After a week of election-related blogging, with fifteen days left to Nov 4, I’m changing topics for a while.

P.S. @ 2008-10-20 1058H: Oh but before I go. The big news of yesterday was Colin Powell’s endorsement of BHO. His timing, really, is quite belated. Were JSM or any other Republican to say, in reaction to the Powell endrosement, as simple and solemn “of course,” the media would merely jump on the imagined intimation that it’s “because there’s gonna be a brotha in the White House.”

Never mind that the job of a Secretary Of State is to be the chief diplomat of the sitting president and the diplomatic voice of his foreign policy. Never mind that his record will show that he willfully undermined GWB’s positions. Never mind that there is a reason why he hasn’t been SecState for the past eight years. There is a reason why he is knocking Republicans, and that is because at the time when he was expected to do his job and, yes, tout the adminstration line, he decided to speak out, not privately within the Oval Office where it’s supposed to be, but out in public. It is not unfair to intimate that as SecState he was a man of divided loyalties: to his office, and to himself, and the office of the POTUS and this is why his endorsement has to be met with nothing more than a cold, but passive disdain.

More commentary by: Michelle Malkin, Victor Davis Hanson, and Wizbang.

I take a short leave of poliblogging with a few thoughts: I think the most annoying meme right now is that having BHO for president will be “good for Republicans” or “good for Conservatives and/or Conservatism.” I think that is the biggest load of bullshit I will ever read online. Bigger bullshit than any campaign lie told by either candidate. Why is it that the ones who tout this the most are the ones we have now called Conservative “apostates?” (I hate using the term: apostasy relates to religious rejection and Conservatism is in no way a religious matter to me.)

If moving to the Left is good for Conservatism, then the opposite must hold true: moving to the Right is good for Liberalism. I don’t see anyone on the Left doing that, thank you. BHO tacked to the center-right but it isn’t good for Movement Liberalism and the Radical Leftist political philosophy of BHO’s. Moving to the center is good for WINNING ELECTIONS, but to what point do you move away from your governing principles in the name of victory?

I am sick and tired of Conservatives who think that Conservatism has run out of ideas. The ideas we have have been around long before even I was born. We believe that the government, at any level, needs to be limited in its encroachment into the lives of people. We believe that yes, there are problems that people face and that the state, at some point, does provide assistance, but at what price? Good is the enemy of Great: sometimes measures fall short. However, Perfect is the enemy of Good: the contrarian Liberal mentality to a Conservative program is that because it fails to help all in need of the help, the program is invalid on all its merits. It is not unknown that the main failure of Conservatism is that it fails to do enough, and that Liberalism fails in its excess. But heed this: in my short time here in the USA I have seen that the main failure of bipartisan solutions is that when a measure requires a method from one side of the aisle, the other side has to dilute it in the name of principle and the measure, wherever it may have originated politically, falls flat.

I just keep in mind that reaching a perfect outcome in goverment would involve so much government expansion into the freedoms of individuals that the solution breeds more problems than what was originally addressed.