Bush administration: not conservative; far smarter than the Dems.

So Karl Rove has gotten the fight he wanted... the Democrats took the bait. Next week, Rove and the Bush political machine will begin the defense of their eavesdropping program. Will the Democrats abandon all political intelligence and fight it out? I hope so. I don't want the Dems to be beaten in this case, but they will be.

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interests to know who they're calling and why." That was Karl Rove's comment the other day. He will paint a picture of: well, we may have over-stepped, but we did it not for political purposes, but to protect your children. The Dems will likely respond with: well, okay, but you don't have that right, and this is truly a slippery slope toward a police state.

The Dems will be right, and they will look soft on defense (which they are) again. This is the best thing that could happen to the beleaguered Republicans up for reelection this year. This will distract from the rampant corruption scandals, and put the focus back on the War Against Terrorism, and how weak the Dems (with the notable exceptions of Lieberman and Clinton) are.

On "This Week", George Will has made the point several times that this scandal which will affect both Reps and Dems, but will disproportionately smack the Reps, not just because we house most of the corruption, but because Reps are supposed to be above this kind of thing. The Dems are FOR big government and a gov't solution for all social ills, so if they expand their own power, it's corrupt, but ideologically consistent. When Reps accept lobbyist cash in order to expand regulation, legislate morality, and gov't power, it is corrupt and ideologically inconsistent. George Will is right. This is the basis of this blog...

We rebel against the idea that Reps can be conservative, but either for or against big government. If you are for big government and the legislation of morality, you are not a conservative, you are a borderline fascist. Conservatives are for constrained government, expanded personal liberty, and the application of private sector solutions whenever possible.

The battle for Rep leadership...

In the struggle for Republican leadership, it sometimes seems as if RR has no horse in the race. Well, we will likely lose, but we may have a horse or two in the race after all. David Drier of California, and John Shadegg of Arizona would both represent the reform movement, both are centrists, both are for ideas over political power. Roy Blunt will still probably win, but the rise of moderates continues.

With Frist stepping down this year for his run for the Presidency, which he will lose, hopefully to McCain/Rice (oh please, God), or Giuliani/Rice, RR sees Roy Blunt winning the leadership struggle in the House, and Mitch McConnell as the new Majority Leader. This is more or less an orderly succession of similarly-minded people from the social conservative wing of the party (McConnell is so bad, but still socially obsessive). The next generation is almost entirely moderate (Drier, Shadegg, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Rice). If the Republicans take a thumping in '06 or '08, you'll see the new generation of moderates come to the fore. Let that day come ASAP.

//