Here's a random thought to derail constructive conversation:

How do we hold up former heros as models to be followed (i.e. RR) w/o getting trapped in  a constant game of gotcha with every useful example of their divergence from conservative principles? 

That's awesome, though I'm not sure how this would work?

So...is the esteemed and occasionally verbose Prof. Epstein hiring a stenographer to take dictation of his replies?

I think he has to have the all time record for most individual (though often linked), logical concepts expressed per minute of any guest ever to appear on the podcast.  Also most answers  delivered in a single breath.

I can't claim to know Labrador's mind and meaning exactly, but to me, the moderate case is something like this:

Americans have always believed in a level playing field. If you start a business you should be given every opportunity to succeed. If one man buys lottery tickets and another man buys savings bonds  it is not the obligation of the saver to split his life's earnings with the thriftless man when it is time to retire. Just as it is not the responsibility of the thriftless man to split his winnings if he hits the jackpot. 

Businessmen are free to make their decisions. Just as it is not the bank's job to bailout the farmer who grew only one type of crop and went broke when the price collapsed, it is not the farmer's job to bailout the banker who bet too much on a single type of investment that lost its value.

When talking policy, conservatives will often lose in an argument of means. However, we should almost always win in an argument of ends. 

Cutting specific programs is a hard sell. Removing the watchful oversight of a concerned government can make many feel less secure. We have to force the narrative onto the ground we own. That means talking about Results! Results! Results!

It sounds like everyone is taking Labrador said to mean conservatives should downplay their principles.  However, I think he is only making a point about messaging.

Low-info voters (which accounts for most of them) are probably never going to understand economics, principles of liberty or the historical importance of the founder's approach to government. So every time a conservative drones on in those terms it merely goes over their head.

So why not speak in terms of prosperity, opportunity  and charity. Instead of endlessly explaining the nuances of the underlying principles, take the tack of a moderate. Focus on what conservative principles deliver to individuals. 

While it was nice to have a smaller number of poorly thought out posts, Kenneth provided a barrage of friendly fire that would have made WWII Soviet Generals blush.

 There has been tons of talk that essentially boils down to filtering content. I like the idea. But, and I may be reaching beyond my grasp here...but what if, like good free marketers, we developed a more complex system of incentives beyond simple promotion to the main page? Post of the week announced during the podcast was brilliant. Maybe we can take it further?

Liberals have it easy, their case is simple to make. Ours is often counter intuitive. More than anything, conservatives more gifted communicators. Even more than generous donors. 

Why not cultivate the budding talent that exists? 

This task will inevitably fall to those of you who regularly read and comment, rather than the editors.  While heaps of scorn have sometimes proven to be adequate taxation on misguided thought, what amount of good could we accomplish with proper incentive?

I think I understand the point your making. We should be setting reasonable goals or the only options the public will face is the warm embrace of socialized medicine vs. the cold putting out of everyone to fend for themselves in a free market. 

What I don't understand is why you believe that by embracing what you describe as "the conservative ideas of the law" especially as part of the system we are faced with, we will be any less likely to end up with socialized medicine?

I believe you are warning against allowing petty squabbles and party affiliation to interfere with the promotion of genuinely conservative ideas. On that point I heartily agree with you.

However, I don't understand why you believe that exchanges or the individual mandate in the forms in which they currently exist, are conservative?

If it isn't too obvious to point out, John Taylor of Stanford should, nay must be the man for Sec. of the Treasury.

What a fantastic point. Lets keep marijuana illegal because that has done a super-duper job of keeping people from using it. 

In fact, I think we should do some thorough studies and then imprison anybody, who engages in any activity that results in comparable self harm. 

At the low low cost of $50,000 per person, per year, wouldn't this country be so much better if we simply imprisoned all those people who made poor decisions affecting their own well being? 

Over three hours at the DMV waiting to get my drivers liscence. Because they que you with a number like at the deli counter, I used the time to drive 30 mi from the north end of a major city to a southern suburb, attended a Dr. Appt. and returned with 15 minuites left before my number was called.

That doesn't even include the 2 1/2 hours I waited the prior day, before abandoning the effort.

Had a great time, but this is evidence of why I avoid having my picture taken. Is it possible to say something  clique with your hands? Regardless, I still blame the little-bemused look on Mark's face on that high gravity Colorado beer the rest of the country misses out on, and not my raptuous commentary that occasionally appears here for all to enjoy.

Got room for one more? I'll be there. 

"Can somebody give me a hand, my halo keeps falling out of place."

I probably still to young to have anything insightful to contribute to this conversation, though Rob's comment sparked a question. If growing older causes greater humility in regard to estimations of your own intelligence, does is also lead to wishing you had listened to your parents or mentors more?

(My emphasis)

Why? The underlying belief about the existence of a God who is the author of the divide has coexisted with atheism for Millenia as long as religion was not institued by the state.

For me, it boils down to this, Ryan's shoes will be hard to fill, and not having someone of his character as chairman of the budget committee is in and of itself a net loss for the conservatism in America. However, the greater loss is believing that any one man is the solution. Men are flawed and the ultimate goal is to limit their influence on our lives, not simply pick the most capable to rule over us. Capable and decent men do their worst harm in allowing the populous to make them into saviors.