“True conservative�, LOL. I’m really not sure there is such an animal, probably like there are no real leftists. We’re all some sort of mish-mash.

Yeah, I don’t know why I said that. I meant to say conservative, but I guess that’s wrong too. Sorry for the labelling. Old habits die hard.

As an example, I am an agnostic, who is more conservative than almost everyone on various reproductive issues. Anti-abortion? Yes. Anti-cloning, too. All of it coming from a non-Christian, non-thiest viewpoint. And I think I am the only person I know that is opposed to fertility treatments.

All of THAT said, I also think the most strident anti-abortion protestors are not only being counter-productive, but are quite possibly a little unhinged. It seems doubtful that the country is ever going to outlaw abortion. And another part of me doesn’t think it should. After all, I believe people are best left to their own devices.

What’s a conservative to do? Accept that the best we can do is to try and get to the point where abortions are safe, legal and rare. And how painful is it for me to write THAT! Of course, neither party is likely to ever actually going to work for such a position, because it would be hard, and challenge too many sacred cows on both sides of the arguement. So I resign myself to the status quo. Now THERE’S some good conservative pessimism for you! Perhaps I’ve been reading too much Derbyshire over at The Corner….

And all of that jumbled mish-mash on just one issue, perhaps the most clear cut and defining piece of percieved conservatism! And please don’t get me started on that ID nonsense. Or the drug war, or … or … or ….

The Pres.’s approval ratings, I feel, is largely on the way the war in Iraq and alot of these other security issues are being covered. What was once called Clinton fatigue, i think has hit Pres. Bush. I think you are seeing Bush fatigue. Many people just want it all over with. That maybe if we simply just came home from the Middle East, they will just bomb themselves and the occasional American who stupidly decides to go over there. Out of sight, out of mind.

I understand this point, but I think you’re really simplifying the national psyche. A growing number of people feel that they were misled into Iraq. It only follows, then, that they’d start to cast a cold gaze towards the President. And Clinton fatigue was much less about being tired of having the President in office and much, much more about his inability to keep his gun in the holster. Effectively he could do very little during his second term because of all the hoops he had to jump through regarding the sex scandals.

And Icepick, I think it is appropriate to point to this comments section, but it isn’t necessarily needed. Great comment by the way. Very good peek into the psyche of a true conservative. Much appreciated.

The biggest danger for the Republican Party is that there are a lot of us out here who are very unhappy with the national party over issues such as goverenment size and spending, stem cell research, immigration policy, the apparently exclusive pandering to the Religous Right (e.g. this ID nonsense from last week), etc.

Really, as the Republicans have become the majority party in American politics, it has become (by necessity) a coalition party. The tenets that most agree on are fiscal conservatism, small(er) government, and a strong defense policy. In recent years homeland security has become a fourth tenet.

I don’t think it needs to be pointed out to anyone reading this blog that the Republicans in charge in Washington have failed miserably at the first two points. On defense policy, the Republicans still have an advantage, but it slipping. Partly this is due to relentless negative coverage of our military actions in the press, but there are some fundamental problems as well.

The military appears to be overstretched at the moment. It appears that one reason we haven’t committed more troops to Iraq is because we can’t. In the early days of the Bush administration they could point to budget and force cuts in the 1990s, but we’re well into Bush’s second term now. If we need more forces (and I’m one of those who think we do), Bush should have sought these forces in the days after 9/11. It takes time to set up new divisions, and fleets, and air wings, but that was the time to start the work. If he had, we might have those additional forces ready now. Bish, and the Republican Congress, didn’t. (Yes, I remember that the Dems siezed controll of the Senate, but after 9/11, Bush could have brow beat them into taking action.)

There are other issues surrounding defense and war policy over which Bush will be vulnerable. But really, it all comes back to one issue. Between now and November 2006, the Iraq situation had better show improvement, or the congressional Republicans will be sunk. If the nation percieves that we’re bleeding lives and money into the Iraqi desert with no results, the Dems will be able to use the cut and run rhetorc to full effect.

Even if Iraq does show improvement (and if the press bothers to report it), the Republican coalition is still vulnerable along some of the other faultlines I mentioned above. And the Dems can target these faults on a district by district basis. There doesn’t have to be one overriding issue for the Dems to shift the balance. If the Dems get some people to switch votes because of these issues, and others such as myself decide to sit out the next election, the Reps are sunk.

One last point. (Yeah, finally.) If Iraq is showing improvement, and is out of play in 2006, the Dems have one wedge issue that could perhaps lead to a nation-wide turn against the Reps: the assinine security procedures at airports. It’s not that this in and of itself is a swing issue, but this could be used to point out to people in a very personal way how homeland security is failing. (And here it doesn’t matter if it is failing or not. Perception is the important thing.)

Talk about cargo containers and ungaurded boarders won’t get anywhere. (Especially since the Dems are even more reluctant than the Reps to guard our borders.) But throw in the absurdity of people having to walk through airport security barefoot while all of those cargo containers at the docks go uninspected? That will work.

I am hearing more and more bitching about that single topic, both around the blogosphere and in real life. People find that one tactic to be absurd and aggravating, and it cuts across all political lines.

Not everyone in this country flies every month. But every four or five years? I bet that a significant fraction, quite possibly a majority, of the US populace flys in that span of time, or at least knows someone who has. This aggravation will reach a tipping point. (Additionally it will be conflated with poor airline service.) The question will become “Why do I have to take my g*dd*mned shoes off at the airport when they haven’t even caught bin Laden?” The question as stated doesn’t even make sense, but I’ve found myself asking it at times.

Really, I think airport security measures will become the hot button issue of 2006. It’s the shoes!