[Mind-numbed Robot]

I thought we were discussing the unfortunate reality of who is currently in control of the GOP. I would think the solution to that would be to wrest the control from the checked-pants Republicans. Again.

I think you make too many assumptions.

If I misjudged you, I apologize.

However, my assumption seemed reasonable. You will have the opportunity to change the leadership of the Republican Party in 2008 unless you have unrealistic ambitions of fielding a candidate to challenge Bush in the primaries this year. Since you say you are a pragmatist, I assume you don't intend to do that.

Your other option is to attempt to damage Bush so much with other conservatives that he will not win this year. If you are successful, you will simply turn the country back over to the Clinton gang. Will that advance conservatism? Is that practical?

[B Knotts]

I believe in standing on principle, within reason, and balancing pragmatic and philosophical concerns.

Bush, while a moderate, is conservative enough to support in 2004, unless some great conservative candidate comes along and overwhelms him.

I do think that "sola pragmatists" tend to overdo their "win at any cost" dogma when they foist candidates like Riordan or Schwarzenegger, though.

A twig will only bend so far before it breaks.

[ksen]

Your other option is to attempt to damage Bush so much with other conservatives that he will not win this year.

The President is doing enough damaging on his own, he doesn't need B Knotts' help.

If you are successful, you will simply turn the country back over to the Clinton gang. Will that advance conservatism?

Under whose reign of terror did we see the Republicans make the most electoral gains?