redblueamerica.com

Yes. You're right. But the struggle took place more or less behind the scenes after Goldwater's defeat. When Goldwater was shellacked, Nixonism/Rockefellerism/Fordism reigned. It was not until 12 years after Goldwater's defeat that Reagan emerged. He was our champion, ready to run (and lose) in 1976, and again in 1980.

But let's stop arguing about that. Let's just go back to what I objected to in the first place. You wrote:

This election, as my old boss Charles Kesler has written, is about what conservatism means after Bush.

To me, this election is not about what conservatism means after Bush -- just as the elections of Nixon and Ford after Goldwater's defeat were not about what conservatism means. If McCain is the nominee, does that mean conservatism doesn't mean enforcing the border or pushing tax cuts anymore? If Giuliani is the nominee, does that mean conservatism doesn't mean pro-life anymore? No, and no. And does it mean that conservatism is dead? Again, no. Because no matter what happens in this election, conservatism still stands for those princples.

This election, even to rock-ribbed conservatives, is about two things: Finding a candidate who can (1) engage aggressively in the war on terror, and (2) defeat the continuation of Clintonism or the start of Obamism.

To the extent that this election is about conservatism, it's about being disappointed, but looking ahead to cultivate future candidates who will be more consistent -- Reaganesque, if you will -- about their political and governing philosophies. It will apparently take some years, still. Because with the departure of the truest conservative in the race, we ain't gettin' it this time.

Ok, you busted me. I didn't read the piece (I though it was one of the typically long, but fascinating, Claremont pieces that I didn't have time to peruse). I misconstrued the point from your earlier post, and have now read it twice as penance.

I just find the discussion of "conservatives within the Republican Party needing to figure out how to reassert their ideas after eight fairly middling to poor years of George W. Bush" as a largely academic exercise, and one without much utility at the moment. Yes, I know that sounds strange. When, if not during the process of picking a presidential candidate, is a good time to have this serious and important discussion? We certainly found that it was too late to move Bush to the right on immigration, for instance, after his election. Though he was very conservative in his ultimately foiled plans for Social Security, and he's been steadfast on the war.

I'm just chafing, I suppose, at the current sport -- enjoyed by many leading lights of the right -- of bashing the conservative credentials of "fill in the blank" GOP candidate. Our candidates are who they are. And none of them, save Fred, was close to the reincarnation of Reagan. So there's going to be a lot of compromising on the part of conservatives in their presidential pick. We're just arguing about the degree, at this point.

Now that Fred is gone (sniff, sob, honk), I'm probably a Mitt Man in the California primary. If Fred were still in the race, and could win the nomination, this election for me might still be about "what conservatism means after Bush." Because to me, it means the principles that Fred so eloquently articulated and really believed. I could not think of one policy position that Fred had that I did not share. And, frankly, I thought his grandfatherly manner was a plus.

But, sorry Ben. I care not a whit what Mr. Kesler says. Just like in 2000 and 2004, I'm not going to base my selection in this very important election on a desire to make a philosophical point with the party. It's about defeating Hillary or Obama, and the disasters they would create in the war on terror and on the Supreme Court. Right now, I'm thinking Mitt is that man. Perhaps I'll change my mind and think it's McCain. For both men, there'd be a bit of nose-holding that I wouldn't have had to do with Thompson.

But I'd rather go through another 4 to 8 years of frustration as a conservative watching a moderate Republican in office, than cede the White House to a party and mindset I think is not only wrong, but dangerous for the country. If that makes me sound like a Krazy Kossack, so be it.

... it seemed for awhile that Fred Thompson might be that guy for conservatives: A great marriage of message and Hollywood-trained messenger.

But he never caught fire.

Some of that is because he ran an unorthodox campaign. The party bases that largely decide nomination battles like, frankly, to see some evidence of "fire in the belly." They're sure that the other side is going to bring every dirty trick known to humankind, and they want to see evidence that their candidate can withstand the attacks. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this seems increasingly to be the main rationale behind Hillary Clinton's campaign. But Fred was a little too grandfatherly -- both in visage and in campaigning approach -- to provide what the meat eaters were looking for.

Add to that, though, is this: The GOP "establishment" candidates have been, largely, Mitt, Fred and Rudy. McCain and Huckabee are definitely not on this list. But GOP voters -- not the establishment -- seem to be at odds with conservative leaders more now than at any time in my political memory.

Even in Michigan, where Romney salvaged his campaign, his vote total paled next to the combined votes of Huckabee and McCain. That doesn't matter, I suppose: A win is a win is a win. But it does add to the growing pile of evidence suggesting the GOP coalition is fragile.

After all, we're told, the GOP is a party that largely respects and reveres its elders. That's probably the main reason Bob Dole got his shot in 1996. But the last candidate supplied by the establishment was ... George W. Bush. So maybe GOP voters are a little more skeptical of the establishment recommendations this time; I can't say as I'd blame them.

None of this is to suggest that Mitt won't win the nomination or the presidency. But Fred should've done better than he did. The fact that he didn't suggests something is afoot.