The Republicans got into trouble when they forgot they were supposed to stand for something and instead began acting like big-spender Democrats. They have turned off their base, and many others who are on the moderate right.

David Brooks, is basically a Joe Lieberman style Democrat as opposed to a traditional conservative. Hence, the reason he is every liberals favorite conservative, is Brooks is not all that conservative and he is the first person to admit to it. He is socially liberal, economically moderate, and a hawk on foreign policy. If you want him to be the standbearer for conservative journalism, than you can’t point solely to his liberal positions as evidence of his true conservatism while conveniently passing over the positions where he is in line with the conservative movement.

Actually, David Brooks did not start at the National Review. He started at a Chicago newspaper doing beat reporting. The publication where Brooks was the most influential was the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. The Consultant is taking information from a New Yorker article, which a very liberal publication, and citing it without doing any due dilligence. The article has already been panned by numerous publications and was written by an author, George Packer, who has donated to the Democratic Party and had every incentive to demoralize the Republican Party. The evidence that Brooks did not become the National Review successor to Buckley because of his religion is a crock of you know what. He, was never going to be EIC of the National Review as he never embraced traditional conservative principles and instead saw a more active role for government in the economy.

“In the world of political journalism, David Brooks has been every liberal’s favorite conservative. This is not just because he throws us a bone of agreement every now and then. Even the most poisonous propagandist (i.e., Bill O’Reilly) knows that trick. Brooks goes farther. In his writing and on television, he actually seems reasonable. More than that, he seems cuddly. He gives the impression of being open to persuasion. Like the elderly Jewish lady who thinks someone must be Jewish because ‘’he’s so nice,’’ liberals suspect that a writer as amiable as Brooks must be a liberal at heart. Some conservatives think so too.

There is a prize for being the liberals’ favorite conservative, and Brooks has claimed it: a column in The New York Times.”

And Mr. Reed is right. The consultant’s parroting of the Democrat line on Rove and Republican “extremists” show just how out of touch Edelman is with his own party, and not just with reality.

As for Pat Buchanan, do we really want to take advice from a man who left the Republican party and made numerous quixotic presidential campaigns and is largely seen as a divisive figure by the vast majority of Americans? Pat Buchanan, is probably as socially conservative if not more than Mike Long. Republicans taking advice from Buchanan should be very cautious. Democrats don’t take advice from Nader because they realize he has his own agenda. I have news for you, so does Pat Buchanan.

ANY CANDIDATE WHO EXPECTS TO BEAT HALL HAS TO BE A NEW
BREED CONSERVATIVE NOT A COOKIE CUTTER VERSION OF
BUSH, ROVE OR ANY CURRENT REPUBLICAN BECAUSE BY AND
LARGE THE PUBLIC IS BEYOND THAT..THEY ARE LOOKING FOR
REAL LIFE SOLUTIONS TO THEIR REAL LIFE PROBLEMS..NOT
A REHASH OF WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO IRAQ..

And Kieran Lalor looks more and more like he will be the nominee. He keeps lining up GOP and Conservative committees and other endorsements. You’re predictions about this race will be proven to be just as wrong as your predictions about Giuliani, Hillary, et al.

And “the consultant” doesn’t have a clue as to why Kelly lost. I live in the district, does he? Kelly ran a crappy campaign and was a squishy “moderate” Republican. She stood for nothing and lost. Hall was nothing but “the other guy” with plenty of cash from his celebrity friends.