No…better make that 110%!

No one’s suggesting 100% agreement. That’s neither realistic nor desirable.

I agree 100%.

Getting rid of Boehner.
Reid is a buffoon and a caricature, albeit one with power. He is the evil in plain sight. It’s almost unnecessary to oppose him, as he daily demonstrates his unfitness for Senate Majority Leader.

Boehner is the enemy within. In that capacity, he is able to damage conservatism much more readily than Reid ever could. Boehner frustrates the conservative agenda. Boehner sometimes pursues statist initiatives. Boehner lulls the base into a false sense of security when they should be up in arms. Boehner gives ideological ammunition and political cover to our enemies…in other words, “aid and comfort.”

Wait and see: if the establishment remains in firm control of the party and agenda after 2014 (assuming a Republican takeover of the Senate), the refrain will become “We’re only TWO HALVES of one-third of government!” (i.e. “we’re powerless”)
With all that power, the rollback of the statist agenda will somehow, mysteriously never materialize.

Oh, but amnesty will be pushed as a bi-partisan measure. They will have enough power for that.

This requires a micro-Fisking (does that count as “microaggression?”):

“You may not like Bush’s compassionate conservatism, but, in fact, Bush did try to empower local groups who had their own ideas about how to address problems.”

I can’t remember any specific instances of this, but let’s say it’s true. So what?
I remember specific instances of the opposite: Bush teamed up with big Pharma to pass Medicare part D; a budget-busting program that was never offset with either tax increases or spending cuts. So, in this one instance we have cronyism, big-government expansion, and fiscal recklessness…all in the name of “compassionate conservatism.”
That’s how it was sold: “compassionate conservatism.” Which makes me think “compassionate conservatism” is just a euphemism for statism and STEALING MY F’ING MONEY!
Even if one graciously concedes that Bush “empowered local groups” (which I don’t remember), he also empowered the state and crony industry. At best, a wash.

“Conservatives are compassionate. They donate time and money, often in their communities, and they get results.”

I know this is true. I know it to such an extent, that I don’t feel the need to prove it; though I can: multiple studies (Science!!!) have shown that conservatives give more to charity than Dems, etc., etc.
The problem with this public declaration is that it seems like you’re (desperately?) trying to prove something. To whom?
It reminds me of conservatives trying to prove they’re not racist…to a bunch of racist Democrats.
Which segues into the next point…

“Don’t attack the term. Use [“compassionate conservatism”] to advance conservative ideas.”
Here we get to the crux of the problem: many “compassionate conservative” ideas are not actually conservative (as demonstrated above).
Ironically, and not as obviously, many conservative ideas are not “compassionate.” (depending on how you define the term)
Criminal Justice is rarely compassionate.
Prosecution of war is almost never compassionate.
Curtailing the expansion of food stamps isn’t compassionate. (or at least, that’s how it’s advertised)

How many government boondoggle programs were sold with the (now-clichéd) line, “do it for the children?”

Life is rough. Sometimes compassion is appropriate, and sometimes it is actually harmful. By touting our compassion, we are setting ourselves up to be ridiculed and discredited in those instances where compassion is detrimental. Because in the end, FEELING is no way to run a country.

So yeah, I’m gonna attack that term…without compassion.

If you want my dollars and my vote do not begin the conversation by accusing me of being a wild eyed radical for wanting a less costly and less intrusive government. Do not stand by helplessly as this administration trashes the Constitution. Don’t ignore laws that are inconvenient. Do your sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution.

Outstanding analysis, you’ve nailed it.

expat,

Getting rid of Reid without getting rid of Boehner, et al is of limited utility. See Matt SE’s #2 point @ 4:34

Left in office, the GOP leadership will just betray us…again.