Allahpundit snarks, “Always a good idea to give air time to people who have invited the president to suck on his gun,” and uses “What could go wrong?” for the main-page pic caption. But in the accompanying Glenn Beck clip, I can’t for the life of me see what Ted says that he finds so objectionable, or really, anything remotely objectionable at all. “What we want is accountability — for the government to live within its means, because they’re OUR means” — we’re supposed to find that too radical, or embarrassing, or something?

Related: Jeff G continues his frenzied, unacceptably gauche ranting and raving, once again mortifying the more sober, properly genteel conservatarian commentariat:

That Moran (and he is not alone in this, naturally) manages to affect a kind of patronizing paternalism is hardly surprising, then, given that this seems to be the default attitude of those pragmatists who have concluded that GOP victories are more readily available to conservatives than is a grassroots uprising in which the principles of classical liberalism are forcefully reaffirmed. Consequently, to their way of thinking it should be the former that we spend our energy chasing — with the latter representing an impossibly “purist” fanaticism that must necessarily be rejected by educated realists and policy wonks who don’t wish to see the GOP consigned forever to the political wilderness.

For Moran, the polls bear this out: he sees Obama’s purported popularity and he fears it; but even more so, one gets the sense he fears the de-legitimacy that comes with being labeled part of an “extremist fringe” — and in order to avoid such, he is willing to help progressives (whether intentionally or not) define the very “extremists” he must forever lurch left of to remain safe from the very dismissive scorn he has helped enable. Disagree with me, he seems to be saying. Just don’t stop taking me seriously as a thinker.

It’s a shell game, and the pragmatists in the GOP continue to play it, doubling down with each fresh loss, pretending that the next time the shells are shuffled they really might find that pea. Evidently, keeping a place at the table is preferable for these folks to watching from the sidewalk, even if to remain playing these same “realists” repeatedly have their principles stolen by con men in a game they know is entirely rigged.

Rick is a very bright guy, and I don’t mean to pick on him here. But for the purposes of this argument, he quite concretely represents one side in the current “conservative” divide. I happen to believe he is on the wrong side of things; but I also believe it is necessary to have these kinds of arguments about strategy going forward, because doing so will likely determine whether or not classical liberalism — the founding ideology of this country — can find representation in one of the two major political parties.

If not, it will have either to concede ground to the pragmatists, or else find another expression outside the traditional two-party divide.

Seems so to me too, right down the line. But my goodness gracious, Jeff, did you really need to resort to such extreme rhetoric to make your point, old bean? Uncle Peter, my smelling salts!