The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Streetcar Line

Conservatives’ Foolish Search for a ‘New New Thing’

By on 6.24.11 @ 6:07AM

Successful legislating is an underappreciated virtue.

In searching for a presidential candidate, conservatives would do well to look not just at a candidate’s ability to mouth the right words in clear tones, not just at the ability to rouse the spirits, not just at the latest examplar of “star power,” and certainly not for a savior ex machina. The herd-like grasping for the political version of an American Idol winner — the newest celebrity out of nowhere — bespeaks a horrendous desperation, a lack of confidence, and a serious lack of judgment. What is particularly discouraging is how modern conservatives seem to denigrate the nitty-gritty of actual legislative work and legislative accomplishment while seeking instead for somebody over whom they can swoon like love-sick teeny-boppers in the 1950s fainting at the very name of James Dean.

What conservatives need to do is to re-balance our political philosophy, which when at its best involves a careful melding of the sometimes disparate proclivities of Locke and Burke, of Jefferson and Washington. That philosophy rightly understood also involves the sagacious political arts of a James Madison, a true philosophe who nevertheless rarely let purist ideology get in the way of practical (and somewhat messy) application — sometimes involving careful compromises — of well-considered principles.

We would do well, therefore, to recall one of the modern conservative movement’s primary intellectual forefathers — who shall be named at the end of this piece. For now, his words, not his name, are most important. Taking the liberty of splicing numerous of his quotes together, in a way meant to be fully consonant with his overall message and meaning, conservatives should consider and re-learn some of the following truths:

“There exists some danger that conservatives themselves might slip into a narrow ideology or quasi-ideology — even though, as H. Stuart Hughes wrote some forty years ago, ‘Conservatism is the negation of ideology.’… What we need to impart is political prudence, not political belligerence. Ideology is the disease, not the cure…. Ideology is the politics of passionate unreason.

“To be ‘prudent’ means to be judicious, cautious, sagacious. Plato, and later Burke, instruct us that in the statesman, prudence is the first of the virtues. A prudent statesman is one who looks before he leaps; who takes long views; who knows that politics is the art of the possible.

“It is the conservative leader who, setting his face against all ideologies, is guided by what Patrick Henry called ‘the lamp of experience.’… All ideologies work mischief. I am fortified by a letter from an influential and seasoned conservative publicist, who applauds my excoriation of young ideologues fancying themselves to be conservatives, and of young conservatives fondly hoping to convert themselves into ideologues…. Conservative views are founded upon custom, convention, the long experience of the human species….

“There flourish many little arts by which one may gain ascendancy over the minds of one’s political colleagues. But the great necessity is to have acquired previously a fund of knowledge…. Much effort is required to conserve the legacy of order, freedom, and justice, of learning and art and imagination, that ought to be ours…. [The most admirable of conservative politicians was a man who] knew — understood the whole workings of the federal machinery, and how interests would be affected by legislation and executive policy… [and] became known for his talents in legislative leadership… [and] mastered the parliamentary tactics…. He has learned what he knows from long legislative experience…. [Burke said that] ‘Those who expect perfect reformations either deceive or are deceived miserably.’…

“Actually, the Constitution was not recorded by angels or prophets, but was put together by highly reasonable and prudent men who were willing to compromise with each other on many points…. No matter how well conceived, the Constitution could not have functioned, once ratified, had not the statesmen of the early Republic been unusually able and vigorous…. The man who truly understands order does not hack rashly through roots; he does not imitate extremists. The real accomplishments, Marias tells us, ‘belong to those who have known how to wait, those who know how long it takes for a tree to grow, those who, instead of shouting Right now!, have worked for the day when certain things would be possible.’”

The writer of these bits of wisdom[1] was Russell Kirk, whose intellectual contributions all conservatives should familiarize themselves with and whose insights should be internalized. While the “politics of prudence” he advocated was of far sterner stuff than the tinny calls for “prudence” from, for instance, the first President Bush, it still is a prudence that might reject some of the “instant gratification” demands from newly minted conservative activists.

This is decidedly not to say that conservatives should make do with “moderates” or “squishes” or “RINOs” who put fingers in the wind and move accordingly. This is not a call for temporizers or shape-shifters. To use examples of those not running for president, what we need are indeed leaders of the caliber of Rep. Mike Pence or Sen. Jim DeMint or Jeff Sessions, as solidly conservative as one can find, willing to buck the media-politico tide in the cause of conservative principle. Yet it’s also important that our leaders be people who have demonstrated the dual capacity not just to buck the tide by noisy posturing outside the system but also to attract followers within the system to use the levers of the system, including prudent and constructive compromise, to achieve actual victories or ground-gaining advances for their principled causes.

A third-term member of the House of Representatives without notable successes and without great influence with his/her colleagues may be an admirable figure, but is he or she ready to be president? A second-year governor of a smallish state, without time to really craft a record or to prove lasting effectiveness and without, is likewise wise to insist he’s not ready for the highest office in the land. Reality TV stardom is not ordinarily good training for international statesmanship, nor is a political resume so thin that its only entry is a crushing loss in one’s own party’s state primary. For that matter, even a full-term governorship isn’t a great qualification if its accomplishments are few, and if the single greatest of those “accomplishments” is a liberal’s dream legislation that served as a model for the worst federal law of our lifetime. (Needless to say, a disgraced and mercurial former Speaker also may well leave conservatives looking elsewhere for more creditable experience.)

Wisdom is borne of experience, and conservatives of all people should demand from their leaders that those leaders have experienced real success in a challenging policy-making environment or in significant management — without losing an identifiable philosophical core. Someone who speaks well at rallies is an asset; somebody who chairs his party’s caucus in the national legislature with effectiveness and without repeated sell-outs of principle is not just an asset but a capital-‘L’ Leader. A governor who succeeds at achieving conservative ends in a state not ordinarily conservative is a more proven leader than a governor who successfully caretakes an already conservative state — and certainly a more proven conservative leader than a governor of a liberal state who succeeds only by acting like a liberal.

In lamenting that Robert Taft never earned the Republican presidential nomination, Russell Kirk noted that “Parties often have chosen not to nominate their most able men, preferring magnetism or mediocrity.” Republicans who make that mistake in this presidential cycle would be responsible for four more years of the ravages of the Obama Alinskyites, which could mean an irrevocable derailment of essential liberty. We dare not make that mistake by seeking to crown a new, evanescent American Idol.

 

*******
[1] From The Politics of Prudence, The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, and The Roots of the American Order.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) |

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.24.11 @ 6:53AM

Wisdom is borne of experience, and conservatives of all people should demand from their leaders that those leaders have experienced real success in a challenging policy-making environment or in significant management -- without losing an identifiable philosophical core.

And where is the wisdom and where is the experience? If some of the Republican candidates aren't endorsing climate change they are endorsing compassion.

Experience has indicated that compassion is how we got into this mess and wisdom tells us we can't change the climate. Yet we have Republican whiffenpoofs grasping onto popular themes which have no basis in fact.

There's no wisdom there. And what of their experiences? Romney started state run health care which is failing to control expenses as promised, and Huntsman worked for Obama and now claims we should be compassionate.

The only candidate who appears to have a good grasp of what is needed is Michelle Bachmann. Some in her own party disdain her preferring to play it safe.

Where is the wisdom and experience in that?

The Republicans don't need a new candidate they need some testosterone. At this point the testosterone appears to be the domain of the ladies, although Rick Perry could and should soon enter the race.

In that sense perhaps the Republicans are looking for something new. It's called backbone.

lydia | 6.24.11 @ 8:47AM

We just need someone who isn't a liar. You know, someone who sticks to the conservative principles broadcast during the campaign.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

Alan Brooks| 6.24.11 @ 10:35PM

This is one of Hillyer's better pieces.
Even Reagan was a sort of Bobby-Soxer idol, but he transcended it.
Remember: back in the day, people were famous;
not famous-for-being-famous. Babe Ruth was famous for his sport; OJ is even more famous--
for something else entirely! way back when, Fatty Arbuckle was disgraced (yes, I know he was innocent); today an Arbuckle would have his own TV show whether guilty or innocent.

mitors | 6.26.11 @ 7:38AM

If Jesus comes back you wont need to accumulate wealth. Maybe no one ever told you this, but Jesus wasn't interested in wealth.

Petronius| 6.24.11 @ 7:51AM

The "Problem" the RNC has is nominating a "conservative" the press will like, so that their wives will be featured in the Washington Post Style section after the election. But it's not the election they want to win, it's control of the beltway social scene.
Phil Gramm could have wiped the floor with Clinton in '96. But he is not one of "Them". So we got Doled into submission, again! W, they could stomach. What they will not tolerate is the same kind of candidate and President the Democrats wouldn't allow in their party: one who would give ordinary Americans Our Freedom to live as we want and accumulate wealth without government interference. We'll see the second coming before that ever happens.

Teflon93| 6.24.11 @ 8:43AM

This is right on the money.

Democrats always nominate the most left-wing candidate their coalition of special interests will tolerate while Republicans almost always nominate whomever The Washington Post has determined to be "next in line". The only quandary is when a conservative is next in line---what to do, what to do?

Alan Brooks| 6.24.11 @ 10:38PM

"We'll see the second coming before that ever happens."

If Jesus comes back you wont need to accumulate wealth. Maybe no one ever told you this, but Jesus wasn't interested in wealth.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.24.11 @ 8:00AM

An interesting read and why the godfather of our movement, Barry Goldwater, told conservatives to "grow up."  Sadly, many on the right seem to be enamored with a childlike awe of “charisma” while looking for the conservative version of Barack Obama – a tabula rasa with plenty of television magnetism, but intellectually feeble. 

If Ronald Reagan were to be running for the nomination today based on his actual records as Governor and President he'd be called a RINO by many self-identified "Reagan conservatives." 

Gary| 6.24.11 @ 8:38AM

We just need someone who isn't a liar. You know, someone who sticks to the conservative principles broadcast during the campaign. There are a couple such candidates running right now, but they must not be perfect enough, else why the continuing quest?

Teflon93| 6.24.11 @ 8:44AM

"If Ronald Reagan were to be running for the nomination today based on his actual records as Governor and President he'd be called a RINO by many self-identified "Reagan conservatives."

Really, Michael? Okay, I'll bite. Show me Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and John Huntsman's equivalent to Reagan's speech introducing Barry Goldwater at the '64 GOP convention.

Link it here, please.

Quin| 6.24.11 @ 12:25PM

Just to offer a mild correction for the record, which in no way argues with the main point of this comment above: Reagan's speech wasn't at the convention in 1964; it was recorded in front of an invited audience and aired in the final week of the campaign.

Anthony M| 6.26.11 @ 10:43AM

Actually you're on the money with Reagan not being all that conservative. He raised taxes, signed the Martin King day law, supported affirmative action (Sandra Day O'Conner and Colin Powell), and practically deficit spent us into oblivion. That being said , I believe that at heart he was a good man, just not a true conservative.

ZAK KLEMMER | 6.27.11 @ 3:07PM

There they go again... ;) BTW Congress not the President sets tax policy and passes the budget. Stop blaming the President for what Congress passes (it cuts both ways). George W. Bush should have vetoed a lot of the wasteful spending that Congress passed. But we know that W was no conservative!

Jack fromWi. | 6.24.11 @ 9:29AM

We need the intellectual giant who is moving the whole country to his way of thinking. He is the man who has been right for the 35 years he has been in poliics. Dr. Ron Paul for President. Dr. Rand Paul for Vice President. Age and experience combined with youth and brilliance.

Van Sharpley| 6.24.11 @ 11:24AM

The Republican Party is not a homeless shelter for Libertarians. RoPaul should try promoting himself without the benifits of a Great Old Party. You should go with him.

Clint| 6.25.11 @ 8:51AM

Ronald Reagan:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path"

RCV| 6.24.11 @ 1:59PM

Talk about Cults of Personality.

Clint| 6.25.11 @ 8:52AM

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

Occam's Tool| 6.24.11 @ 7:16PM

Dr Ron Paul, aka "The Prince of Pork" and the "Duke of Dhimmitude." (The last title is mine, all mine)

A fine candidate for a jackbooted StormFront believing thug.

Clint| 6.25.11 @ 9:13AM

You're A Slandering Liar, Zany Crazed Israel Firster Troll Tool Job.

You're All Bent Because Many Of We Tea Party Patriots & Our Tea Party Senator Dr.Rand Paul & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr. Ron Paul don't Asskiss Your Personal Screwball Israel Firster Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

TrueBlue| 6.24.11 @ 7:46PM

Seriously, we don't need another President with his own cult following like our current one has.

Margie| 6.24.11 @ 11:01PM

Yes, what America needs is another lunatic who blames terrorism on "America's Aggression". One who says we should try and "understand" why it is they want to attack us. With him, it's everything from Israel's fault to America's fault, but definitely not the fault of the poor Islamists.
Yep, that's what we need.

Clint| 6.25.11 @ 8:57AM

"Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Republican Presidential debate held Tuesday May 15, when Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in the 9/11 attacks.
Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”

Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."

Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:21PM

Yeah, we know about this dude, another rabid Jew hater/Blame America Firster like you and your ilk.
From one of your fave sources, Wiki:

"Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the common United States and Western world assumptions about the motives for Islamic terrorism, and put these into the context of greater Western-Islamic relations.
Scheuer left The Jamestown Foundation in February 2009 from a position as Senior Fellow. He claimed in an anti-war.com article that he was fired by the organization for his outspoken views on US-Israel relations. Jamestown's current president, Glen Howard, has pejoratively likened Scheuer's views to those of congressman Ron Paul."

Clint| 6.26.11 @ 9:45AM

You're A Serial Slandering Liar Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil.

Now, World Class Hypocrite Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil, Tell All The American Spectator Readers What You Say Happens To Practicing Jews & Muslims When They Die.

You're Up Sportless.

Margie| 6.25.11 @ 4:37PM

LOL I do my homework:

"CIA Conspiracy Theorist
Michael Scheuer knows where America's real covert intelligence threat comes from--Israel."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....9irrsq.asp

LOL~ "You're up, sport".

Clint| 6.26.11 @ 9:51AM

"He ( Former CIA bin Laden Desk Head, Michael Scheuer) explained, "we can no longer afford to be seen as the dog that's led by the tail." Scheuer further warned, "I don't think we can afford to be led around, or at least appear to be led around by them."

Aaaand You're Problem with That Statement By American CIA Patriot Michael Scheuer Is What, Israel Firster Apologist Whacker, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil ?

You're Up Joisey White Trash.

Margie| 6.26.11 @ 2:12PM

The expletives make the man.

R Martin| 6.24.11 @ 9:38AM

Mr. Hillyer writes a thoughtful and important piece. His thinly veiled critique of the announced Republican field is worthwhile cautionary advice, but I wonder if the candidate Mr. Kirk could support is out there and willing to run and if such a candidate could be elected in America today. Like it or not there is an American Idol mentality in our society, and it would take incredible skills for a Kirk candidate to gain traction, convince large segments of the public to opt for wisdom and experience over magnetism and to deal effectively with an inherently hostile press.

Then there is the sad reality in which we find ourselves:

"Parties often have chosen not to nominate their most able men, preferring magnetism or mediocrity."

That is exactly what the Democrats did in 2008. Their candidate was all magnetism, he won and now we have to deal with the momentous consequences of his presidency. Mr. Hilllyer warns us not to make the same mistake lest we face the ravages (good word) of four more years of Alinsky politics. But one wonders: on a risk/reward basis, do we hope to find a Kirk candidate and believe in his (her) election or do we settle for someone reasonable, using magnetism or whatever other technique, who can win against Obama and thereby end the nightmare of this administration. Do we have enough time to ponder that and make the right decision?

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.11 @ 10:08AM

Ron Paul couldn't lead a thirsty horse to water. Sorry.
Quin,
I merely want a President that reflects my core principles and convictions.
Well,
I also want a President with the character to live up to his or her principles and convictions.
IE: I could write volumes about Dubyah's goofs, and/or failures (in my opinion), but he fulfilled the above requirements to a tee.

I also want legislators of the caliber of my Rep, John Culberson, and my Senator, John Cornyn.
Most often when writing them, I merely send an "attaboy". The hand-written notes I get in return (duh), are appreciative.
Somehow, some way, the Republicans must let the cream rise to the top across the board.
Nevertheless,
as I have stated many times, the America I have enjoyed cannot survive four more years of despotism...or the trains running late.

Clint| 6.25.11 @ 9:19AM

“Ron Paul cannot get elected” President, declared Donald Trump at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Trump, who has never run for office, let alone won an election, may want to reconsider his parroting of this common refrain: A new CNN poll finds that, of all the Republicans being discussed as potential presidential candidates, the longtime Texas congressman has the greatest chance of beating Barack Obama, while The Donald comes in dead last.

In a hypothetical match-up between Paul and Obama, Obama beats Paul by only seven percentage points (52 to 45 percent). Meanwhile, Obama bests former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by eight points, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by 11 points, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich by 17 points, former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin by 19 points, and Trump by a whopping 22 points."

Jack fromWi. | 6.24.11 @ 11:06AM

Ron Paul has the most fervent supporters in the Party. He is inspiring a lot of people. Judging by the present debate in this country, He has been right about most things and people are starting to see it. His ideas are the ones people are talking about. He has stuck to his principles against all odds and has been proved right. That is real leadership. His vision of a constitutional republic is what our founders invisioned.

Dai Alanye | 6.24.11 @ 1:44PM

Let's not forget the hypocrite vote. Ron Paul, the guy who votes against budgets but for earmarks, should easily win that segment of the electorate.

Occam's Tool| 6.24.11 @ 7:20PM

Yes, he has stuck to his principles of voting for earmarks---

"U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel.

For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork that the former presidential candidate sought to bring home to his district. These requests were made prior to the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks.

Paul’s largest request in 2010 was $51.5 million in federal money to be spent on “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas.” He requested another $50 million to be directed to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and $46 million for deepening the Texas City channel. The majority of Paul’s requests were for projects related to various ports and channels, though other sectors of his district also received attention, such as $20 million for a hospital in Chambers County. Even smaller projects received attention from the libertarian representative, such as $2.5 million requested “to redevelop historic downtown area and to purchase trash cans, bike racks and decorative street lighting” in Baytown."

The article's link is here:

http://washingtonindependent.c.....t-updated.

Yeah, he does as he preaches, all right. We call that type "Big Hat and No Cattle" down in Texas, right, Ken?

Clint| 6.25.11 @ 9:27AM

Do Your Homework Israel Firster Screwballs.

Dr. Ron has never voted for an earmark. His Principled Stand is about The Constitutional Congressional Responsibility for Spending & Not Handing Tax Payer Money To The Executive Branch To Spend.


"REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be.

But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

Margie| 6.25.11 @ 4:40PM

Haha, "it all depends on your definition of earmark".

See Occam's truthful post, above.

Clint| 6.26.11 @ 9:36AM

DUUUUUHHHHH !

Israel Firster & Economic Buffoon Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil."Dr. Ron has never voted for an earmark.".

Why ?
Because Dr. Ron Paul's Constitutional Philosophical Stand is to place transparent & responsibility for spending in the hands of Congress & not in the hands of The Executive in Appropriation Bills.

"If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?

I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Margie| 6.26.11 @ 2:14PM

Carpe flee-'em.

Clint| 6.26.11 @ 6:51PM

Morologus es!

Margie| 6.24.11 @ 11:04PM

"Ron Paul has the most fervent supporters in the Party."
Yeah, I think I've had a few slight run ins with some of them.
Very slight, heh.

Clint| 6.26.11 @ 9:37AM

That's because You're RINO-CINO Israel Firster Whack Job, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil.

Margie| 6.26.11 @ 2:14PM

"Paranoia, Paranoia, LSD, LSD."
'Member that tune?

Clint| 6.26.11 @ 6:53PM

I Rest My Case.

Attendants, Bring The Net.

Van Sharpley| 6.24.11 @ 11:17AM

Wow.
Quin, this is another great piece.

Q: Is there an opportunity for an Ambasador (the one with courage), who has not legislated or governed, to be considered as experienced and qualified?

Oldefarte| 6.24.11 @ 11:36AM

I'm one who wholeheartedly believes in the philosophy relating to ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Leaders are those that know what to do, do it, have done it, and will forever continue to do it [if given the opportunity]. Words mean nothing to me unless backed up by demonstatable actions. Any moron or bullexcrement artist has the capacity to say/declare a barnyard full of youknowhat, and the very, very sad thing in life is that people of SHOULD HAVE COMMON SENSE are mentally taken in/brainwashed by these snake oil salesmen hourly/daily. This president is a classic example of same, when any moron SHOULD HAVE BUT DID NOT been able to discern who, what, how, where, how etc this guy was, is and forever will be. Instead, they listened to his WORDS, his cuteness, saw his smile, etc and said hey, he's our MESSIAH. As Herman Cain declared in the debeate, HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU? Grow up, get your collective heads out of your rears, see what's there and what's not, use the common sense that the Almighty created you with, and vote for the Republican candidate of your choosing, and thereafter the selected/elected Republican nominee [and hopefully the right one] so that we can begin the process of weeding out the radical-extremists domestic terrorists that are now controlling this country, and get us back upon the road to properity and greatness once again!!!!!!!!!

Nancy in NC| 6.24.11 @ 1:41PM

What the heck is wrong with Michelle Bachmann? She espouses all the conservative ideals that anyone could ask for.

I agree that Mike Pence and Jim DeMint are great, but neither are running. The only difference is they are men. So what? I thought she redeemed herself well at the CNN joke of a debate. Heck, I don't mind Santorum or Pawlenty either. Just forget Romney, Huntsman or Perry...Rhinos all.

zelda| 6.24.11 @ 3:41PM

I agree with you Nancy. Bachmann is great and she is head and shoulders better than the rest of the field. She has intelligence and her spine remains intact.

Occam's Tool| 6.24.11 @ 7:22PM

Michele is, as a former girlfriend of mine was described by a U of I football player, "Beauty and Brains, all in one chick."

PattyMor| 6.24.11 @ 3:52PM

It would nice to have a Republican who can articulate a conservative message, actually believe in the Constitution, and be able to lead people where they need to go. Not the squishy, weak-kneed pablum that we are served up and then they try to stuff it down our throats.
One more progressive dressed up as a conservative, and the Rat Party may not survive.

Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 4:01PM

Perfect candidate, no. One who is in touch with most of us American Citizens, yes. No more special interest candidates. No more get along to get ahead candidates. I would be happy with about any of 5 of the current candidates. There is feasible, and there is optimal. I start with feasible, but discount those who just don't seem to get it. Unfortunately that includes the front runner.

gary siebel| 6.24.11 @ 4:02PM

Flashback, like a bad acid trip, to the plaintive cry of Repubs demanding a candidate who could win (rather than someone who might be good for the country), which resulted in Bush Jr. How did that work out?

The economy is still a Bush tar baby, no matter how hard you may want to stick it to Obama.

Willis| 6.24.11 @ 4:21PM

No it isn't. Not even close.

Occam's Tool| 6.24.11 @ 7:25PM

No, Gary, not any more. Obama has created a problem where 2 trillion dollars in investable assets are on the sidelines, because 1) he is unremittantly hostile to business and profits, and 2) his HealthCare bill has unfathomable costs, and 3) #2 has paralyzed 156 percent of the US economy all by its lonesome, and 4) he is jacking up energy costs intentionally during a recession.

None of these Bush would have done, all of these are directly a result of well thought out approaches by the Messiah.

Margie| 6.24.11 @ 11:07PM

That is just sooo old hat by now.
When is Obama going to own this economy? The day before he leaves office?
Eh, fat chance.
Looks like people will be blaming Bush for the country's ills till Hell freezes over.

Longplay| 6.25.11 @ 2:16PM

Those on the Left need to realize that many true conservatives were not supporters of either of the Bushes, at least with regard to domestic policy. On the home front, both men offered policies closer to Lefty-lite than conservatism. Despite the screams of the Left during both of those GOP terms in office, they pretty much got what they wanted, although they would have preferred more of it. Obama's policies are more an amplification of Bushes than a repudiation.

air max black | 6.25.11 @ 3:39AM

Thank you for this article. That's all I can say. You most definitely have made this blog

into something special. You clearly know what you are doing, you've covered so many

bases.Thanks!

Handy| 6.25.11 @ 7:03AM

The country, nay, the whole world is just plain tired. No person can return the spirit of freedom to a dispirited electorate. Without that spirit, we are doomed to a new Dark Age.

It's over folks. That's all there is. Turn out the lights.

Oldefarte| 6.25.11 @ 2:19PM

Shazam, I'll bet you're always THE LIFE OF THE PARTY within your world!!!!!!!

JohnC| 6.25.11 @ 1:03PM

Conservatism has no meaning today and is getting confused with libertarianism.

Last couple of weeks Rush called Rockefeller-Republican and globalist George W. Bush a conservative and said his dream president is globalist and RINO Rick Perry.

Looks like free trader and Dubai-Ports El-Rushbo is carrying RINO water again and confusing the base; he just can’t help himself.

We are so screwed.

Margie| 6.25.11 @ 9:58PM

The reality is, it's a glabalist world.

Longplay| 6.25.11 @ 2:10PM

The emergency of the country's current situation yields a conflict between the desire for reasoned and prudent action and just plain action. At a certain point, the Founders had to scrap prudence in favor of revolution. Following that revolution, they established framework that they hoped would promote prudent behavior in government. They realized how fragile was their creation and we now find ourselves at a point where we must act to restore that system. That action may require some hacking away at bad roots entangling the good.

JohnC| 6.25.11 @ 3:58PM

The Founders were patriots first and environed an America-First government, not a globalist government which both Parties and left & right media advocate with free trade giveaways. George Washington and company were the ultimate protectionists – they wanted to protect their beloved country at all costs.

Now the shrewd Obama is talking about bringing back our outsourced manufacturing by forming government partnerships with corporations. Now this crony capitalism is the wrong solution of course but he is outfoxing the hapless and stupid GOP presidential field who are all pro-China and thus anti American -- alas, America is sinking right before our eyes.

Margie| 6.25.11 @ 10:00PM

If only it were the days of yore, but it isn't.

lisseursGHD | 6.26.11 @ 11:57PM

Bienvenue chez notre ghd france,ghd lisseurs professionnels fourlisseur en ligne où vous offre des stylers ghd variés, fers à lisser de bonne qualité et à prix fous-économisez jusqu'à 54%! Commandez maintenant.

weddingdresses | 6.27.11 @ 4:53AM

The emergency of the country's current situation yields a conflict between the desire for reasoned and prudent action and just plain action. At a certain point, the Founders had to scrap prudence in favor of revolution. Following that revolution, they established framework that they hoped would promote prudent behavior in government. They realized how fragile was their creation and we now find ourselves at a point where we must act to restore that system. That action may require some hacking away at bad roots entangling the good.

simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 11:32AM

Why must we always make the simple complicated? All we are asking, is give autheticity, integrity, some experience, and conservative values a chance! No, we should not be swayed by good looks and an grand articulation alone but should seek experienced, committed, and authentic candidates willing to put the country above their political ambitions. Too much to ask?

air max 90 | 7.2.11 @ 12:44AM

Ha, that actually a Truly good suggestion. Many thanks so much for this!

More Articles by Quin Hillyer

More Articles From Streetcar Line

Tea Partiers for Freedom

April 16, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Make Room for a New Master

April 9, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Closed to the Public

March 26, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

The Labor Nominee’s Other Lies

March 19, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Thomas Perez Should Be Blocked

March 12, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/24/conservatives-foolish-search-f

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|129 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|74 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|22 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.