You can't prove that scientifically, therefore it can't be true! Only a brainwashed red-state rube would accept poppycock about a guy named "Caesar" who was "assasinated".

The Ides of March still pose dangers for some...

I'm as big a fan of ancient history as anyone, and much more so than most, but I have to wonder: have the resident conservatives here just completely despaired of commenting on the utter shipwreck of state that is the current administration & its foibles? Really, do the denizens of this blog really have nothing to say about the Libby verdict (and the ongoing Plame hearings)... the US attorneys scandal, the FBI abuses, and the ever-shortening political lifespan of Alberto Gonzales... the rolling of heads in the army over poor hospital conditions... the congressional battles over funding & defunding...?

This should be an exciting time to be a political blogger! And yet, I can understand why y'all might be disheartened by the fact that the current GOP high command has been revealed to, well, completely suck. But c'mon, there's a war over the future of conservatism going on -- including, it seems, whether it is going to have one at all. (Cf., the battle between Andrew Sullivan and, well, everybody else on the right; on the flip side, the battle between Dinesh D'Souza and, well, everybody else on the right.) And I'm really very puzzled as to why this blog has so little interest in chiming in on these issues. I remember the early days when there used to be some ambition around here to take part in national dialogues; but that seems to be almost completely moribund of late. And that strikes me as unfortunate; the right needs more non-insane voices, which this blog has, at least on occasion, succeeded in being.

(I should say, it's not at all my intention to pick on JC in particular -- quite the opposite, really -- but this post was just a useful spot for me to vent this complaint.)

Phil, as for the war over the future of conservatism, I've touched on that before. I haven't read Sully's book, but from what I gather, he's arguing in bad faith. Responding to him doesn't seem like a worthwhile task. Likewise for D'Souza (though I've yet to read the official NR review, both Buckley and Ponnuru reject it).

More generally, and I can only speak for myself, my silence doesn't reflect my lack of interest; I've simply become a harsher critic of my own commentary. I only like to speak when I have something original to say.

My impression is that you're wrong -- deeply wrong, even -- about Sullivan's book, but not D'Souza's. And my point wasn't really to hand out writing assignments (which of course I am in no position to do). But, still, there's kind of a big dialogue going on, and like I said, I find it hard to believe that y'all have nothing to contribute to it.

And, c'mon, this is the blogosphere -- one post from well over a year ago is, for all practical purposes, the equivalent of having never said anything at all! :-)

Although I am (as you'll no doubt have noticed) a committed liberal, I think that there's lots of good to be had in having a healthy, _real_ conservative movement (read: not just about crony capitalism & hating gays) in this country, and a legitimate GOP for the Dems to have to compete with for votes. But the current conservative movement is _so_ rife with utter intellectual garbage, that it seems by and large to have almost completely forgotten how to think. And the current GOP is, at the top, not so much a political party but an organized crime syndicate. And, damnit, I want you thoughtful, non-criminal conservatives to put up a bit of a fight already! Not against me & my kind, or at least not _just_ against me & my kind, but for the the renewed intellectual & moral health of your own.

I should add, we've already been through this on the left. That's what neoliberalism was about, and it's why nutjob lefties are almost all _fringe_ lefties, and voted for Ralph Nader. And we're a better political faction for it. Conservatives had been saying to America, since Goldwater at least: give us the ball, and we'll show you how we can run with it. And, in 2000, you _did_ get the ball, and more or less collapsed backwards over our own goal line. And you have to start dealing with the resulting wreckage, both for the country at large and for conservatism itself. It's a project I'm sincerely interested in participating in -- the neoliberal project would never have succeeded without good back-and-forth with market and fiscal conservatives, for example -- but there's no point in even _trying_ to dialgue with the Hewitt/Malkin/Coulterites.

Thanks for being so gracious in not handing out writing assingments.

Part of the reason I don't have anything to contribute to the debates over conservatism is that I've largely tuned out contemporary conservatism -- the link I provided was a signal that there is little of interest happening there, which is why most of the fodder for my posts comes from libertarians, economists, and the Left.

And that's why I blog, to reflect on what interests me. Now take John Cole at Balloon Juice, who seems to be the epitome of your kind of conservative. I admire is honesty and passion, and his blog is a welcome voice on the right. But I don't often read it because I don't think it's very thought-provoking. Ditto for TPM, despite its value as a collection of important information.

Were I to abandon my interests in favour of the subjects you deam imperative, blogging would seem more like a chore than a labour of love -- and you would have much less of it.

Which is a long way of saying that if you are dissatisfied with ITA, then you can expect a full refund in the mail -- just provide your name and address.

And as for Sully, I think this review captures it well.

Zach - Best. Comment. Ever.

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating, but nicely put. Again.