Today is the second installment of a series in the London Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk on the 100 most influential conservatives in the United States.
So far it has been interesting and some of it is what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom.
In the installment today, it is from 61-80.
Coming in at 61 is the governor-elect of Louisiana, congressman Bobby Jindal. Mr. Jindal has been a fast-rising star within conservatism and the Republican party and the crushing victory last week for the governorship of Louisiana should have easily propelled him into the top 50.
Radio talker Michael Savage is on this list at number 63. I think it is a bit too high for Mr. Savage. Mr. Savage is a brilliant man, but sometimes that brilliance comes off as a bit arrogant and I do not think, overall, he should be in this high a category of influence. Mr. Savage should be in the 81-100 category.
In the what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom category is former secretary of state James Baker. Maybe the fact that Mr. Baker is a somewhat anti-Semite gets him even considered conservative. As if there is no anti-Semitism on the left! But having Mr. Baker as the 66th most influential conservative in the United States is way too high. Mr. Baker is a middle of the roader tried and true. Mr. Baker should not be on this list.
Surprisingly, actor Chuck Norris comes in at number 71. The fact that Mr. Norris is backing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for president must have gotten him this high of a ranking. But, I think it is because Mr. Norris is a rarity in the Hollywood crowd. An unabashed conservative Republican. I may rethink my thought on this ranking and maybe Mr. Norris should be higher.
Two powerhouse political commentators are numbers 76 and 77. Tony Blankley and Charles Krauthammer. I think they are too low on this. Both have much more influence on conservatism and commentary. The other commentator in this grouping, Pat Buchanan in at number 80 is way too high. Ol' Pat is good at turning a phrase but since his quixotic quests for the presidency and leaving and coming back to television makes him little if any influence at all. A sympathy choice.
Again, I would have to comment that what passes for conservative in the United Kingdom is quite different than what conservatism is here. And, putting relics like Pat Buchanan higher than he belongs does not help.
But, all in all this is a very interesting and instructive for the next Republican presidential candidate no matter out of who is still in the hunt. For it is what the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, Europe, will be able to use as what it will be like to deal with a new administration that will be different from the Bush administration. If the Republican candidate wins the 2008 election and I think that will happen.
Stay tuned for more analysis tomorrow.