David Keene is Chairman of The American Conservative Union and has a long history in Republican politics. But recently found it unpleasant being on the receiving end of the tactics that have brought that party to power. In a C-SPAN interview he discussed �those wounds� created by � the way in which White House operatives reacted to criticism of the Miers nomination.�

He said �They didn�t have enough of a case so they immediately attacked the critics, and our attitude towards that was�Hey, we are part of the same team. These are legitimate questions and if we can�t ask them without, you know, being ridden out of town on a rail then we don�t want to be part of that team.� Nothing ever said by a Democrat in an editorial or in Congress has more eloquently summed up the experience of refusing to follow in �lock step� (as Mr. Keene put it) behind this administration.

Candidate George W Bush told us �I am a Uniter not a divider.� The deficit between that promise and the Presidents policy is now obvious to at least 60% of Americans and the cost of that may be high in the next few election years. But the blame for this is not entirely that of President Bush or his staff. The blame for conservative original sin goes to William F. �Bill� Buckley.

Mr. Buckley is the Father of the modern American conservative movement. His appearances on the ground breaking PBS show Firing Line, which he created, provided the most interesting and challenging counterpoint to Democratic power in the 1960s and early 70s. He founded The National Review. Which may be the only American conservative magazine to achieve greatness. Brilliant, courageous and occasionally funny, he led his people out of the wilderness. Mr. Buckley has lived to see his followers gain control of both houses of Congress, The White House and now the Supreme Court. He is revered, as he well should be, by those who now rule the promised land. But the flaw at the heart of this diamond is his own favorite tool: fast talk on television.

Few in the public debate could hold there own in person with Mr. Buckley. The good point sometimes lost to the better flourish. A strategy that was both entertaining and fair given the weight of numbers he faced alone. The problem was when those like McLaughlin on PBS and Novak on CNN discovered that they could replace wit with derision and intelligence with decibels. The louder and meaner formulae was not as elegant, but that was an advantage. It played better to those unable to keep up with Firing Line. It democratized the movement.

Radio Conservatives and Fox News brought moonshine versions of the Buckley style to a lower ebb and a wider audience. The message of this movement has been distilled down to �SHUT UP !!!�, and has proven sufficiently foolproof to put power in the hands of those incompetent to use it.

It is as if there was only so much conservative wisdom in the world. Once it was concentrated in the hearts of a few. Now sadly diluted. The National Review Online has fallen to Jonah Goldberg. Son of Lucienne, the woman who brought us Linda Tripp. His personal notoriety being a function of his access to the very dirty laundry of Monica Lewinsky. It was his mother who instructed Ms. Tripp �Tell Monica to keep the dress.�

When Bill Buckley led American conservatives he was covered in the blood of his Democratic opponents. His heirs are covered in something else.

If Blumenthal read all three of Newt's books, kudos to him. He would be the first. God, who could stand that drivel.

Now let's get to the "war". We Democrats would like to thank the 'elves' for pushing the Whitewater investigations. This slowed down Clinton so he couldn't push the Democratic agenda as he was elected to do. If this wasn't a war against Clinton than it was a war against the popular Democratic ideals he supported.

What about the Sudan affair. Clinton was again lambasted by the Republicans even though he inherited that mission from Bush I. Was dear old Newt calling for restaint in dealing with Clinton. Was he calling for reasoned discourse? Did newt say that those people calling for American troops' withdrawl were 'unpatriotic'? No he accused Clinton of 'nation building'. That might not have been war, but it certainly wasn't patriotically supporting Clinton.

How about the cruise missiles aimed at Bin Laden? What position did Newt have then? How about wag the dog? Did Newt advocate a serious evaluation of the threat Al Quada posed to the US? Did Phd Newt seriously advocate a platform where we studied the threat to our national security? Naw, he waved the flag and pandered to his conservative base. Some might consider this a war against our common American defense.

Despite his Phd Newt is either a doofus, or he is a politician who doesn't care about our common needs. He should stay where he belongs ... collecting money from his friends safely in retirement. I hear the Republicans are looking for some talented lobbyists.

Well, yes and no. I have no doubt that Bush & Co. intended to deceive. I am less convinced that they actually did deceive elected Democrats. Not long before the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war, I spoke with an aide to a Democratic Senator, who told me his boss was not convinced by the "evidence" that had been presented that war was the correct thing to pursue. As it turned out, only one Senator running for re-election in 2004, the late, great Paul Wellstone, voted "no".

It may be that all those Senators facing re-election or defeat were fully persuaded that war was the right course, or at least that they should give the President authority to go to war. But I am inclined to think that, whether they were fooled or not, they felt sure that their constituents were persuaded by what the President was putting out about mushroom clouds, etc., and that it would be electoral suicide to vote "no."

Paul Wellstone thought better of Minnesotans. It was a close election, but I feel certain that, had he lived, he would be in the Senate today.