), you can kiss the other two "legs on the stool" goodbye; it is the basis of the movement.

Hanging out for the perfect conservative presidential candidate is just an excuse to go back to sleep after he or she is elected.

Change at the local level, more conservative senators, holding them to account - in short Tea Party activism - is the only real solution regardless of who is the President. Another Reagan would be nice, but without something like the Tea Party there would just be another Bush and Clinton to follow.

The ultimate aim of Tea Party activism is, of course, to remove national politics as a potent force in society; to return to the classic civil society of local control, volunteer-ism and self-help.

I remember the Goldwater campaign in 1964. The "liberal" Republicans in and out of office wouldn't support him and advertised that fact. So how about "liberal" Republicans being hit over the head with this piece's message? Conservatives, at least those not in federal office, know we are in a war with people, mostly democrats, who want to destroy this country. They also know we need a nominee who will fight for the country, and not go limp when the enemy calls him names. In short, to get a winning candidate we need someone with guts and balls who is not afraid to call out the fascists and explain how they are ruining this country. If the Republicans can't provide such a candidate, then they should be buried like the Whigs.

St. Thor: "They also know we need a nominee who will fight for the country, and not go limp when the enemy calls him names."

So true. Notice your choice of terms: "enemy" instead of "opponent." Political jargon has always used the latter to identify the guy you were running against.

Obama has certainly revealed the liberal motives of progressive Democrats. We are in a war to save this country, and BO & Co. are fighting against us and they ARE the enemy. To say otherwise, is denial.

Opponents are the people on the visiting football team. Enemies are those in a war who would take away your homes, land, valuables and even your lives---just like Obama and his policies are doing.

Ed writes: "a conservative "culture" (i.e. the social conservatives), you can kiss the other two "legs on the stool" goodbye; it is the basis of the movement."

Well, okay then. Just what is the approved and correct "conservative culture?" Does it demand that the Log Cabin Republicans go elsewhere?

If a conservative politician were to clearly run on a platform of first, returning to the last Bush budget, and second, eliminating every department of government created since Nixon, this modest beginning would make abortion and marriage issues invisible.

Exactly fricking correct, or A-fricking-men brother!

@ vanderleun

"Go elsewhere"? That their choice; mine is to do what I can to ensure that the tail does not wag the dog: THAT'S THE DEMOCRATS' SPECIALTY (see for example minorities).

NOW IS NO TIME to water down this conservative moment: remember "Big Government" Republicans (as compared to Fiscal Conservatives)? Same deal with homosexuals; either THEY'RE on board - without special agenda demands (which is what just about all homosexual organizations are about, LCR included).

I do not believe that a people who abort future generations for the sake of convenience will ever make any meaningful sacrifice for the sake of the future. Fiscal responsibility, working for the common good, self-discipline - these simply are not important to such people or to those who are indifferent to them and their "ethos".

I do not believe that a people who stand by and idly watch a basic institution of western civilization be reduced to a mockery will fight to preserve any of the foundational principles that formed their nation. The elevation of sexual deviancy to a protected "right" and the practioners thereof to the status of a protected and even celebrated "community" is a sign of moral rot of the most profound sort. No people who allow this, let alone work actively for it, will have the faith, courage or will to persevere in the face of any force determined to destroy all that their ancestors once held dear and upon which they built the freest, wealthiest civilization in history.

I don't think this column has aged well at all. In fact, I don't think it was valid the day it was first published in 2008.

Reminds me of the 1965 joke: "They told me that if I supported Goldwater, that within a year we'd have half a million men in Vietnam. Well, I voted for Goldwater anyway, and bygaawwd they were right!"

What I find so inetresitng is you could never find this anywhere else.