The left isn’t entirely evil. Their rabid anti-Americanism, in the case of Iraq, happens to put them in the correct position of having opposed the war. The worst part about this whole debacle is that the anti-war left is likely to receive a huge boost in credibility and be vindicated if things in Iraq take a major turn for the worse in the future.

The only part of Mr. Auster’s statement I would question is his assertion that a Bush loss would have increased the chances for a restoration of genuine conservatism - or as Matt and others of us have phrased it - a repentence from liberalism.

As bad as Señor Boilerplate is, the problem is deeper than him. There are 30 or more House Republicans who should switch party affiliation if they were honest about what they believed. Added to this are Senators like Snowe and Collins. Apart from the brand name, what distinguishes these two from any average liberal Democrat? Haley Barbour’s idea of the “big tent” was the undoing of conservatism within the Republican party. In a healthy, genuinely conservative party, there would be no daughters of major figures like Cheney advancing the homosexualist agenda, to give but one example.

With this sorry state of affairs, a Kerry presidency would have faced only an anemic, ineffective resistance from the Repubicans - just as Clinton did. Thanks to all of this big-tent idiocy, Republican is nothing more than a label. All it means is that there is a little “R” next to the name of a member of Congress - nothing more. Though they are very rare, a conseravtive Democrat is often preferable (Zell Miller) than leftists with an R nest to their name. (It should signify “Red” in cases like Specter, Snowe, and Collins.)

Excellent point, Carl! We followed Haley Barbour after the Dole-Kemp debacle to see if he had anything more to do with the GOP. He should have been run out of town. If he is truly the man behind the GOP’s lurch to the left in most areas, then he IS truly the problem with the GOP. I fear however that it is much deeper and broader than even Haley Barbour, bad as he is for conservatives. I think it’s in part the formerly unspoken phrase, “illegal immigration”. If you follow the money, you’ll find that the country clubbers and their non-member GOP friends are making a fortune off of cheap labor—both in and around their homes AND at their businesses (Demos are also as guilty for this). It’s all about paying the least for services they have to and to hell with the country and those of us who are seriously affected by cheap, illegal immigrant labor we can’t compete with—unless we lower our wages to theirs. And that is, in a simplistic sort of description, “where we are today”.

I fear Mr. Levin’s explanation is a big part of the picture.

I disagree with Carl’s view that Republican means nothing and that there is no difference between the parties. Ditto his idea that Clinton faced “only an anemic, ineffective resistance from the Republicans.” They stopped things like homosexuals in the military and most importantly the health care plan. And that was when they were in the minority! Was it assured that a Bush loss would re-energize Republican conservatives? No. But we DO know that such a loss would have taken away the Republicans’ triumphalism, their sense of “we’re in the majority, all’s right with the world, now we just have to hold on to our power by making sure that those silly conservatives don’t ‘divide’ us.”

I think Mr. Auster has touched on the fundamental problem faced by traditionalists (I say “traditionalists” because conservatism, in many peoples’ minds, has become too closely identified with the Republican Party). Is there a political solution to the American crisis? The American crisis is the loss of faith in Christianity and the West (the only civilization shaped by a Christian worldview). Both Republicans and Democrats are now largely controlled by the internationalist agenda of the large corporations and the world economy is so globally integrated that it is driving the erosion of the nation-state. In the emerging global environment, nationalism will inevitably fade and be replaced by marketism, or corporatism, or some other neopagan collective archetype. This is the reason why the ethnic and religious foundations of this country are being demolished by immigration (which is designed to merge North America with Latin America in order to form a unified trading region), the deconstruction of our manufacturing base, and the aggressive secularization of the culture war. When faced with choices like Bush-Kerry, or Hillary-Giuliani? the differences are outweighed by the fact that they are both loyal to globalism. Thus too much focus on the political side of this problem tends to obscure a deep spiritual and historical fissure that threatens the future of all Christian societies.

Perhaps we should revive the term “Bushido” as “The Code of the Warrior Who Picks the Wrong Fights”.

Talk about MISERY! Check this out:
http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

These people need some serious therapy.

Mr. Auster is quite correct about the obnoxious triumphalism of the Bushistas. My earlier point about the meaninglessness of the Republican label was really directed at those such as Collins, Snowe, Specter, et al. Others in the party do make stands for conservative principles at least once in a while.

While it’s true that the Republicans (plus not a few Democrats) resisted HillaryCare, that victory was more a result of tremendous backing from both the Insurance and Pharmacutical lobbies (the Harry & Sally ads, for example) than organized Republican resistance. While Clinton didn’t get his plan for overt gays to be allowed in the military, he did get them in under the rubric of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, along with the women alllowed in combat zones, and full-bore racial and gender preferences in promotions. (None of which has been rescinded by Señor Jorge - even in wartime.)

With Republican help, Clinton signed into law the Motor Voter Act (better described as the vote-fraud facilitation act), the FACE law (destroying first amendment liberties for anti-abortion protesters), hate-crimes laws, MFN for China, the Assault Weapons ban, and more. There was some welfare reform once Republicans captured congress, but the Contract with America pledges were largely defeated.

Republicans went along with Clinton’s UN-inspired adventures in Bosnia and Kosovo, and rubber-stamped scores of leftist judges who have wreaked havoc ever since. Not to mention the complete failure to bring Clinton to account for treason (sale of missle technology to China) and general lawlessness (FBI files, use of IRS against opponents, and Monica). All in all, I would say that the Republicans - thanks in large part to the work of folks like Snowe and Collins and the leadership’s desire to keep them in the party - were indeed weak and ineffectual.

As Mr. Levin has pointed out, the rot runs deep. The danger of Bush lies in the talk of mandate and stupid triumphalism over an election that was his to lose. The battle is already under way over Specter, and there are some signs of resistance in the House from Republicans to the amnesty madness. Conservatives are truly between a rock and a hard place irrespective of who is in the white house.

While I might question a couple of items on Carl’s list, that is overall a devastating catalog of the GOP’s collaboration with Clinton.

The webpage linked by Mr. Griffin, a long furious diatribe against the red states strung together by repeated use of the “f” word, almost has a literary quality. It reminds me of a scene in Norman Mailer’s novel, “Why are we in Vietnam,” where the “f” word was used to similar effect.

The webpage above is an example of Northern Charm.

If you type the title of that “example of Northern Charm” into Google, you’ll be amazed how it has spread itself over the internet. It’s everywhere! And I mean internationally, too. Some of the flames being hurled back and forth are breathtaking in their ferocity.

The Left definitely lost, and the Constitution Party was definitely among the winners. Despite fielding a weaker candidate (Peroutka) than the 2000 candidate (Phillips), the CP presidential ticket gained more than 30% over its 2000 vote totals, exceeding the 20% increase in total votes cast in 2004 compared to 2000. The other third parties lost ground. They even elected their first state legislator, in Montana (by two votes, in a tight three-way race; cynics take note of the significance of one man’s vote).

The overall picture was of significant progress in building the party at the state and local level and fielding more candidates who garnered more votes than ever before. See http://www.constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=132

Althogh we’ll have to wait to see if that race that was won survives a recount.

Well, the left may have lost this battle but it’s apparently just ne step back while the Republican Party’s official inaugural dance (the Hegelian Mambo) lurches two steps leftward.

For the latest policy change from the Pentagon under our supposedly Christian commandante-in-chief, check this out:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41467 A simple order from the White House could have instructed the DOD lawyers to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The have chaplins in the military, after all. Did they fight? No way. Instead they just rolled over like the French did for the Wehrmacht in WWII. Every time I start to think that Presidente Boilerplate and his moronic Amen corner can’t get much worse, they prove me wrong. Vichy Republicans.

The ACLU was unhappy because the Boy Scouts require the leaders and scouts to acknowledge God (in the most bland and generic way), the ACLU sued the DOD for allowing Boy Scout activities in its facilities. Now the DOD has settled (with our tax dollars no doubt paying the attorney’s fees for the ACLU) and agreed to warn all DOD facilities not to allow such activities. Che-che-che.