“It’s a struggle,” said conservative activist and public relations specialist Mike Thompson.  “Conservatives want to win, but they aren’t really sure the guys at the top of the field are conservative.” Reconciling purity and pragmatism is always a challenge, Thompson added, but it’s especially so going into 2008 because “of the fear of the other side.” ~The Politico

May I just note that it is this sort of obsession with “fear of the other side” that ushered in the disaster of the Bush years?  No matter how badly the man governed, no matter how many principles he betrayed (or never held in the first place), the mantra was always, “Well, the other side would be worse.”  Perhaps some people sincerely believed that in early 2002; I might have even agreed with it at that unusual moment.  But it didn’t hold for long. 

To choose your standard-bearer based in this fear of Democrats will usually result in the selection of someone who might be good at kicking around political enemies but will otherwise be incredibly incompetent when it comes to governing and setting the kinds of policies that you and yours want.  Principled “purity” and pragmatism are arrayed on one side of the balance in this calculation, while the pure lust for power exists on the other side.  There is nothing pragmatic or worldly wise about selling yourself to ambitious pols simply because they hold out the promise of winning elections.  That is, in fact, the definition of being a gullible patsy.  Bush was one for winning elections for the GOP, but was an all-around nightmare for advancing most of the things conservatives thought they were in politics to advance.  Now many have buyer’s remorse…but seem set to do the exact same thing all over again, and all because they are scared of Hillary or some other bogey from the left.  Not exactly inspiring to watch, is it?