I agree completely with the tone & substance of your posting. Never have the tests of self-examination and public scrutiny held more importance for conservatives than today.

One only has to asses the recent elections to comprehend the importance of re-inculcating conservative values; not only to the electorate but to candidates as well. One may see this in microcosm by closely investigating the recent election in NY-23.

Consider NYT Columnist Frank Rich's comments about the 'Jacobin' nature of the Republicans in NY-23 for failing to accept Dede Scozzafava as their standard bearer. He called them 'Stalinists' who had joined a 'putsch'.

And senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told ABC's "This Week" that the grassroots conservative-vs.-GOP leadership battle over NY-23 showed that the Republican Party leadership was "becoming more and more extreme, and more and more marginalized." And believe me, after being directly involved in the hiring of Van Jones, she has proven her credientials as an expert on marginalized extremists.

After the election results were known; David Axelrod said; "… The New York contest for the 23rd Congressional District was the one race that was really a microcosm of the national debate. A Democrat hasn't held that seat for 140 years. … I think that sends a strong message."

Detailed analysis of this election proves Ms. Jarrett, Mr. Rich, and Mr. Axelrod all wrong

Ever since the 2006 elections, the liberal mantra has been; "Conservatism equates to Fascism. It is a tired position of the past and no longer a winning strategy. Conservatives must moderate their message or they will continually lose." By doing this, liberals are doing nothing other than choosing the ground on which they want to fight.

In order to complete this explanation, we must look at the three basic types of conservatives:

• First there are the 'lock-step conservatives. These are the hard corps 15%. The kool aide drinkers that inhabit the fringes of both sides of the political spectrum. These conservatives are most concerned with ideological purity. They will brook no deviation from prescribed conservative dogma. These voters are most likely to either split with the party over an ideological disagreement and vote independent, or stay home altogether.

• Second are the more pragmatic conservatives. These are people that grasp the condition of the institutionalization that long existing parties go through. A most recent example of just such a conservative is the recent IC posting of Phillip Jackson's entitled Politics 101. Phillip understands that winning elections are about gaining an advantage of political power. And that there are districts where a more moderate form of conservatism may turn the tide; providing the necessary majority required to exercise political power. These people admit what most of the rest of us won't admit to; that the major reason to win elections is to win power; because political power grants the ability to drive the future direction of the country. The overwhelming majority fall into this catagory.

• The third type is the 'Country Club' conservative. This statement may mean different things to different people so allow me to attach my personal stigma to it. These are the overly 'moderate' republicans. Compassionate conservatives that have bought into the liberal line that conservatism cannot succeed; that there is no longer room for any but 'moderate'; (read beatable) Republicans. These are the ones that have already ceded the progressive agenda. These are republicans that, for whatever reason, have decided that elections will from now on always be fought on the Left's issues and on the Left's terms. That conservatives will no longer talk about small government and individual liberty but find themselves retreating to one last pitiful rationale: that they can run the progressive left-wing entitlement state more effectively than the Left can. They are so squishy, that denied their personal favorite, they would most likely vote republican anyway; although they may hold their collective noses while doing so. A few will cross over, but not a majority

This is almost what occurred in NY-23. First of all this was a district carried by Obama in 2008 by a margin of 52% to 48%; a narrow win at best. Second; the Obama Administration figured they could get a 'twofer'. They could look bipartisan by appointing John Mc Hugh (R-NY) to an administration position, and pick off another historically republican House seat in a special election because of the President's popularity.

Due to some rather arcane rules within the State Republican Party of New York, the Republican Party's controlling faction there decided not to hold a primary. Instead they instituted the 'democratic' playbook and selected a RINO conservative candidate. The Republican Party apparatus sought to "lead" by following, and chose the extremely liberal Republican Assembly Woman Dierdre Scozzafava to run for the seat. By running a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-deficit spending Republican; they sought to prove the democrat talking points correct. They had 'reevaluated' their position in accordance with your own criteria Ron. Unfortunately they arrived at the wrong answer.

Conservatives within the district were outraged. Doug Hoffman, a true conservative chose to run as an independent, but campaigned openly on his conservative values and never passed up an opportunity to ridicule the current Washington Administration. 96 hours before the election Dierdre Scozzafava couldn't take the heat any longer and withdrew from the race. 24 hours after that at the behest of Rep. Steve Israel, a Long Island Democrat, she actually endorsed her opponent Democrat Bill Owens over the conservative Doug Hoffman.

Granted, Owens went on to win the election; 49% to 45%, a 4 point margin. However; this race in a nutshell actually proves the direct opposite of what democrats have been saying for years. An unabashed conservative runs, without party support, in a staunchly conservative district: And after being thrown under the bus by the declared republican 'powers-that-be', still manages to close the margin to 4 points in a special election. If I were Bill Owens, I wouldn't be signing any long term apartment leases in Washington DC. Because my guess is that Doug Hoffman will return in 2010 and hand Bill Owens his head.

The lessons learned from this election are;

• A certain amount of conservative 'soul searching' is routinely required; and right now most certainly justified.

• The 'venue', or the political demographic of the district must be taken into account when selecting and supporting candidates for political office.

• In certain circumstances, a more 'restrained' form of conservative candidate may be a better match in some districts as the ultimate goal of any political party is to achieve the majority that bestows control of the agenda.

• Capitulation to the opposition almost never works

• Conservatism does work; almost every time it's tried!