If someone asks a direct question, to respond by questioning the motives of the asker is a tactic that usually works… but it’s still not answering the direct question.

This is an odd situation (for me at least) where it’s easier to argue a stronger assertion, because the context is clearer. That is, not only are mainstream conservatives fit to govern right now, we are the only ones who are.

The GOP is not going to take actual control of either house of Congress until Jan 2011, though it may assume de facto control over the political debate sooner. Stopping the health care bill, stopping cap-and-trade, and stopping the “stimulus” packages is frankly a big enough agenda until then. Though, I agree with you that the party would be in better shape, both politically and for governance, if the GOP gets its head past being the Party of No ASAP.

Let’s also note this: it’s mostly the party’s fault that they are currently constituted as the Party of No. But not entirely. Dissident conservatives such as Mr. Bartlett (but not just him of course) are trying to get us to acquiesce to being fleas on the Democrats’ dog. Not only is that horrible political advice, it’s also fails as a substantive agenda and most importantly fails the aspirations and economic livelihood for America in general. The hope for prosperity for America (and political success for Republicans) crucially depends on that not happening.

So by the time I got home last night, it was bedtime.

So I didn’t get to work on this at all.

The biggest problem, I think, is in one sentence.

If we can change the sentence “Obama won the White House with a percentage of the popular vote exceeded only by Ronald Reagan in 1984.”, to “Obama won the White House with a percentage of the popular vote so large that you have to go back to Ronald Reagan in 1984 to see it exceeded.”, I think that will fix the problem.

So, once again, have at it.

As I’ve argued elsewhere, dissident conservatism as we know it is pretty lame, so being a dissident conservative doesn’t necessarily speak well for Mr. Bartlett. But, to the extent he is to be distinguished within that group, most dissident conservatives have an airy, nonchalant understanding of our political process. To his credit (or not), Mr. Bartlett has no such delusions. He understands perfectly well the bipartisan trench warfare parts of our political system, and explicitly attempts to sell us out to the Democrats. That’s where that Tessio thing comes in.

My earlier comment was not meant to imply that Bartlett holds no animosity towards the GOP in its current form. Bartlett spoke out about what he saw as the previous administration’s flaws and was read out of the conservative movement as a result. That he continues to have ideological issues with the current GOP leadership does not diminish that history.

Further, what about Bartlett’s critique- “All I see is pandering to the party’s crazies like the birthers . In the short run that may be enough to pick up a few congressional seats next year, but I see no way a Republican can retake the White House for the foreseeable future.”- is substantively different from any other dissident’s view?

Frankly the Party of No is good enough for now. If the GOP were in power now, chances are we’d have no stimulus packages, no car company bailouts, no Kyoto, no cap-and-trade, and no universal government health care bill. That already gives several trillion in the bank over the next decade or so.

Now in the bigger picture, you and I might agree that’s still not enough to solve our fiscal problems but it’s a decent first step. Stop digging and all that.

And this is where the GOP is functioning only as an opposition party. We should hope there will be a more proactive agenda as the Republicans attempt to contest for majority status.

Sure he does. More precisely, he claims that the current spending trajectory is irreformable therefore we as a party should acquiesce to whatever taxation level is required to fund it. In return we should get some influence over how the money is raised, so we can implement a VAT instead of some other form which is more destructive of the economy.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/10/08/vat-attack-the-value-added-tax-bruce-bartlett-and-deficits/

As far as resentment goes, I think that’s pretty clear too.

http://www.newmajority.com/why-i-am-anti-republican

Bruce Bartlett is not particularly important to anybody I know, except to the extent that he can argue his case like anybody else. The idea that we ought to repudiate the GOP because they done Bruce Bartlett wrong isn’t anything I take seriously, and in his heart of hearts I don’t think he does either.