I was surprised to find that Goldwater gave in to the trademark fear-mongering of modern conservatives. We're always reminded by liberals about "good conservatives", and Goldwater is commonly described as one. Perhaps Eisenhower should be the new example of a good conservative. He was the last Republican president to work within a liberal consensus (FDR's), he used his VP, Nixon, to neutralize the right-wing, and he was a dove compared to both the Democrats and the Republican right-wing. He effectively kept the Cold War cold, and warned against a politically-active military industrial complex in his farewell to the nation. He also said this in his farewell, which made me tear up a little when reading it because it made me think of 9/11 and something that Bush, or anyone, should have said to a grieving nation:

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment. "

Yes, everything in your last paragraph was spot on. But a little devil's advocate if I may: As long as the nebulous political trait of "character" is fair game, isn't everything fair game? Because character is in the eye of the beholder, and until all puritanism has been purged from our society, as it has in Europe, then people are absolutely going to care about whether Cindy McCain is a good mother. Why would John McCain marry a sub-par mother? Doesn't he want his kids to have as much "character" as he does? Similarly, the non-traditional marriage of Bill and Hillary raised all sorts of red flags among the Christian Right. Like it or not, journalism has become more democratic since the Cronkite era. The old news actually dared to decide what was in the "public interest". 24-hour cable news, however, is plugged into public opinion and therefore knows exactly how many weeks to devote to Anna Nicole Smith. Isn't that great!?

I love ya Glenn, but Cathy Young is schooling you over this Russia thing. It was clear to both the U.S. and Europe days after the conflict started that Russia was over reacting, and indeed, Russia defied the peace agreement brokered by the EU about a month into the conflict. Cathy's strongest argument is that you are framing this conflict with moral equivalency. The fact remains, that while both of these countries have had territorial disputes for a very long time, only one of them is actually trying to become a liberal democracy. The other is doing the opposite. I happen to think that America can find a non-crazy way to defend democracies around the world from authoritarianism. Do we need to start with this country? Hell yes. Can we, in the meantime, stick up for democracies that are clearly being harassed by authoritarian neighbors? I hope so.