Give me an example of the GOP moving "to the left" in your opinion

McCain's nomination, and as a bonus answer, Bush before him. Bush is at best a centrist, and McCain lost the nomination in 2000, because he came down to Bush's left on most issues. In this, at least, he's not changed.

So, why did her unfavoribility ratings drop? Because the Mainstream Media attacked her,

Can we please cut the "mainstream media" bogeyman crap? I have been listening to how the MSM is out to get the GOP/conservatives Nixon's days. If one counts only the presidential elections, they have not been very successful, and their record is not much better with congress in the past 16. And in case anyone has not noticed, Fox is now MSM.

When it comes to Frum, Joyner, et al...

"Kill the messenger!" At that point you become your own worst enemy.

First, it's not 'my party'; I'm a registered independant.

Since when does that stop you?

Secondly, no, I'm not proving your point, really, because I view this as a measure of how far to the left the basline has been pushed.

Give me an example of the GOP moving "to the left" in your opinion, and I believe you will just prove my point again.

First, it's not 'my party'; I'm a registered independant.

Secondly, no, I'm not proving your point, really, because I view this as a measure of how far to the left the basline has been pushed. In large part, I view that as the result of years of the 'big tent' nonsense espoused by republican leadership... exactly, BTW, why I'm not a Republican.

If I were to take your statement at face value I'd suggest that at least part of that is due to the greater amount of diversity of thought in the Repubican party.

There's plenty of diverse thinking in the Democratic party, we just don't label all of it "liberal". The GOP is actually partly responsible for that, by making the label a negative, the different voices chose labels specific to them. The GOP also made "conservative" a coveted label, so every voice within the party used it to describe their views.

Still, when I see the "Bush = Hitler" meme, and other effotrs to cast Bush as an extreme right winger, his poliices which mark him as at best a centrist notwithstanding, I have to at least consider the idea that who is defining 'conservative' for the most part, are not themselves, conservative.

And yet there are people within your own party, who highly approve of Bush, call him and themselves "conservatives". You're proving my point exactly.

Only because your party has been using multiple, mutually exclusive, definitions for the word "conservative" since at least 2000. You can take any person in the country, and they will fail to meet the definition of "conservative" for some significant portion of your party.

If I were to take your statement at face value I'd suggest that at least part of that is due to the greater amount of diversity of thought in the Repubican party.

Still, when I see the "Bush = Hitler" meme, and other effotrs to cast Bush as an extreme right winger, his poliices which mark him as at best a centrist notwithstanding, I have to at least consider the idea that who is defining 'conservative' for the most part, are not themselves, conservative.

Jamie; I would submit that in this case, it's a matter of not having a conservative candidate to tear down.

I'd submit further, that the strong, lightning rod reaction to Palin is a testimony to the degree of hunger there is out there for pols to reflect conservative values. I for one, wouldn't mind seeing Palin in the top spot of the ticket... a position she may well hold in future.

In the past month, Sarah Palin’s unfavorability ratings have risen by 12 points."

Yes, Palin's unfavorability ratings have risen precisely because people like Frum (Joyner, etc.) have attacked her so harshly and unfairly. Her unfavoribility ratings didn't change because a few people saw the Katie Couric interview - so few people watch that type of thing that it could never make a dent in her unfavoribility ratings. The fora in which Palin WAS watched by large numbers of people - her convention speech and the debate - she did just fine.

So, why did her unfavoribility ratings drop? Because the Mainstream Media attacked her, and was able to find quislings like Frum to validate their attacks. People would surely keep an open mind about her - despite the MSM pileon - if the MSM's attacks were not validated by people who find it important to go on the CBS Morning Show to attack her, like Frum did.

It's amazing to see the disparity between how left and right intellectuals/writers approach the election. I defy you to find a single liberal intellectual or writer who went on TV to complain that Jos Biden is a moron as a result of his lack of knowledge of the Constitution (which Article governs the Executive Branch, Joe? The Article on the Legislative Branch says what about the VP's role?). Heck, I'll bet you can't even find a prominent left-wing blog that complains about that kind of thing. The left was all on board with their guy, no matter how much of a moron he is. If they harbor any doubts about Obama, their not lining up to go on TV to tell about it.

For the right, on the other hand, you have people like Frum - or Joyner - who are all too happy to tell you how much of a moron Palin is. Why do they do that, when the counterparts on the left don't do the same? Beat me, but seems to me that keeping in good standing with one's community is a likely cause. Frum runs with the crowd that shows up on the CBS Morning Show - he doesn't want to disappoint them. Joyner is an academic - imagine what his (primarily left-wing) colleagues would say if Joyner showed up to defend Palin. He'd be thought of as a rube or a fool. College professors want to be thought well of in academic circles, simple as that - it's OK to be thought of as wrong on an issue or two (after all, academics differ among themselves all the time), but to be thought of as a Palin-loving rube, now that would be a problem.

We are not all that different then. I am a conservative who has yet to be terribly enthusiastic about any GOP national ticket, but like most voters, I vote the lesser of two evils, which to me is the GOP ticket.

I am much more a Jeffersonian about politics. Change comes from the bottom up, so I pay more attention to state and local government. Being from conservative, Bible Belt South Carolina, I think much more fondly of someone like Sarah Palin than most commentators with a national focus do. so at lot of what she is criticized for, i see as a virtue.

In answer to your question of what we want.... actual conservatives would be nice. What we've ended up with is leftover liberalism.

Only because your party has been using multiple, mutually exclusive, definitions for the word "conservative" since at least 2000. You can take any person in the country, and they will fail to meet the definition of "conservative" for some significant portion of your party.

I don't know what these conservative intellectuals actually want, or if they even know, for that matter, but one thing is for sure--there is going to be a lot fewer conservatives to choose from for leadership positions for the foreseeable future thanks in no small part to their own tearing down of conservative candidates.

I wonder from which side of the fence you're viewing this, Jamie.

In answer to your question of what we want.... actual conservatives would be nice. What we've ended up with is leftover liberalism.

McCain is not conservative enough. he is a wishy washy, liberally prone grmupy old man who adds Hillary Clinton's policy ideas to his campaign. ooh, we don't like him.

Palin is solidly conservative, but cannot fake it 'til you make like conservative icon and B-movie actor Ronald Reagan could. my gosh, she probably doesn't stick her pinky out with sipping Earl Grey and probably would request spam on a Ritz at white House functions.

Egads. who would want a conservative Veep like that even if she has a had executive experience than everyone else on all party tickets combined?

I don't know what these conservative intellectuals actually want, or if they even know, for that matter, but one thing is for sure--there is going to be a lot fewer conservatives to choose from for leadership positions for the foreseeable future thanks in no small part to their own tearing down of conservative candidates.

Any election is a lesser of evils contest. Knowing both candidates are flawed we should make our choice and support that candidate. We should not demoralize our fellow conservatives by picking apart our candidate. Let the opposing campaign do that.

Steve, whlie this explains the emotional reaction of what is now happening on the conservative side of American politics, it is also self-defeating. By consistently voting for the "lesser" of 2 evils one is unable to check the worst excesses of one's own party (or as in this case, idealogy, because I have a harder and harder time seeing a true home for conservatives).

As a "center/left" individual I try to get "center/right" points of views, not least of all because from time to time, I find the better idea is on that side of a debate. I agree with so many others that this is getting harder and harder to do. Without the self-correcting mechanism of honest and open debate, the right will lurch further and further away from the center, just as the left has in the past.

I used to read the Corner, but how can I take Jonah Goldberg serious when he equates todays Democratic Party with Mussolini's Fascists? This is serious conservative dialogue?

It's always amusing when liberals offer advise to conservatives in the form of "move to the center".

Was I giving advice? I certainly didn't think so. Maybe you're not replying to me.

The criticism should be constructive but I see an awful lot of criticism that is not.

Okay, now I'm curious, what would "constructive criticism" of Palin look like? None of her faults are things that she can change just by wanting to. You can't exactly recommend that next week she should try having more foreign policy experience.