I love sports analogies. They always seem to "fit".
Here's one of a boxer who trained to fight a another boxer who was a devastating puncher. He trained for weeks on end to "stick and move". Stay on his "bicycle" and box from the outside,a departure from his normal style of conventional boxing, hands up working deliberately with a jab and right cross."One two" style deliberate movement and relatively flat footed The night of the fight,he implemented his plan to the letter for 3 rounds. Ten seconds into the the 4th round, he "zigged" when he should have "zagged" and got caught with a good right hand. He was stunned to say the least. He then proceeded to continue to fight as he always had. "One two style" with deliberate movement and relatively flat footed. Had he trained in his normal style,defense and simple "one two" boxing,he probably would have stood a better chance of winning or go down fighting his way. The punch knocked the "plan" right out of his head and, of course, he got his butt kicked. I liken this to what has happened to the Republican Party. They made an adjustment in "ideology" to compete with Democrats for popularity,"their fight" and compromised their own ideology to do so. When they got that good "punch" in '04, they reverted back to, "Right to Life,Lower Taxes and Less Government",the only points of being a Republican that they "knew".
First off, there is no such thing as a "Neo-Con". Conservatism, by nature, is rooted in the established rule of the entity it in which it is involved. In this case, the government of the United States of America and its Constitution. A "Neo-Conservatism" would have to remove itself from the Constitution as its basis,thus, no longer being "Conservative". Sounds a bit dogmatic,but that is what it is, and who says being "dogmatic" is a bad thing? Those who want to "change" the rule of the entity for their own selfish reasoning and would unashamed of circumventing the established process written in that would "legally" affect any change.
There is no "New Conservatism". It has not been reinvented. If it is/was then it is devoid of any foundation. Why Conservatism "works" is because when there is ever a doubt or controversy,there is an established and documented benchmark to go to a draw from to regain stability. This is mandatory in the managing of a Republic such as this. To arbitrarily alter the foundation or core principles compromises any possibilities of regaining stability when,as human beings,we falter and loose our way.
For the most part,the present roster of elected members of the Republican Party not only are being bullied by Democrats on all fronts,but at their own core,individually,for the most part, have no foundation in the Conservative principles of the Republican Party. They are products of media approval as moderates who don't just "reach across the aisle" but "walk across it". Bipartisanism to Democrats is "you agree with 'us' and are willing to do things 'our way' ".This is what defines being a "moderate". In reality,they "are" simply because, to them, it is the best way to "get things done". This doesn't happen when Democrats are the minority. Just ask Tom Daschle. Just ask Jim Jeffords who went Independent to give Democrats a closer count in the Senate and, ironically,what chastised by Arlen Specter for doing so. Democrats have no problem going down being who they are. The problem is "who they are" includes deceit,distraction and misdirection of intent. They are the preachers of tolerance and the most intolerant of opposition,but I digress.
Now there is the mantra of Republicans needing to show that they are a "big tent" party. Again,allowing,one to have the media define them and who and how they should be and two,disregarding the problems Liberal/Progressive Democrats have within their own issues. Environmentalists have a conflict within themselves. How do you establish "Clean Energy" with wind and not endanger birds? This is one of the problems they are dealing with. Or yet another,construct the grid to get the power where needed and not infringe on the desert turtle. The more people under the tent,the more apt to experience toes stepped on during processes. But more over,no core principles to draw on to solve the problem. Without some foundation established, it becomes difficult to establish priority sequences.
So a war within begins. Do we listen to Rush or Newt? Do we listen Colin Powell? I say,none of the above. Let's go to the fundamentals of Conservatism. That will take us to rule of law and the Constitution. Examine the situation from "there" and that standpoint and surmise the "right and wrong" of it all. It's pretty safe to assume that this where Rush and Newt are based,but to be sure,examine for yourselves and then go into battle. Win or lose on who you "are" and based in "what". Convince the people to join "YOU" and why they should. If you join "them" then who are you and based on what? If you compromise your ideology for the sake of creating a "Big Tent" then you will have little control over that which is under it. Then what?
Just a thought.........