Maybe "influential" means something else in Britain...

So last week, the UK Telegraph put together a list of the "most influential" liberals and conservatives in America. Granted, it's a little strange that a British publication rated American political figures, but it was nonetheless interesting. Interesting in that are-we-talking-about-the-same-country kind of way. The liberal list, in my opinion was more or less right on. I don't think many people are going to argue that Bi|| C|inton is the most influential liberal in America. But, as is common when Europeans attempt to understand American conservatism, they just don't seem to understand how we think. Thus, I thought I would provide a conservative rebuttal to the Telegraph's listing of conservatives.

First off, Rudy Giu|iani is not number one. I take influential to mean the ability change people's minds, or get them to willingly and fervently join your cause. Or, at the very least, the ability to get people to listen to you. Given that Rudy still has problems getting conservatives excited, and given that his conservative credentials are often called into question, it's hard to imagine that he's a very influential conservative at all -- let alone the most influential conservative in America.

The same goes for Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (numbers 10 and 11, respectively). Few people are ardent supporters of either of these presidential candidates, and they can't, at least currently, get the conservative base excited enough to take collective action.

Nor should Christopher Hitchens (number 27) find himself in the Top 50. He is perhaps influential, but a die-hard conservative he is not. His avowed atheism, criticism of all religion, and other leftist tendencies -- not to mention his own admission that his is not conservative -- would seem to remove him from the list. Having said that, I certainly respect his intellectual honesty and think it's cool that we live in the same neighborhood.

Dick Morris (number 28) is another curious item in the Top 50. To be sure, he is vehemently anti-Hillary -- and for that he should be commended. But as far as his influence, it doesn't seem that he has all that much of it. His political predictions are often wrong (to wit, he predicted before the 2004 elections that the Republicans could possibly win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate) and he just doesn't seem to hold much, if any, sway in conservative politics.

Andrew Su||ivan. Number 33. Right. A gay-marriage supporter who supported John Kerry in 2004 and is supporting Barack Obama in 2008. I fail to see the "conservative" part of this equation. He has a rather popular blog, so he is perhaps influential. But conservative? Hmm...

Number 39 Drew Carey. He's a funny guy, don't get me wrong. I think I'd like him if we were to hang out. But again...if he's conservative, I don't imagine he's all that influential. Certainly not more influential than Sean Hannity (number 44), who has the second most popular radio show in the country, or Ed Feulner (number 41), founder of the most famous conservative organization in DC.

Number 89 Larry Craig. Given that no one had heard of him before his little bathroom incident, it's hard to believe that he was influential at all. And he certainly didn't become any more influential AFTER his little bathroom incident, so his place on the list seems a little gratuitous. I mean, while we're at it, why not put Mark Foley on here?

Now, there are some people who are on the list who I believe should be higher.

First, Henry Kissinger should be much higher than 95. He's STILL giving advice to presidents, and they listen to him.

Michelle Malkin also has a lot more influence among conservatives than her 93 ranking would imply. She has one of the most popular blogs on the internet, a couple best-selling books, has effective television appearances, and, let's be honest, she's bangin' hot.

Ann Coulter also deserves to be higher than her 84 ranking would imply. She's controversial and off-putting to many people, but people listen and buy her books. And, it doesn't hurt that she looks like this.

There are plenty of others that deserve to be at least marginally higher on the list, but those strike me as the most egregious under-ratings.

I think this whole list, complete with its curious selections, says more about outsiders' understanding of conservatism than conservatism itself. Just because someone is famous and not a flaming liberal doesn't make them and influential conservative. Conservatives, or at least this conservative, are/is much more concerned with a person's ability to articulate and accurately and effectively represent the conservative message -- not simply get on TV. For what it's worth.