After Florida, it's a two horse race between McCain and Romney. McCain has the clear advantage. And it's interesting to see why.

Start with Michigan. Michigan was portrayed as a "must win" for Romney. Fine, he won, but no matter how many times he finished in second place, the media was ready for him to drop out.

Now take South Carolina. This was a must win for Fred Thompson. The press was ready to push him out, and out he went.

And then you have Florida. This was Guiliani's must win state. The anti-Guiliani media bias was palpable, they just couldn't hide their open disdain for him. Sure enough, he lost and he's out.

Ok, think. What name is missing? Mike Huckabee. What does Huckabee have to show for his campaign? A win in Iowa and a bunch of lackluster performances since. He couldn't even beat Guiliani in Florida. So where's the media pressure for Huckabee to quit?

The media has not and will not put any pressure on Huckabee. Why? Because the media is for McCain, and they clearly understand that Huckabee takes conservative votes away from Romney. By the same token, they knew that the major threat to take moderates and independents from McCain was Guiliani, which explains their zeal to get rid of him.

It's a perfect setup - cooked up by moderates in the Bush wing of the party and the establishment wing of the media. Remember, McCain has not received 40% of the vote in any primary, yet he is still portrayed by the media as a front running juggernaut who has the nomination all but locked up. On a level playing field, Romney might have had a chance. Playing against this stacked deck, he has none.

The Reagan nostalgia in the Republican party refuses to die. And now the moderates and independents are joining the fray, tripping all over themselves to say that “Reagan compromised too!!!”

 

True, Reagan was a pragmatist. And he was willing to strike deals with Congress to get 80% of what he wanted. But there’s more to this story.

 

Take TEFRA. TEFRA was the only tax increase that Reagan agreed to in his 8 years in office. He did so under pressure from Congress and moderates in his own party to deal with rising deficits and the recession of 1981.

 

But there’s a catch. Reagan’s compromise with Congress on TEFRA was supposed to contain spending cuts along with the tax increase. And guess what? Tip O’Neil and Bob Dole and their boys in Congress reneged on their part of the deal, so the tax increases were enacted immediately, but the promised spending cuts never materialized.

 

Reagan understood that he had been tricked. He regretted it and made sure that he did not raise taxes again during his tenure in office.

 

Contrast this with George H.W. Bush. Sure, Bush made a no new taxes pledge. But you could tell his heart wasn’t in it. After all, this is the man who labeled Reagan’s economic plan as “voodoo economics”. And the man who rushed to enact a flurry of Clean Air and environmental legislation as soon as he got into office. So much for the Reagan motto of deregulation and getting government out of people’s way. So his tax increase was no surprise. And unlike Reagan, Bush did not regret his tax increase. To this day, he still doesn’t seem to understand why so many people rejected him and voted for Perot in 1992. Why do you think Reagan passed the conservative mantle to Rush Limbaugh in 1994? Reagan understood then, as he had not in 1988, that Bush was no conservative.

 

Now let’s take the 1986 amnesty bill. As with TEFRA, the compromise bill contained promises by Congress which they did not fulfill. Of course, the amnesty for illegals was immediate and irreversible. Once again Reagan had been tricked. And once again he regretted it.

 

Contrast this with John McCain. Unlike Reagan, McCain actively promoted the amnesty bill along with Ted Kennedy. And he has sided with the Democrats on campaign finance reform, waterboarding, and a host of other issues. You see, there’s a difference between being tricked by Democrats and actively conspiring with them to promote big government and socialist programs. George W. Bush deserves his share of blame too, for doubling the size of the Department of Education and instituting a huge homeland security bureaucracy.

 

That’s why conservatives want another Reagan, and no one wants another Bush. Because the compromises that McCain, Huckabee, and Bush have made are willing compromises, not reluctant ones. And we don’t need willing Republican servants to implement the Democrat agenda. Because if they do, I’ll vote against their candidate just like I did in 1992, and for the same reason.

 

Everybody’s talking about Reagan. Why we need him back. Why his policies that worked in the 1980’s won’t work now. Why the Reagan revolution is dead. And so on.

 

The people who point out that his problems are different than ours have a point. He faced double digit inflation, soaring interest rates, and high marginal tax rates. None of those conditions are present today.

 

Which leads to another point. Did Reagan just appear in 1980? Of course not. His seminal speech was way back in 1964. What happened in 1964? The economy was booming and LBJ was winning a landslide victory, which enabled him to enact all kinds of legislation and new programs. After all, there was plenty of money to go around, right?

 

Now, as then, times were good. And now, as then, the conservative message is going over with a thud. No one wants to hear talk of fiscal responsibility or the conservative work ethic or self reliance or anything like that. The argument isn’t how to get revenue, it’s who’s going to spend it, and on what. And so far, there’s been enough to go around to fund both Democrat and Republican pork barrel projects to make both parties flush with cash. The only people who think the economy has been bad over the last 6 years are the Democrats who were out of power most of that time. In the last 25 years, we’ve only had 2 mild recessions, nothing like the decade long recession of the 1970’s.

 

How long did Reagan have to wait before the country caught up with his message? 4 Presidential administrations, the Vietnam war, oil shocks, communist advances throughout the third world, and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. 16 years worth of stagflation, price controls, and failed policies by both Democrat and Republican presidents. Because if you think about, times have to get really bad before people realize they need to change.

 

Want another Reagan? You might have to wait 16 years or so for another one. Or maybe longer. It'll take a lot more than a stock market correction for him to reappear.

Newt Gingrich is raising his voice again, commenting on the current election cycle. His main point, shared by other Republicans, is that the Reagan revolution is over. Gingrich seeks to redefine conservatism in the face of new realities – chief of which seems to be that there is no clear successor to George W. Bush in the Republican party.

 

Why is there no clear successor? People offer different reasons, but my take is that despite his reputation, George W. Bush is only half a conservative – at least on domestic policy. Certainly his resolve in the war on terror echoes some of Reagan’s peace through strength message. But if you look at both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush on the domestic front, their path diverges from the Reagan revolution.

 

Reagan’s domestic efforts had three main prongs. Cut taxes, scale back government spending, and reduce the regulatory burden on business. Since Reagan never succeeded in cutting spending, his domestic agenda rested on the two remaining prongs, both of which were pursued throughout his eight years in office.

 

When George H.W. Bush took over, he pretended to oppose tax increases, but immediately reversed Reagan’s policies on deregulation. He sent new initiatives to Congress – Clean Air bills, environmental regulations, and more. Then, he reneged on his tax pledge, which led to disaster as conservatives revolted and voted for Ross Perot.

 

George W. Bush learned only a partial lesson from his father – don’t raise taxes! But the other half of Reagan’s message – reducing regulations and getting government out of the way so business can function – has been lost. Today we are buried under a new Homeland Security bureaucracy, mandatory diversity classes, endless procedures to follow to hire/fire employees, and a No Child Left Behind program that has doubled Federal spending on education.

 

The 2008 candidates – Guiliani, Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, and Romney, all promise to keep taxes low. But like both Bush Presidents, they are blind to Reagan’s message of deregulation and freedom. Until that message is renewed, Reagan’s successors will fail to measure up to his legacy.

A few observations on the Republican debate tonight.

 

I was amazed by McCain’s comments on the deficit and spending. He claims he saved 6 billion dollars. Out of the trillions that have been spent? That’s all? But the really unbelievable comment was that in 25 years in Washington, he never took a budget earmark or pork barrel project for Arizona? Ever? Is there no Federal money going to Arizona?

 

I was not amazed by Huckabee’s shameless pandering to single mothers, children, and raising “hope”. He talked about getting the job done. That means more spending. And he thinks he’s catching flak by being over the target. His target is obviously democrats, because that’s who his message is tailored to.  

 

Giuliani played the leadership card. Strong national defense, economic sanctions against Iran. Caution in our dealings with Pakistan. Making a broad outreach to people outside the party like Reagan did. A serviceable performance but not overwhelming.  

 

Thompson was witty with lots of one liners. Policy wise he is very similar to Giuliani, the difference being that he is 100% pro life. A similar result to Giuliani, a good but not overwhelming performance.  

 

Romney was sort of drowned out by the others. His best point was that the same people in Washington will do the same thing they’ve been doing. Overspending. Immigration. Etc. But he said that he will change Washington? How? Even Reagan couldn’t do that.

 

For a marginal candidate, Ron Paul made some good points. He’s right that we’re borrowing money, and then shoveling it out to both Arabs and Israel alike. When will it end? I don’t agree with his Robert Taft position – Taft would not have had us in NATO at all. But there needs to be a middle ground between intervening everywhere and total isolationism, which is what Paul is pushing. And he’s way too alarmist – talking of war with Iran and how the economy is so terrible.

 

He mentioned that the government is robbing money from Social Security. He’s right, but you can’t stop government from robbing money from social security or gas tax money or education money. Once they have it the cash, they can do anything they want with it. You have to stop them from getting it in the first place. Which means we need to oppose all these new entitlements and stop doubling the size of the Federal Education bureaucracy.

 

My last point is about the media. The moderator asked if polls showing 2/3 of the people of Pakistan oppose their leader, should we support them? And he made the point several times. This is outrageous. The media is pushing the overthrow of Pakistan, just like they pushed the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. How did that turn out? Same stupidity, 30 years later. I guess Fox wasn’t around back then to see Carter’s mistakes. It’s one thing to have politicians push dangerous policies. It’s quite another to have the media do it.

 

 

Looking at Fred Thompson’s campaign, I’ve been wondering what his strategy is. He has good ideas and calm demeanor that inspires trust. But for someone with good ideas, he hasn’t done a good job getting the message out. He ran a few ads in Iowa, but pretty much skipped New Hampshire. Supposedly he will make his stand in the south.

 

Maybe that’s true. But it struck me today that maybe Thompson isn’t running for President. Perhaps he’s really running for Vice President.

 

Think about it. Thompson has never put forth the energy level to run for President. He doesn’t have the money, staff, or message to run nationally. But running a nominal campaign for President gets his name out there to be considered for the Vice Presidential spot. And if the Republican candidate is Guiliani or McCain or Romney, Thompson’s presence on the ticket can be a conservative balance to a liberal Republican ticket.

 

Much as I would like Thompson to get the nomination, I don’t think it will happen. But his presence on the ticket as the Vice Presidential nominee would make me feel better about the more liberal Republicans who are likely to get the nomination.

 

 

For the first time in a long time, there is no Republican front runner. Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee - they've all got flaws. No one has emerged from the pack. Why?

Look at the prior Republican nominees. Reagan, both Bushes, Dole, Ford, and Nixon were well established candidates, either governors of large states or Washington insiders with track records in Congress or appointed offices. All of them ran well in elections except for Dole.

The current crop of candidates is short on experience, particularly Romney and Guiliani. McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson have track records, but no national appeal because none of them hail from major states like Texas or California.

And there's lots of pressure to create a front runner. Despite tying McCain in Iowa with 13% of the vote, people want Thompson out. Romney is under pressure after losing to Huckabee. Guiliani didn't even bother to campaign there.

The other thing is, the candidates don't have well defined agendas. That's why they pale in comparison to Reagan or even Nixon and Bush. No one is sure what Huckabee or Romney will do. Thompson's record is probably the most consistent, but he is too low key, with no Reaganesque ability to get the message out. McCain has done too many deals with Ted Kennedy to be taken seriously as a conservative.

What about Guiliani? Can you imagine Reagan or Bush or Nixon skipping both Iowa and New Hampshire? Isn't Guiliani's whole campaign based on the assumption that he can run in all 50 states? Apparenty he can only get elected in 48 states, based on his effort level in the first two. And if he doesn't get his campaign started soon, he might not get elected anywhere. 



 

Why are people rushing to Obama? Because they don't like HIllary's track record. They know she will raise taxes, they know she will implement big government programs, and they know she flip flops on foreign policy.

Obama, by contrast, has virtually no track record, so no one can dislike him yet. Until Hillary's campaign starts hammering him on the fact that he has no experience.

But that's the Democrats problem. Every time they nominate someone with a track record, the track record destroys them as a candidate. Once people got a close look at John Kerry and Michael Dukakis and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, they wanted no part of them.
 
So what's the altenative? Nominate someone with no track record, like Obama or Jimmy Carter or BIll Clinton. Then, run them as an outsider to deflect the fact that they have no experience. It's an imperfect strategy, but that is the only way they can win the Presidency. The last Democrat with a track record to win was Lyndon Johnson, and we all know how that turned out.

It says something about the state of the Democrats when their experienced candidates can't run and they have to turn to outsiders. Isn't that a rejection of the party and what it stands for? The only way for them to win is to hide their true intentions, until the outsider wins.

 

 A couple of days ago, I watched Three Days of the Condor. I’d seen it before, many years ago. It’s a mix of action movie, espionage thriller, and conspiracy mystery. In the movie, John Houseman talks briefly about his youth in intelligence work after the Great War, and longs for the clarity of those times instead of the doubt and uncertainty he faces.

 

I had to laugh. Here is a film, in the middle of the Cold War, filled with ambiguity and intrigue about America’s role in the world and CIA evil plots and oil and so forth. The funny thing is, people in the present time long for the Cold War as a time of clarity!

 

Really? No one had doubts about the future? They didn’t have loud and noisy nuclear freeze demonstrations or assassination attempts on world leaders? Everyone was on board with the plan to take down the Soviet Union? No one argued for peaceful coexistence with the communists? If everything was so clear then, how come people are still arguing about who won the Cold War?

 

Hollywood has long capitalized on feelings of doubt and ambiguity and self reflection. While entertaining in the movies, it has little relevance in historical comparisons. The people facing the Great War and the Cold War and the Napoleonic Wars were just as uncertain as we are, with similar doubts and swirling conspiracy theories. The “Good Old Days” don’t exist, except in imagination and wishful thinking.

Well, the initial results are in. Obama beat Hillary by 9 points in Iowa, while Huckabee beat Romney in the Republican primary. And there's interesting lesssons on both stories.

Romney spent big bucks in Iowa, canvassing the state and attacking Huckabee at every step. And what did he get? A crushing defeat. He'd of done better to stay out altogether like Guiliani did, because you can't put that level of money and effort into a state and lose that badly This doesn't mean Huckabee will win, but it likely means that Romney will not.

On the Democratic side, Obama's victory was a landmark victory for a black candidate in a state with maybe 3% black voters. You'd think the media would be all over a minority victory. After all, that's a liberal staple - minorities don't have a level playing field and no opportunities. Shouldn't they be trumpeting his win as a great statement of a new epoch dawning in American history?

But they're not. Why? Because they're bought and paid for by HIllary. All the coverage last night was either about how HIllary's campaign is fine, or an abundance of stories on Huckabee to take attention away from Obama's victory. And it'll be interesting to see how HIllary counterattacks.