There is an old saying about armies; they are like a plate of spaghetti, that you cannot push ahead of you, you must drag it behind.  In my mind, this is the biggest problem facing conservatives in the current political environment.  After all, if you are going to "drag" a any kind of movement behind you, you have to lead.  And that's really where our current problems lie.  Truth is, it's not all about Iraq--it's about a lack of leadership.  And the sooner we see that the better off we'll be.  "Compassionate conservatism" hasn't worked, and for the sake of the conservative movement it must be abandoned.

The core of all leadership seems to be the ability to define what a movement is about; this is particularly true when it comes to political movements.  And this, my friends, is what the conservative movement lacks most at the moment, a defining set of principles, set forth and defended by those who lead, that provide the framework for those in the movement to take concerted action.  When I voted for Reagan in 1984, I knew what he believed.  He believed in limited government, lower taxes, a strong military.  It was pretty simple--I agreed with him(I did) or I didn't, and I voted accordingly.

Fast forward to today, when a Democrat is front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination.  A pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay rights liberal is running for the Republican nomination.  Let's be honest, the only difference between Billary and Guiliani is that the latter is likely to be more conservative on defense and security, and party name.  That's it.  Reagan must be spinning in his grave.

The latest dose of this nonsense involves the Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rush Limbaugh, as the Governator, hereby referred to as "Arnie", called Rush "irrelevant" during an interview on the Today Show earlier this week.  On Tuesday, according to Limbaugh, Arnie's staff e-mailed Limbaugh requesting an opportunity to appear on his radio show.  The transcript is at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032107/content/01125106.guest.html.

The problem is that the theme of compassionate conservatism is a blithe sort of surrender of those very ideals that separate one party from another, and Arnie represents this trend definitively.  Limbaugh pressed Arnie over his liberal actions as governor, to which Arnie replied, "You know, I have to, ultimately, make decisions that are based on bringing people together, bringing Democrats and Republicans together, and to really working for the people and trying to resolve issues."

Yes, every politician has an office to which he or she is appointed, and indeed ruling is not the same as campaigning.  But Limbaugh had it right when he replied, "The problem with that is the liberals and the Democrats are not going to punt their ideology because it defines them...",  and that's the crucial difference.  You are in the party to because you believe in it's values and desire to govern by them.  Or you are a traitor.

Bush is in the position he is in partly because the idea of invading Iraq was a popular one at the time it was made, and he found the temptation of popularity irresistible.  Our enemies had struck at us; we must strike back.  But outside Iraq, the administration has been bumbling and timid.  In doing so, it has set itself up for scorn, because it is human nature to pick on the weak.  Bush promises he will stand his ground on the subpoenas concerning the firing of the federal prosecutors currently working their way through the House.  But this is a Presidency that has so far simply been too nice and suffered too much from attention disorder to resist it's opponents and carry through the process of governing.  It is a weakness we are all suffering for.

I have a confession to make.  I have recently discovered Michael Savage, and I must admit to being taken by him.  From writing books entitled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" to actually calling liberals names on his radio show, he probably seems a little loony to many.  But he and Ann Coulter have the magic bullet that can renew the Republican party, especially it's conservative base.  Savage and Coulter fight back, call names back, debunk liberal ideas as crazy and a little dangerous.

But that's an important part of politics; not just to promote your own ideas, but to discredit the ideas of your opponent.  Call them diseased, and divide them from the popular support they need to hold power.  Have we really forgotten Reagan holding up the miniature dollar bill and asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago"?  You didn't really think you were going to win by being nice, did you?

What we need is leadership, leaders that will stand up to the other party and refuse to be bullied.  Leadership that is motivated by a central group of principles that it will not surrender for political expediency.  But most important, we need leaders willing to fight for those principles, promote them unwaveringly in the public arena.  We should not be surprised that the two sides are always clawing and pushing at each other-that's the nature of the game.  What we need to do is start playing it.

That's how you win.