I don't know who said that ...

but they're an idiot.

And I say that in full knowledge that you may then reveal the name of someone I've endorsed in the past. I would add that I have heard conservative commentators advocate that the conservative movement of 2009+ is one that embraces and advocates the traditional principles of America dating back to its' founding. I can only hope the commentator you heard "meant" this and botched the delivery, otherwise he is ridiculously uninformed. I will take one glaring example ...

Perhaps the most famous Republican after Lincoln and Reagan is Teddy Roosevelt. And up until Bull Moose he was every bit a member of the Republican party ... and perhaps the BIGGEST progressive of his era. No one was seen as "anti-free market" by the business community more than ol' TR. Now there is some debate over whether he had a true strain of populism within his DNA or whether he was acting in his own political expediency by adopting a sort of William Jennings Bryant tongue towards "the rich", but either way the affect was the same. On the other hand, the founding Fathers can be considered WILDLY liberal for their day in suggesting equality among men regardless of birth status; voting in and out leaders; challenging Divine Right, etc. But "liberal" in the classical sense, not the modern political sense. And just that kind of differential must be clearly articulated at the onset of any intelligent conversation of the evolution of political labels.

As an nice addendum there is an ideological civil war being waged at current. At stake is the soul of the GOP. Modern conservatives have recognized a self defeating organism within their Party, manifested in what I call a "them light" syndrome. Lyndsey Graham & John McCain are good examples but a fantastic scenario illustrating just what is going on has unfolded in upstate New York in recent days. Today is election day in 3 notable states - gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, and a congressional race in New York. The seat in question has been held by the GOP for over 100 years, literally. The most recent longtime occupant was tapped by Obama to be the new Army Chief of Staff, thus a special off year election was arranged (which as I said just happens to be taking place today). Just days ago a new poll emerged showing for the first time that Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman were both leading Republican Dede Scozzafava.

Why? Given the century old hold, why?

Answer: Scozzafava is a pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro card check Republican. In light of the poll and the growing grass roots demand for "true" conservatives to retake the GOP (my voice being among them) she withdrew - and promptly endorsed the Democrat candidate, validating every fear and criticism being expressed by conservatives! And just as interesting famous names such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson openly endorsed the Conservative Party nominee rather than their own Party's nominee, and long before she dropped out.

It is my opinion that a 2009+ conservative is properly defined as: 1.)strong national security; 2.) limited government (this captures everything from low taxes to rejecting public health care) and; 3.)traditional social values. And that this definition includes the largest swath of the American electorate ... meaning if an articulate representative of that "conservatism" would simply emerge he or she would quickly find great popularity and electoral success. So while Gingrich et al may argue a GOP "purge" wont help enlarge our coalition, I submit that it is precisely by demanding our GOP nominees be of such a stripe that we will construct the largest possible tent.