While Mrs. Clinton already has $17 million to spend on the race, Ms. McFarland has raised about $600,000 for her Congressional bid, though she and her husband, Alan, an investment banker, are wealthy. Mr. Rollins said she would be more successful than Ms. Pirro with Republican donors nationwide because of her history with President Reagan and her work on military issues, such as being an author of his famous "Star Wars" speech.

"She has the stature and gravitas that Republicans will embrace," Mr. Rollins said. "The former mayor of Yonkers is not necessarily going to be viewed as an impressive candidate by major figures in the party."

Mr. Spencer, who has been running since last spring, dismissed Ms. McFarland in an interview as "a liberal Manhattan Republican elitist" and said she was too late because he had won support from Republicans and the Conservative Party's executive committee. The full Conservative Party will pick its candidate in May; every Republican who has won statewide since 1974 has had its endorsement.

Under Mr. Spencer, crime rates and local taxes fell in Yonkers, and new schools and waterfront projects were built. Yet he had controversy: As mayor, while married, he fathered two children with his chief of staff. After years of questions, he publicly acknowledged the relationship, divorced his wife and married his former aide.

For Stephen J. Minarik III, the state Republican chairman who recruited Ms. Pirro and is now helping Mr. Spencer, it has been a long year of strategizing that he would like to conclude without a Republican primary battle. He said the door was not closed on Ms. McFarland \ufffd who just met yesterday with Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader \ufffd but it was very late to start a candidacy.

"We really have to turn our sights onto Hillary Clinton," Mr. Minarik said, "and stop her before she can run for president."

So anybody (like BeeP) who stubbornly insists that the "market will adjust" is either lying, or ignoring the increasingly obvious fact that the "market" is being manipulated.

[...]

What it takes to make someone a "conservative" in Bozell's eyes is the same as what is required in the eyes of all Bush followers -- a willingness to support Bush's actions because they are the actions of George Bush.

We see the [link|http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/11.html#a7117|same thing happening] to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich [link|http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,FreedomAlliance_042105,00.html|became a "liberal"] the minute he refused to support John Bolton\ufffds nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That\ufffds because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) [link|http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html|explosion] of [link|http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23352/pub_detail.asp|deficit spending] under this Administration \ufffd and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives\ufffd vigorous advocacy of states\ufffd rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers [link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html|themselves admit], the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government\ufffds eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush\ufffds decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush\ufffds ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who \ufffd at least thus far \ufffd have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

[...]

UPDATE: For a glimpse of how actual conservatives quite recently used to think, one should read [link|http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm|this article] at FreeRepublic.com, which decries the dangerous loss of liberty and privacy as a result of the Clinton Administration's use of a "secret court" (something called the "FISA court") which actually enables the Federal Government to eavesdrop on American citizens! Worse -- much worse -- the judicial approval which the Government (used to) obtain for this eavesdropping is in secret, so we don't even know who is being eavesdropped on! How can we possibly trust the Government not to abuse this power if they can obtain warrants in secret?

Conservatives used to consider things like this to be quite disturbing and bad -- and the eavesdropping then was at least with judicial oversight. Now, George Bush is in office, and all of the distrust we used to have of the Federal Government exercising these powers has evaporated, because we trust in George Bush to do what is best for us. He should not just have those powers, but many more, and he should exercise all of them in secret, too, with no "interference" from the courts or Congress.

That is why I say that whatever else these Bush followers are, they are not conservative. (h/t [link|http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/11/233148/167|Stand Strong] and [link|http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html#c113975024442944523|aarrgghh]).