I wonder if Bob's moderate GOP comment came from Rep Sheryl Allen? He mentions that he just interviewed her in his article and then quotes an anonymous GOP female moderate in his opinion column. It's time to end this dual charade.

"The Republican Party has been relegated to the Deep South and a few Mountain West states, like Utah, Idaho and Wyoming."

What is the basis for this absurd statement? Poll after poll confirms that the conservative movement is gaining in numbers, not shrinking. More and more people all across the country are waking up to the utter failure that is liberal ideology. Let Bernick's wishful thinking blind him to that fact.

As for GOP "moderates," don't take a sabbatical, take a hike. It's time that true conservative principles guided the GOP. Which reminds me, what do you call a GOP "moderate" the day after the election. You're right, the loser.

"Poll after poll confirms that the conservative movement is gaining in numbers, not shrinking."

Those would be wishful thinking polls conducted by wishful thinking conservative organizations.

Meanwhile back on Earth, the poll numbers haven't changed - the farther to the right the GOP moves, the less it is trusted by the public.

Utah may indeed turn further to the right (if such a thing is possible), but that doesn't mean the rest of the country is interested in following them off the cliff.

How do conservative values benefit America?

War in Iraq -- no weapons of mass destruction found and trillions spent on it have driven up the federal deficit

Tax cuts mostly for the wealthy -- when does the trickle down kick in for middle America? Tax cuts without paying for them also has driven up the deficit

Gut feel and relgious belief over science -- ignore fundamental science of stem cells, evolution, climate change, genenic basis of homosexuality, etc. This allows us to keep our prejudices and pretend problems don't exist

Government is evil so cut it -- now we have ineffective government that can't help Katrina victims, monitor toxic products/foods from China, or cover basic needs of our soldiers abroad (e.g., shields for Humvees)

Tax cuts as a solution for everything -- so if you're out of work and owe no taxes, the tax cuts don't help you, sorry!

Love of oil/coal/nuclear power -- oil addiction to oil-rich dictatorships threatens national security and we can't drill our way to energy independence; perpetuate myth of "clean coal" even though it doesn't exist; "go nuclear" even when it is the most subsidized source of energy

It seems to me "wishful" ignores the results of the election last November. A look at the electoral map (found at numerous online sites) shows the Pubs won only the deep South and a few mountain west States like Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. "Poll after poll confirms the opposite", really? It is tough to spin 365 to 173. Bernick is telling it like it is...at least for now. I just hope wish keeps on RINO hunting through the 2010 election. That's the ticket!

I think what you have stated could best be defined as "neo-conservatism" which nowadays has nothing to do with true conservatism. We need to be careful about throwing 'conservative' around as a general term for any who oppose liberal policies. Ron Paul is a conservative, and opposed the war in Iraq. George Bush is a NEO-conservative and led the way into Iraq. There are more differences which I won't go into now except to mention that we can make any group sound bad by pigeon-holing them to specific beliefs. For example:
What do liberals stand for?
Abortion for convenience--women and men who believe they are ready to do the things parents do, minus the kid part, choose 'choice' over the life of a fetus, so not to be 'punished' by a baby.

Out of control spending-- giving billions of dollars to failed banks and auto companies with no say from public how money is spent

Welfare-- help those with no desire to work live off the dole and take advantage of hard working middle class American citizens

You see, that was easy, but not very informative or conclusive

I think you are talking about different kinds of "conservative".

I'm the kind that wants tax cuts by reducing "defense" and welfare of all kinds to an absolute minimum.

I do not support pre-emptive strikes or any war that is not purely defensive, in other words I do not support attack masquerading as "defense".

I am not alone, in the conservative movement, in this, but I certainly know that other "conservatives" think the Iraq / Afghanistan effort is necessary and want to stay there for up to a hundred years in extreme cases.

We have little in common.

Ron Paul represents my views; pity we didn't have at least one of him in this state and 48 others (Texas already has one). There are one or two others in the Congress. Proportionally we should have a score of them.

In March of this year Senator Bob Bennett was rated one of the ten most liberal Republicans in the Senate by Human Events based on the American Conservative Union Ratings for 2008. Why Bennett would pay money to convince voters he is Conservative is beyond me.

"Meanwhile back on Earth, the poll numbers haven't changed - the farther to the right the GOP moves, the less it is trusted by the public."

Could you tell us what poll you are referring to?

Are you saying that people don't trust those who advocate more freedom, less government which is proportionately related to freedom, traditional family values, Constitutional allegiance, and security through both moral and military strength.

That would mean they trust those who advocate less freedom, bigger government which would proportionately deprive them of freedom, deviant lifestyles, abandonment of constitutional principles and adoption of socialistic/communistic principles, and security through immorality and a free for all open border policy.

Meanwhile back at earth.

No, it would mean people would remain fearful of a political party that they feel led us into war, failed to protect us on 9/11, put us into debt, which now seems to be the Dem's agenda as well, who spied on us and view two adult members of society in a healthy relationship as deviant based on religion.

Bigger government can DEFINITELY lead to less human rights but I believe that free health care is giving more basic rights to the public along with the right to have a civil union between two grown individuals who love each other so long as a church is not forced to "marry" them which was what the case was in Cali. All of these points I believe expand freedoms for people. If some one loves some one of the same gender and is not getting married in your church how does it effect you? saying that they can't do that by law is, by definition, expanding government.

OK, gang, regarding polls, conservatives, Republicans and the public, what seem like opposite sides of this debate really aren't. First, more people are describing themselves as conservative. Second, fewer describe themselves as Republican. Nationally, as support for "generic" Democrats is going down, support for "generic" Republicans is remaining at the depressed levels it went to over the last several election cycles. Right now, the Republican Party as a whole is suffering the problem more commonly experienced by Democrats--reconciling its flame-throwers with a larger group of supporters who aren't so hard-line. Playing to the wings (hence the term "wing-nut") generates passion, excitement and participation from highly-motivated activists, while embracing the more centrist elements is generally key to building a majority. Here in Utah, with such a weak Democratic Party, this battle largely plays out inside the Republican Party. In states with closer partisan divisions, from Reagan through Bush II, that swing generally worked for Republicans. Last year, it went the Democrats way. Both parties are experiencing internal divisions, the GOP a little more so, and enthusiasm for both is down. Whoever keeps their wingnuts happy enough without alienating the rest wins.

BTW, that discussion references a two-party dynamic. If self-described "Republicans" are still in decline while self-described "conservatives" are on the rise, what could that mean? Two possibilities: first, that warring factions within the parties battle it out to temporary conclusions and thus give more or less clear signals about the meaning of being Republican or Democrat, or second, an exploration of political activity outside party boundaries. Palin and others are keeping options open for now by proceeding down both tracks simultaneously. In some cases this can lead to intra-party fractures like New York's this week, creating an opening for the party that wouldn't have won otherwise. It's also possible that disaffection with both parties could generate a critical mass of independent voters that mobilize a serious challenge to the existing 2-party hegemony.