Reaganism was not an era

And conservatism is not a movement; rather it is the foundation upon which this nation was built. While we have always, and will always, tended to vacillate between extremes, the fact is that conservatism will remain.

Rush is right on this one, and Newt is wrong.

Conspiracy

I spent some time this past weekend at Wrestlemania with my good friend, Doc.

Doc was, actually, the first of my little circle of friends in high school to start listening to Rush, back in 1989. Back then, Rush was just as edgy, feisty, and revolutionary as ever. He was taking the country by storm, filling the vacuum for conservative thought that left when Reagan left office. At the time, I was apolitical at best, and a populist at the worst. My intellectual rebirth wouldn't occur for another three years, and while Rush was entertaining, most of what he said just sort of passed over me.

Well, the last 20 years or so haven't been the kindest years to Doc. He's been through quite a bit, and has come out the other end a survivor who's ready to move forward. On balance, he doesn't seem too worse for the wear. He looked healthier this weekend than I've seen him in close to a decade. He's talking about going back to college, and about quitting drinking. He's being an extremely responsible father to his little guy. However, something has gone horribly awry.

Doc has become a liberal.

Now, something you need to know about Doc is that he's always liked to live close to the edge. He likes to say things that make people squirm, at least a little bit. He's always joked about conspiracy theories, such as the Catholic church being responsible for Kennedy's assassination. The more outrageous, the more he liked to talk about it. I always thought it was a joke.

So, imagine my chagrin when we were discussing the Iranian hostage situation and he said, "well, the British shouldn't have been in Iranian waters. They knew what they were doing, they deserve whatever the Iranians do to them."

I asked, of course, what he thought of the GPS data that showed that the Brits were in Iraqi waters. He said, "What makes you think we can believe that? Who put out those numbers? The British government, who are trying to cover their asses. I don't blame the Iranians one bit, after everything we've done to their neighbors in the last couple of years."

I knew the conversation was about over. I asked, plainly, "so, you believe that there is a British conspiracy to hide their soldiers' true activity?" A "yes" answer later, I knew that there was no reasoning with him on this one, and that it was time to talk about Wrestlemania.

I've found you just can't argue with someone who is dedicated to a pet conspiracy theory, no matter how many facts you throw at them.

Why the Party is hanging Al Gonzales out to dry

I think I've figured it out. It's starting to make sense.

It's the same reason that Nixon didn't dispute the election in 1960 and Gore did 40 years later. It's the same reason that Nixon resigned and Clinton didn't. (That's an intentional comparison, by the way, for you liberal readers. I know you guys hate being compared unfavorably to Nixon).

It's the same reason that Republicans always seem to balk at defending their own from wrongdoing. And here it is: Conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

Now, I know. The liberals always lambaste conservatives for claiming to be, or feeling, morally superior. Yeah, it has a negative connotation. But, I don't think that it has to be all that bad. I think that it is all right to have a higher moral standard. I think that it is OK to call a spade a bloody shovel. If someone does something wrong, liberal or conservative, a conservative should be able to stay true to conscience and say, "you did something wrong."

Does this mean that conservatives don't have moral failings? Nope. Does this mean that they don't have just as many moral failings as liberals? Not at all. But it does mean that they have a sense of guilt. They have a sense that behaving badly is not all right, even when they do it themselves.

Just because Newt was having an affair at the same time as Clinton doesn't mean that Newt was right to do it and Clinton wasn't. Both were abhorrent. But, eight years on and Newt has said, "my affair was a moral failing on my part. It's something I've had to repent of and make up for." Bill's wife is still talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who outed her husband's affair. Clinton has done nothing that would suggest contrition. Newt has.

Does contrition make it right? Again, no, it doesn't. Nothing makes it right, that's the point. Just like firing judges on a purely political basis, if that's what Al Gonzales did, was not right. No, it's not as bad as firing all 93 judges, including one who was investigating your business dealings. But the conservatives have this moral compass that tells them that corruption is corruption regardless of who commits it. Liberals don't.

Now, is it premature for Sununu to call for Gonzales to resign? Yeah, it is. The facts aren't all in yet. There is no reason that he should see Gonzales as red meat, at least not yet. That's at least as political and reprehensible as firing judges on political grounds.