I came across this link to a series of Winston Churchill "motivational posters" that are sure to brighten any office. My favorite is the one on "Constancy," which features the quote, "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

Speaking of poster art, the White House could use more Churchill and less Ruscha.

(Hat tip: Neatorama.)

“Speech - less,” a new book by former White House speechwriter Matthew Latimer, is causing quite a stir. After a brief excerpt of the book was published this month in GQ magazine, cable television and talk radio exploded with discussion of that piece and speculation about the book.

Former Bush administration officials don’t like what they’ve seen.

"I was in maybe two dozen meetings with him and I can't tell you what his voice sounds like," former Bush press aide Tony Fratto told Politico. "The most common reaction really has been 'who is Matt Latimer?' That is the most frequent email I've gotten in the last two days."

Fratto, the former deputy press secretary, says that Latimer, former deputy director of speechwriting, was only a “junior or mid-level staffer” with “episodic” access to the president. According to the Politico article: “Fratto contended that Latimer had nowhere near the access to Bush that he suggests, and that the book shows it.”

So, did Fratto actually read the whole book? That’s unlikely, since it won’t be released until next week. If he had read it he would know that Latimer frequently downplays his own importance at the White House and in Washington. It’s a theme of the book. I know because I read it cover to cover (and wrote a blurb for the back cover).

And yet Latimer actually did play a significant role in some of the major speeches Bush gave in the final year and a half of his presidency. He helped write Bush’s address to the nation after the financial collapse in the fall of 2008. He wrote Bush’s 2008 Republican Convention speech, his address to the World Economic Forum in Egypt, and dozens of others. Before that he served for three years as the chief speechwriter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Most of the criticism of the book is based on the excerpt in GQ. But even there, Latimer writes about what he knows and acknowledges what he doesn’t. On Bush economic adviser Al Hubbard, Latimer writes: “He may have been a competent adviser; I didn’t know him. The only thing I knew about Al is that he went around putting whoopee cushions on people’s chairs in the West Wing.” At another point in that excerpt Latimer wrote that he and other aides gathered around Bush before a big speech because “it made us feel useful.” Hardly the words of someone who is trying to sound important.

Latimer is often critical of George W. Bush. In that, he’s giving voice to a large segment of the Republican Party disappointed in Bush’s profligate spending and second-term foreign and national security policy. But the book is not a hit on the former president and it includes praise for Bush on a variety of subjects. (Bush had “quite a good political mind,” Latimer writes in the excerpt.)

I have had different experiences with several of the people Latimer discusses in the book. For instance, Latimer criticizes several decisions by senior presidential adviser, Ed Gillespie. I think Gillespie is one of the smartest conservatives in Washington today and he transformed the timid and incompetent White House communications shop under Dan Bartlett into an aggressive rapid-response operation during the final years of the Bush presidency. (Which may explain why the Bush team's pushback on Latimer's book has been more energetic and effective than, say, the response to claims from the left that Bush "lied" about the Iraq War.) Latimer has many good things to say Donald Rumsfeld and his leadership at the Pentagon. I don’t agree with him there, either.

But one need not agree with everything in the book to appreciate the fascinating story it tells – from Latimer’s time as a dorky kid in Michigan to his crush on Kay Bailey Hutchison and his work at the White House. “Speechless” provides a valuable, behind-the-scenes look at Washington and the Bush administration from someone with experience on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and eventually the White House. It’s well-written and very funny. It will appeal especially to people who consider themselves conservatives first and Republican, if at all, second.

That’s why, despite the best efforts of the Republican establishment in DC to knock it down, it is selling so well nearly a week before it will be released.

Rob Portman, former US Trade Representative and OMB Director under George W. Bush, shares his thoughts here.

The renewal of the Republican Party starts with an embrace of the core principles of fiscal conservatism, smaller government, traditional values, personal responsibility and ethics, not just when we campaign, but when we govern.

But adherence to these core principles is only a starting point. The key to success is turning these principles into compelling policy solutions to real-world concerns.

There is an understandable nostalgia in the Republican Party for Ronald Reagan. He grew the party and was a popular president while staying true to core values. But I believe we sometimes overlook what made him successful.

Based on core conservative beliefs, he fashioned innovative, and ultimately successful, solutions to seemingly intractable challenges of his time: a dysfunctional welfare system, the Cold War, stagflation from the Carter years, and increased levels of violent crime, among others.

And he effectively communicated his policies in a way that resonated with the American people. His simple and clear explanations, his relentless optimism about America, and his focus on results, not partisan advantage, allowed him to reach beyond the Republican Party to garner support.

We must do the same thing.

Portman, who has played the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in mock debates for the last three election cycles, is a potential candidate for governor in 2010 or the US Senate in 2012. So he may be in a position to follow his own wise advice.

Read it all.

A characteristically thoughtful and provocative column by David Brooks today, this one the coming "fight over the future of conservatism." There are two camps, Brooks argues, the Reformers and the Traditionalists.

Traditionalists are

the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

Reformers

argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

This strikes me as too simplistic. I suspect most conservatives do not readily fit into one of these two categories. Like me, for example.

I do think conservatives have lost, in no small measure, because they've strayed from conservative creed. And I think it's indisputable that George W. Bush was a big-government Republican who, in many respects, betrayed conservatism. Further, I believe conservatives should return to their core ideas and near the top of the list of such core ideas should be cutting government and cutting taxes. But I don't think restricting immigration is one of those principles and I know many so-called traditionalists who don't necessarily want to rally behind Sarah Palin, but nevertheless defended her from the hysterical media criticism of her views, her family and her candidacy. So I'm half traditionalist, I suppose.

But, I think I'm half reformer, too. I'm skeptical of modernizing priorities (though I'd be more skeptical about modernizing principles) and I like tax cuts as a way to address middle-class economic anxieties. I take global warming seriously, but I'm turned off by a lot of the alarmist rhetoric used by global warming theorists and I worry that the "solutions" they propose restrict market activity in harmful and unnecessary ways. I'm definitely intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party. I certainly believe that conservatives should pay attention to the ways the country has changed and I've argued repeatedly that we have to appeal to Hispanics and younger voters. Finally, I have very mixed views about insulting the sensitivities of the educated class and "the entire East and West coasts." (Wait, there are no traditionalists on the East and West coasts? Hmmm.) The elites on the East and West coasts have been mocking those of us from "flyover country" for decades and many of those in the so-called "the educated class" -- Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Lee Bollinger, Juan Cole, Ward Churchill, Frank Rich -- have earned their insults.

So am I a reforming traditionalist? A traditional reformer? A tradiformer? A reformitionalist? All of the above? None of the above?

I'm pretty much just a small government conservative. I think there are still a lot of us out here.