Rachel, thank you for your post, but I cannot agree with your argument or your conclusion.  Unfortunately, there is evil in the world, and the Tsarnaev brothers committed an evil act by killing and maiming innocent civilians.  There is no evidence that subsequent to the bombing they exhibited any remorse.  I do not hate them, but I cannot feel empathy or sympathy for them.  They will face United States’ justice in this world, and God’s justice in the next.  Attempting to completely understand why a person’s does something is a fool’s errand unless one is a trained psychologist.  You are also missing Jim Geraghty’s point.  The left is putting forth the sympathy/empathy argument in order to deflect the discussion from the fact that radical Islamists are a threat to our society.  It undermines their belief that all cultures are relative and none is superior; and detracts from our efforts to defend ourselves.  In addition, by sympathizing with the Tsarnaevs, you are reducing their personal culpability for their actions.

Peter, if you have a chance, you should spend some time with Peter Berkowitz, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.  He will give you some insights into the tensions between those conservatives who champion liberty and those who champion tradition, how to resolve that tension and why moderation can be correct and politically effective.  I purchased his book Constitutional Conservatism after listening to John Hinderaker’s interview with him in the March 20^th Ricochet podcast of the Hinderaker-Ward Experience. His article “Obama and the State of Progressivism, 2011” in Policy Review No. 164 (Dec 2010-Jan 20110) was insightful and a devastating analysis of the current Progressive ideology.  His book has some tough love for both Libertarians and Social Conservatives and how to bring them together.

Although I don’t agree with Senator Paul’s general foreign policy views and probably don’t agree with him on the specific point in his filibuster, the statements by Senators McCain and Graham were petulant, childish, and poor politics.  The fact that McCain made them on the floor of the Senate merely added insult to injury.

Paul’s filibuster was a brilliant political stroke; his argument was carefully reasoned, based on the constitution but related to everyday situations; and gave conservatives and libertarians one of their few hopeful days since the Obama administration was inaugurated.

McCain and Graham would have served the public better by asking why we are treating Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law as a law enforcement matter instead of as an enemy combatant as we did with Khalid Sheik Mohamed; or why haven’t the thousands of documents captured in the Osama bin Laden raid been released.  The reason Graham gave for the change of his vote for Brennan as CIA Director was unprincipled and petty.

With the Rand filibuster, we have been witness to the start of the changing of the Old Guard Republicans in the Senate.  Even Senator McConnell recognized it.

For the war in the Pacific: Eagle Against the Sun by Ronald Spector and The Rising Sun, by John Toland.

For the war in Europe: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer.

For an excellent two-book tretment of the Second World War in novel form, The Winds of War and War and Remembrance by Herman Wouk.

The French tried that during the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution.  It didn't work out very well.

With a conservative House, Senate, and Presidency they could.  However I think that in order to make it stick, they would need some biparisan support for example on reforming Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.  Obamacare was the first major entitlement legislation that passed with no support from the minority.  It was a terrible precedent and one of the reasons that it hasn't been accepted.  Also, much of the legislation you reference was not read, discussed or debated.  As a result, it was poor legislation.

That's exactly right.

My-way-or-the-highway is poor politics and ineffective policy.  Refusing to tax the second $1M at a higher rate is not a conservative principle.  The conservative principle is to keep taxes as low as possible.  Even Reagan raised taxes at one point.  Rejecting Plan B is not a hill that I wold be willing to die on.

Millions of Americans are struggling mightily.  They have a great deal of unertainity about the future, and rejecting Plan B simply added to it at the worst time of the year.  I find it hard to believe they will be grateful.  I think the rejection has severely hurt the conservative cause.

The House passed a bill this year extending the current tax rates for all.  It has not been taken up in the Senate.

Here is Michael Barone's column of what happened with Plan B.

I would argue that the House Republicans have been doing just that for the last two years.  Two Ryan budgets were sent to the Senate.  Both Republican House and Senate have been calling out the Senate's refusal to pass a budget.  With the Presidency and the Senate in Demorat hands, the Republicans simply don't have the political power to implement their agenda.

Sad, but true.  Politics and Philosophy are two separate disciplines.  Conservatives frequently have to choose between two less than perfect alternatives.  I don't think they did that by rejecting Plan B.

That's my fear.  I think that some of those who rejected Plan B, expected it to pass, and they could then portray themselves as righteous objectors.  There were too many righteous objectors, and they will subsequently agree to a "bargain" in the future that is worse than Plan B.  They have inadvertantly given Obama a better position for future talks.

,,, The only ostensible discussion of "cuts" will refer to reductions to the increases 10+ years in the future, which would be quite irrelevant.

You have identified the root of the problem in reducing spendiing.  I think baseline budgeting used by the government needs to be changed to the normal accounting used by individuals and private businesses.  It's the only way to keep increased spending from being disguised as "cuts".

The problem I see with this is that it complicates conservative’s ability to successfully propose reduced spending when the discussion on the debt limit starts in 2013.  Approving Plan B would have taken the tax rate discussion off the table in January.  Now, the discussion in January will continue on tax rates, and reduced spending will be ignored.

As a conservative, I am puzzled and disappointed with the House’s rejection of Boehner’s Plan B.  I’m afraid that Jennifer Rubin today has it right.  Plan B was not a policy statement, it was political strategy.  The rejection of it doesn’t demonstrate any conservative principle; it merely puts President Obama in the best possible position and removes any leverage to reduce spending.  “Purity at any cost” is not good governing.