You know, I'd love to comment on Greg's assertion that the Muslims would have to attack a non-US/non-Israel state, but the both of you have made comments that are even more intriguing.

Yesterday, I'm sitting around talking to a buddy (Greg - you may or may not remember Ryan) who happens to be extremely conservative. And we're talking about the recent decision made by the state of Indiana to mandate all resturants to be smoke-free. I was arguing that I think that this is a bad move, because, barring an abuse of certain core rights, the state should not, ultimately, have the power to influence how an entreprenuer makes his/her income. While I may not care to sit in the smoking section, I do believe it is an individual's right to choose whether or not he/she wishes to light up. And if a resturantuer wants to give him the right to light up in a resturant, that should be okay. Because if its not, we're giving the state the right to influence how someone can make money. Take Gary, Indiana and Chicago for instance. Everyday, thousands of people commute from Gary to Chicago for the sake of employement. Now let's say that some of these fine folks are smokers and they want to stop by the local watering hole for a drink. Do they stay on the Illinois side, where they can smoke and drink in relative freedom, or do they cross back over to Indiana where they can only drink. If it was me, I'm opting for Illinois. But that means that every tavern owner on the Indiana side of the border is getting hosed by a law that ultimately regulates something that should be beyond the purvue of the government.

All this to say, I'm making the argument for small government. And then my buddy surprises me. He's all in favor of the anti-smoking law. What was surprising was his reasoning. In short, he believes that we long ago crossed over the theoretical line where America is still within the reach of cultural redemption. Hell in a handbasket. Yada, yada, yada. So for his two cents, the anti-smoking law makes life more pleasant. Does it cross lines? Sure. But lines are going to be crossed. Religious freedoms are going to be violated as they are regulated. Nothing you can do about that. So you might as well enjoy some of the benefits along they way. In short: he has, on some level, abandoned principles in the belief that America will no longer rise to the occassion. So as the ship is going down, he might as well get what benefits he can -- even if those benefits are derived from violating principles he would have endorsed in the past.

What makes this interesting is listening to the two of you. Much like Ryan, you would both consider yourselves to be conservative thinkers. But Matt, you are talking not-so-subtle shots at the Bush administration (even as you examine the GOP field); and Greg ... well, it appears as if you too have lost "hope" (if that is the appropriate word).

Anecdotally speaking, that's three rather conservative folks all who are dealing with some varying degrees of disillusionment. Do you think this is party-wide/ideology-wide? And if so, what would it take for a turn-around?