Is the Tea Party's approach to debt flawed?

At first I assumed that this article was just another hit piece against the Tea Party. But I think it's more subtle, and on reading it, I think it does bring up some interesting points:

National debt: Where the Tea Party is wrong

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- First, let's give the Tea Party props for thinking critically about how much money the government should spend -- energizing the debate about the national debt.

Now for the fact check: Some of the Tea Party arguments for how to address deficits are just plain misguided.

Here are four assertions Tea Partiers make that don't pass the sniff test.

1. To kill debt, cut spending but don't raise taxes: A staple Tea Party promise is to cut spending and keep taxes low.

"[Americans] want spending cuts now, not in ten years. They don't want more job-killing tax increases," Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois said in a recent statement.

Walsh went on to say that the $100 billion in spending cuts that many in the House GOP wanted to make over the next seven months "is what tackling the deficit looks like."

Not quite.

For starters, the cuts proposed by the House GOP primarily hit non-defense discretionary programs, which make up less than 15% of the total budget

Budget experts on the left and right say successful debt reduction can only occur when spending is cut across all areas of the budget.

And excluding revenue increases from the mix is the equivalent of one hand clapping: ineffective given the size of the country's debt.

Ronald Reagan, often revered as the king of small government and low taxes, signed into law some of the biggest tax cuts in modern history. But Reagan also approved some of the biggest tax increases, too. And he did so to help reduce swelling deficits.

Reagan raised more revenue not by raising tax rates but by making it harder to evade taxes and by reducing the number of tax breaks on the books. [...]

Read the whole thing, which contains embedded links and a video too.

I could nit-pik some things, but there are some relevant points made. Because we already are in debt, we have to manage the existing debt, while simultaneously trying to reduce it. So many things are interconnected, if you suddenly cut off some things, there will be chain reactions in other areas. It's almost like we have to back our way out of some things, before we can start cutting them.

Just as it took time to get this messed up, it's going to take some time to get out. But thrashing about wildly could be just as bad as paralysis. We need to find that middle path that works, with minimal time wasted and optimal damage control. It may mean some compromises for an interim period. I pray that Congress is up to the task. They must be.

I think this would be the best approach for Congress to follow:

Budget cutting, the REASONable way

It's workable, and makes sense in so many ways.
     

Is the Global Financial Crisis the beginning of the "brave new world" of life in America?

The books on Amazon.com are often reviewed by customers who also know quite a bit about the topic a book is about. Reading the customer reviews can be a real education in of itself. There are a lot of books appearing about the financial crisis, and what it means.

Below is a link to one book I read about recently. The first link is to the book, with the publisher's description. The two links that follow are from customers who read the book, and then gave their opinion. I thought it made a pretty interesting read:

Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown

Product Description

A practical guide to preparing for the next phase of the financial meltdown

From the authors who were the first to predict Phase I of our current economic downturn-in their landmark 2006 book, America's Bubble Economy-comes their insightful sequel discussing their predictions for the next phase of the Bubble Economy.

It may seem like the worst has come and gone, but it hasn't. With their proven track record of accurate predictions-which most financial professionals and economists missed-the authors explain how and why the next phase of the financial meltdown is about to hit. Things are not going back to how they were before. Instead, we are moving through uncharted territory, with new challenges and opportunities that few people can anticipate. Written in a straightforward and accessible style, Aftershock shows readers how to seek safety and profits in these dynamic economic conditions.

* Discusses how to protect assets, businesses, and jobs before and during the second wave of financial meltdown

* Provides clear and accurate advice on how to profit from the collapsing bubbles

* Offer focused guidance regarding real estate, which will continue to be a pressing concern for many

The authors' first book was chosen by Kiplinger's as one of the 30 Best Business Books of 2006, and its accuracy has been hailed by Paul Farrell of Dow Jones MarketWatch when he said "America's Bubble Economy's Predictions, though ignored, were accurate." Don't miss out on these time tested author's proven advice for how to mange your money during the coming financial meltdown.

Ok, so that's how it's being presented. Now here is a 5 star review from a customer:

"Don't Worry, Not a Single Penny of your Tax Dollars Will Fund the Bailouts."

"That's right. The bank and corporate bailout money is not coming from our taxes. Instead we're just borrowing it from foreign investors. We're also printing some of it...Of course, we will never, ever have to pay it all back, because even if we tried (and we won't), we never could."

That is why the U.S. Government will eventually be unable to borrow money and the nation will have to start living within it's means. That will be the beginning of the brave new world of life in America. This book is how we are speeding toward this "Bubblequake" and its "Aftershock." Although somewhat depressing (like all bad news is), this book also tells people what they can do to survive this worldwide depression and how to actually be able to make money during the painful readjustment of the world's economies. While this is a scary book because of what is happening all around us, it is also a hopeful book. The nation will survive after the country stops ignoring the basic laws of economics. The three authors are optimistic (maybe overly so) that the American people will be able to make the adjustments needed to achieve economic survival without having to become survivalists who have to grow their own food and defend their homes from roving mobs with guns. They feel that even dictators will be unable rise from the chaos because Americans will be changing its government officials as soon as it's obvious their policies don't work. There will be frequent changes in elected officials.

The nation will survive because basically the country is wealthy and will still be so after the economic bubbles have all popped and forced everyone and their government to live within their means.

These authors "are not bulls or bears or gold bugs, stock boosters or detractors, currency pushers, or doom-and-gloom crusaders," and "have no particular political ideology to endorse, and no dogmatic future to promote."

The goal of this book is "to tell you more details about the next round of bubbles to fall while there's still time to protect your assets and position yourself to survive and thrive in this dangerous, yet potentially highly profitable new environment...Although much of what we predicted in our first book that hasn't happened yet because most of the impact of the multi-bubble collapse is still to come. This is good news because it means you still have time to get prepared."

It's impossible to do justice to this book's message in a short review. The review copy I worked from is now practically destroyed by so many dog-eared pages and underline and highlighted passages. The three authors share a theory of the economy having being boosted by six economic co-linked bubbles. They are: The real estate bubble, the stock market bubble, the private debt bubble, the discretionary spending bubble, the dollar bubble and the government debt bubble. Four of those bubbles have already burst or are still in the process of collapsing. With the collapse of each bubble it puts more pressure on the remaining bubbles, and the two most important bubbles are in dire danger. The dollar bubble and government debt bubble collapses will change the face of America and the world. America will be bankrupt.

In their first book, "America's Bubble Economy" the authors accurately predicted the economic chaos of 2008 and 2009. This book picks up developments in 2010 and the following years and predicts the next economic bubbles that will pop. In the coming much worst economy, the book shows readers the best ways to protect, their jobs, businesses and assets. It explains how the housing crisis isn't "a sub prime mortgage problem whose contagion spread to other mortgages; it is a `housing price collapse.'" The number of home owners with mortgages that are underwater has risen from 14.3% in Q3 2008 to 33% in Q2 of 2009." Since 70% of the American Economy is based on consumer spending, the bubbles that have already popped or are still in the process of deflating won't be able to re-inflate. When the dollar loses it's value and the government can no longer pay its loans, and therefore won't be able to get any credit. America's golden age will be over.

Inflation, resorted to by the desperate government, will rack the nation bankrupting most businesses. "40 to 60%" unemployment may become the norm. There will be so many people seeking jobs that wages will tank. Everyone will be on Medicaid, not Medicare, and all the unemployed will be on welfare. The rich will have left the USA or be broke and all the government's taxes will come from the working people--the middle class. Since as much income as possible will be hidden, there will be national sales taxes and Value Added Taxes on every product or service. Family members will return home to live together with their extended families in order to control housing expenses.

After I finished this book I went home and made some of the changes suggested by this book. They include such obvious things as selling real estate if a buyer can be found and getting rid of variable rate mortgages if you can't sell the real estate. Variable rate mortgages are absolute poison. Selling off stocks is another suggestion. It doesn't have to be done all at once, it can be done over the next couple of years, but most stocks should be sold because the dollar bubble collapse will destroy stock market values. Collectables and art will be non-liquid and will drastically drop in value (90%) for the long term. Gold, and silver to a lesser extent, will retain its position as a hedge against inflation as well as a protection against the dollar bubble collapse. The authors also list the types of jobs that will be in demand during the coming perilous times. As one might expect some job categories will boom while the unnecessary ones will disappear. For example construction workers may want to start looking for jobs that repair existing structures rather than build new buildings. You'll have to read this book to get the answers to many of the questions that reading this volume will provoke.

The thing this reviewer liked the best about this book was the carefully explained logic of it's predictions. It provides a much better overview of the current economy. The readers will discover lots of new information that they've probably never heard or read before, but that the reader's gut instinct and personal experience will tell him or her is obviously true. While the authors may be wrong on some of their predictions, most of them will probably prove all too accurate. At the end of each chapter the authors list a website where more current information on that chapter's point can be gleaned before the next volume of this continuing series is published. This is a page turner, but it will be slow reading from the standpoint of having to constantly stop and make notes in the margin or pause to see how a particular point directly effects the reader's own situation. Reading this book will make you aware of economics like you've never previously been aware. Depending on your age, you may well recall your parents or grandparents advice that they'd learned during the Great Depression of 1929. The coming bubble bursts are going to be a more society-changing depression than the one 1929, although "few will suffer like they did in the Great Depression." The safety net will allow everyone to survive at a low standard of living. While the book didn't make this comparison, while reading it, I could easily visualize the United States as a colder, slightly wealthier version of Cuba. As I read it I also saw some visions of the movie "Dr. Zhivago" pop into my mind.

A "slightly wealthier version of Cuba"? Dr. Zhivago? UGH! Yet I have to wonder if there aren't some people in the current administration who would like to see exactly that. Their policies sure seem to be aiming for it.

Now for contrast, a one star review:

Interesting initial concept, but does not help investors

The book starts with the premise that there are six major "bubbles" that will combine to create great stress in the economy. OK, I'll buy that, but what I was looking for was helpful investing tactics to get through the bubble bursts ok. Written in mid 2009, the book failed miserably in providing tactical investment advice. For example:

o They suggest shorting the market with inverse ETFs. That strategy would have been a disaster in the year after March 2009 when the stock market soared.

o They write that the Euro community will be much more solid than the US dollar in the near term. Now we see the Euro in collapse with the US dollar doing fine.

Also, I find it extremely annoying that the authors constantly point to their previous book and say "We got those predictions right, so you should look carefully at what we have to say now." Such hubris usually leads to unfulfilled predictions.

Particularly with this constant pointing to their previous clairvoyance, I was really disappointed that there was nothing in this book (other than "buy gold"--surely not a new idea) that I found helpful in my investing tactics. I was disappointed in myself for wasting time reading most of the book.

The dollar may be doing better than the Euro at the moment, but I doubt that it's "doing fine". His comment about gold is no doubt true enough. I've found it a common criticism with these kinds of books, that they all say "buy gold", but don't offer much else in advice.

I'm going to end this with one more 5 star review, but THIS one goes into detail about some things he didn't like about the book:

In its field: Outstanding; Outside: Not so good

Although I don't particularly like the way this book is written and disagree with most of the irrelevant asides offered in support of the analyses: I find this to be the most complete and comprehensive analysis of America's ongoing economic problems that I have thus far encountered. In addition: the reasoned deductions which the authors draw from their analyses are far ranging and logical; and, for the most part, the conclusions which they reach are well justified and difficult to dispute. So, if you are looking for a book that will give you some valuable insight into what is happening to the U.S. economy today, and why; which explains how the ultimate collapse of that economy and the U.S. dollar will take place; and which forecasts what the United States and the world at large will be like following that calamity, then this is certainly a book which you should read.

I won't attempt to outline the book since other reviewers have probably done that already; and besides that might spoil the fun for you, the reader. But I would like to point out some of the seemingly gratuitous "asides" [not pertaining directly to the analyses] with which I disagree.

On page 170, the authors praise Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) for freeing the U.S. from the requirement to back its currency with gold, instead backing in by "the full faith and credit of the United States government." In my view, no praise is warranted, since FDR's actions helped set the U.S. on the path toward to its own economic destruction. Also on page 170, the authors state that in 1973 the United States went off the International Gold Standard [stopped redeeming foreign-held U.S. dollars for gold in accordance with the Bretton Woods Agreement signed in 1944] because that was the only way we could continue to buy foreign goods. In reality, the U.S. was forced to stop redeeming foreign-held dollars for gold because by 1973 we had inflated our currency to such an extent that France and Great Britain began to question the safety of our currency and there was a run on our gold reserves. On page 188, the authors once again praise FDR for crossing over political boundaries to push through his New Deal policies. It is fairly common knowledge nowadays, however, that FDR's policies helped propel what is thought to have been a probable recession into a thirteen year depression ended only by America's entry into World War II.

On page 195, the authors use the example of an independent physicist who, following the Challenger Accident in 1986, performed a simple experiment to show NASA why the accident occurred. In reality, Thiokol engineers pleaded with NASA not to launch STS-51L because the O-rings were colder than 53 degrees Fahrenheit. The decision to launch was made for political reasons not out of ignorance. On page 196, the authors praise the book "Silent Spring." That book, of course, misrepresented the science concerning DDT leading to its being banned and resulting in several million deaths worldwide due to malaria and other diseases. On page 200-201, the authors contend that gold is not a good store of value since its price fluctuates. In reality, the price of gold doesn't fluctuate. The price of various nation's currencies fluctuate relative to gold. To illustrate: The oil cartel members (OPEC) routinely adjust the price of oil, in terms of U.S. dollars, such that their return remains fairly constant in terms of gold. (Are they smarter than us, or what?) And, last but not least, on page 217, the authors praise Barack Obama for trying "to contain the growing blaze" [of uncontrolled government spending]. As we all know: Nothing could be farther from the truth.

But, one last thing: On page 187, the authors theorize that, at some far distant future date, some international assemblage will devise an international monetary system, independent of gold or any other metal, that "will be inflation-free because the system that controls the supply of IMUs [International Monetary Units] will be set up to avoid it." In all of man's history, gold is the only standard which has ever met that requirement! And human nature being what it is: How naïve can you get?

Regardless of all this: I can't help but offer my thanks and praise to the authors of this book for their in-depth assessment of America's troubles, particularly at this unique point in America's and the world's history. One can only hope that their work and this book will help bring more Americans to their senses and encourage them to take whatever steps they can to protect themselves and their families. Bottom line: This is a truly outstanding book in the field of economics, but outside that field, as demonstrated by the above noted "asides," it leaves much to be desired.

The interesting thing about customer reviews on Amazon.com, is that people can also leave comments on the reviews. Here is one comment on this last review:

Excellent review of this book. Glad to see someone else take issue with the authors' obsession with FDR, and their general economic illiteracy (even if their specific predictions concerning the economy are spot on). Also happy to see someone point out the obvious flaws in an international monetary system - after all, the whole point of an international monetary system is to increase the control a privileged elite have over spending power (the same function the Federal Reserve serves today). To assume that international currency would prevent economic depressions is naive indeed.

What I would like to add is that the authors mistakenly attribute the cause of the coming "aftershock" to Reagan's presidency in the 1980's. They attempt to paint the origin of our debt problem in his presidency, when in fact it stretches back to the president they so admire: FDR. Between FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society we are left with the real reasons for decreasing productivity growth: government healthcare, welfare programs and social security. By artificially limiting the number of people who need to work, and how long they need to work, the government has decreased the rate of productivity growth. Culturally other problems are also present (declining birth rates being one of them). So, instead of saying that the problem is merely the deficit, the authors should have focused on how government incentivized laziness through its welfare and social security programs.

Excellent! And the author of the review also gives an excellent reply to this comment. But I can't be printing it all here, so if you find it interesting, check it out. There are lots more reviews and comments.

As for the false premise that Reagan's presidency is the cause of the financial crisis, anyone believing that needs to disabuse themselves of that notion, with some facts:

Busting the Bank Deregulation Myth

If you want to look for root causes of our financial crisis, look to FDR, LBJ, and the “Reinvestment Acts" of three Democrat Presidents.

Some Republicans did their best to stop the damage before it reached critical mass, but they were stopped by Democrats:

Our Democrat-Created Crisis: They blocked a Reform bill co-sponsored by John McCain

The Republican's aren't without blame. We had 8 years of George W. Bush, and his spending like a Democrat, and keeping war debts off the national budget figures. I can make no excuses for it, because it is inexcusable. But two wrongs don't make a right, and now we have a Democrat Administration that seems intent on pushing us over the edge of the cliff, instead of guiding us away from it.

Where Republicans have erred, is in going along with the Democrats financial policies. And unfortunately, the Democrat's understanding of economics tends to be very poor. We are seeing the proof of that now.

But the voters choose the politicians, and the blame ultimately rests there. The electorate needs to make better choices. If these problems can be fixed, the voters may have their last chance to do so this November.


Also see:

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?

What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

# Our true national debt: $130,000,000,000,000.

Argentina's Example: Are we heading there?

     

Closing night at the RNC: "Reagan Flashbacks"

I really enjoyed it... minus the Democrat protesters trying to disrupt things.

Some folks, Republicans, have criticized John McCain's speech for being "not partisan enough". That was the part that gave me Reagan Flashbacks. Reagan knew how to speak to all Americans, Americans who like America the way we have traditionally known it. I felt John McCain understood that.

I believe Sarah Palin also understands that. Some conservatives have embraced her as being better than John McCain himself. But I think McCain and Palin share in common their vision of America, and their willingness to cross party lines to make alliances and move forward. This, I believe, will be the big change they will introduce, the reform they are going to bring. Neither strikes me as an ideologue. Both will be willing to compromise and find common ground with conservative Democrats.

I suspect that liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats are going to be delighted by a McCain/Palin administration. Everyone else, I think, is going to feel some discomfort.

I say, hooray for the middle! We don't need extremists of either side dominating our politics. We can all work together, but we only meet in the center. Politics is the art of compromise. I don't claim to be good at it, but I suspect this ticket will be.
     

What does the term "Conservative Republican" mean anymore? Can we all get along? SOON?

I love this cartoon because it cuts both ways. Conservatives would say it shows McCain is too liberal. But many moderate Republicans would say that some conservatives are so far right that they've left the Republican party, and now need to be "reached out" to. Me, I'm hoping John can reach BOTH ways.

Ronald Reagan did. He's now lauded as a "great conservative", but I remember when he was president, there were conservatives who complained he was too liberal. Reagan thought it was great if he got 80 percent of what he pushed for. Yet some on the far right continued to badger him to push for 100 percent.

Any politician who always gets 100 percent of what he wants has usually got a name like Mussolini or Hitler. 80 percent is pretty darn good. When you live in a democratic republic, you have to compromise, even when you hold a powerful position. And to even reach that powerful position, there has to be compromise and cooperation even within ones own party.

Reagan achieved his position by reaching out to conservatives. But not just Republican conservatives, but Democrat ones too, as well as moderates and independents. It was a true coalition, and it worked.

But that was 30 years ago. Times change, as do people. I'm hoping John McCain can also reach out to a wide range of voters and form a contemporary Republican Coalition, because we are going to need a big tent to win this one.

But this also begs a question: who ARE Republicans nowadays? What IS the definition of a conservative? Depending on who you talk to, you might get a very broad -or very narrow- answer.

I find this latest article from Gallup.com somewhat disturbing, but perhaps at the same time revealing:

Republicans Split on Whether Huckabee Should Drop Out

[...] The results show that there is no strong majority sentiment on the part of Republicans that Huckabee should leave the race. Forty-six percent say he should drop out, while 49% say he should continue.

According to media reports and many political observers, one of McCain's biggest challenges at this point is to woo the conservative wing of the Republican Party. It is not surprising, therefore, to find some differences by ideology in views of Huckabee's staying in the race.

Conservative Republicans say Huckabee should stay in the race, by a 54% to 42% margin. Moderate Republicans, on the other hand, say by a 57% to 38% margin that Huckabee should quit.

Gallup Poll Daily election tracking data show that about a quarter of Republicans nationwide continue to support Huckabee. Another 5% support Ron Paul or Alan Keyes, and 9% volunteer the name of another candidate (such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney) or don't have a choice. That currently leaves McCain with the support of about 6 in 10 Republicans nationwide.

In general, McCain's nomination support is lower among conservative Republicans, and higher among moderate Republicans. But the differences are perhaps not as large as might be expected given all of the attention to McCain's presumed problems with the conservative wing of his party. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The poll also goes on to give graphs and figures giving a breakdown of people's church attendance, how often they attend, and who they support in the Republican primaries. It's interesting.

But the thing that keeps jumping out at me, if the Gallup poll data is to be trusted, is that 1/4 of Republicans are Huckabee supporters. Now to me, the only thing I see conservative about Huckabee supporters is their anti-abortion and anti-gay positions. In most other ways they seem like Big Government Nanny-State Democrats to me. If they are now 1/4 of the party, and the Republicans are supposed to be the "conservative" party, then what does that say about the present state of conservatism in America?

I've also been hearing it said that McCain wouldn't dare choose Huckabee as Veep, because "conservatives" wouldn't like it. Yet is seems that at least 1/4 of Republicans nationally would like it. And 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans want Huckabee to continue running?

This just begs the question; if John McCain is going to form a coalition and pull the party together, what kind of coalition is it going to be? How will the 1/4 of Huckabee Republicans be accommodated? And what about other Republicans who don't like Huckabee but consider themselves to be conservatives of various kinds? What would this coalition look like, and how would it work?

To tell you the truth, I hope we find out... soon. I know a lot of folks are waiting to see who McCain picks as Veep before they will consider offering their support. Yet no matter who he picks, there are bound to be folks who will be dissatisfied. An effective coalition will need more than just a good Veep choice. Different segments of the coalition will want their particular concerns addressed, and that will have to be negotiated. Compromises will have to be made. Yet I believe it IS doable. I just hope it all starts to gel sooner rather than later. If conservatives only start to offer their support at the last minute like they did for Mitt Romney, it could end the same; too little, too late.

In a coalition, nobody gets 100 percent of what they want. But hopefully, we can all get what we NEED. If that happens, I'll be very happy.
     

McCain too liberal? Try Republicans for Obama!

Many conservatives seem upset with John McCain, who they percieve as being too liberal. Yet I have to wonder just how much influence such conservatives have in the Republican party anymore.

Conservative Talk Radio endorsed Romney, but the voters didn't follow their advice in sufficient numbers for Romney to succeed. Gallop polls suggest that as many as 1/4 of Republican's nationally are voting for Huckabee, who may be conservative on social issues like abortion, but is more like a big government Democrat on everything else.

John McCain has won the lead in the primaries, because many Republican voters put him there. Changes are happening in the Republican party. Instead of worrying about John McCain, perhaps conservatives should be more concerned about the Huckabees, or even worse...

Obama Republicans?

[...] If one great communicator -- the eloquent Ronald Reagan -- could build a coalition of disaffected Democrats that swung both of his presidential elections his way, can an almost-great communicator -- the fiery Barack Obama -- build a coalition of disaffected Republicans to swing the Democrat primary election his way?

It's possible, says Brian F. Schaffner, an assistant professor of political science at American University in Washington, D.C. "Obama definitely has the potential to win over some Republicans in the same way that Reagan won over some Democrats," says Brian F. Schaffner, an assistant professor of political science at American University in Washington, D.C.

Even though Obama probably takes more liberal positions on many issues than does Hillary Clinton, Schaffner says the perception among Republicans is that he is more moderate.

"This is a matter of style over substance," Schaffner notes. "Obama speaks so often of bringing the parties together and working with Republicans, he seems less polarizing to Republicans than Clinton, who has long been demonized by that party."

The Pew Research Center corroborates Schaffner's inkling. It recently produced a report showing that Obama is perceived as more liberal than Clinton among Democrats, yet is seen as more moderate than Clinton among Republicans.

One Republican who isn't afraid of Obama's liberalism is John Martin, who directs the grassroots Web organization "Republicans for Obama."

A Bronx, N.Y., native who was very active in the Young Republicans in college, Martin, 29, is in law school but serving on active duty in Afghanistan as a U.S. Navy reservist. E-mailing from Afghanistan, Martin said his group has more than 400 members since he last checked and that the Web site's server received so many clicks the day Obama won Iowa that it crashed.

Lisa Kinzer, 30, is another rock-ribbed Republican who's gone Obama. The Norman, Okla., native has been a registered Republican for 12 years. She has nothing against President Bush. But she does have a problem with the GOP's 2008 candidates. [...]

So while Republicans are busy shooting themselves in the foot, arguing about who is a "real" conservative or who is a "RHINO", and generally trashing their own party and tearing it apart, swing voters, conservative Democrats and even some Republican's may be looking elsewhere to cast their vote in November.

I find it incredible that Republicans would actually believe that Obama is more conservative than Clinton, when Democrats believe exactly the opposite. In fact, his record shows he was the most liberal senator in 2007. The most liberal, out of 100 senators.

One could simply dismiss it by claiming that Republican's have "air heads" in their party too. I don't doubt it, but that might be too easy a way out. It ignores the simple fact that voters don't find a split and quarreling party attractive to vote for. Obama is an excellent speaker, and people who follow their emotions more than facts are easily swayed. But I think it also points to the fact that many Republicans, and people who are tempted to vote Republican, are more liberal, more flexible, than the Hard Right.

If the party is going to have a Big Tent and win elections, it can't be totally ideologically rigid. It will have to encompass more diverse views within the party. That is in fact what a coalition does; and it is with coalitions that Republicans win elections. Where is our coalition?

If Republicans don't unite soon and get their act together, they may find they no longer even have a place on the stage. A new coalition needs to be formed, and those who cannot or will not compromise with their fellow party members may find themselves left out all together.


Related Links:

You Gotta Hand It To Obama

A riff on "redefining conservatism"

The GOP is not the "Conservative Party"
     

The state of the Reagan Coalition, as it is today

I've done two other posts, linking to articles that question whether the Reagan Coalition is as influential as it once was, or if it's even still the Republican base.

I think the questions are important. But to be clear, I'm not saying the Reagan Coalition is DEAD. But if we end up with McCain as our candidate, then clearly something has changed or gone terribly wrong. The situation we find ourselves in could possibly be explained thus:

1.) The coalition may be smaller; it's eldest members have certainly passed on, as has President Reagan himself. Have many new members of like mind replaced them? If not, then the coalition would be smaller, and therefor less influential.

2.) A coalition needs a leader to unite them as one political force. The coalition has not rallied around any of the candidates. It has, in fact, been split.

A segment of evangelicals has gone for Huckabee. These folks were once Democrats, and like big government. They are reverting back to their roots, and Huckabee has split them away from the coalition.

Giuliani and McCain may have split away many of the National Security member's of the coalition. The Fiscal conservatives drafted Fred Thompson into the race, but he entered so late that many potential supporters had already committed themselves elsewhere; his campaign staff was too small and couldn't cope quickly enough to build the support he needed.

The coalition has been fractured and scattered; now we find ourselves looking at John McCain as the potential front runner. I say "potential" because the primaries are hardly over yet; the MSM may be pushing him as having already won, but that's typical of them, trying to create the news instead of reporting it.

The coalition, however fractured and reduced it may be, it's members, however scattered about they have been, still have a chance to regroup. I see that they have two choices left:

1.) Rally around and support Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday February 5th. He is really the only alternative to McCain right now. He may not be your ideal candidate, but in politics we often don't get our ideal; we get reality. We vote for the best person AVAILABLE, and we work to make the most of it.

2.) Vote for McCain, and take the consequences. You might get a few things you want... if he can even win. The MSM wants him to be nominated, because they know he's unpopular with the base. Once he gets the nomination, I have no doubt the MSM will turn on him, play up the aspects about him that Republican's hate, play that tape of him ranting like a lunatic about lettuce and lazy Americans... you get the idea?

If Mitt gets the Nomination, he will also be given a very hard time. Either way, it's going to be a tough battle. But I believe that Mitt Romney is the best candidate, not necessarily the perfect one, but the best one available. He has many fine qualities, and should be given serious consideration. The left absolutely despises him, for reasons that conservatives would love. Even conservative Democrats. Yes, remember, conservative Democrats were always a part of the Reagan coalition too.

Now that the many candidates that have distracted and splintered the coalition have been narrowed down, we have an opportunity to unite again. The coalition may have changed; times change, the players change, but certain conservative truths don't change, and that is what unites the coalition. So let's not sweat the details too much, and unite and pick the BEST candidate on Super Tuesday.

I feel that candidate is Mitt. If it turns out to be McCain, I'll deal with it if and when I must. But I live in Oregon; our primary won't be until April. Those of you who get to vote in Super Tuesday have a chance to reunite the coalition, in whatever shape it might be today. I hope you will. It's up to you.


Related Links:

Is Romney appealing to a conservative coalition that no longer controls the GOP?

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

The early primaries are the problem
     

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

It was often said that Fred Thompson was appealing to the "Reagan Coalition". JB Williams at AmericanDaily.com contends that it wasn't just Thompson's failure to unite that coalition that caused Fred to drop out, but that it was the Republican's failure to support an actual conservative:

No Conservatives Please

The Writing on the Wall in South Carolina - Thompson didn't fail the Republican Party. The Party that failed to present a conservative themselves, or support one even when conservatives drafted one, failed Thompson.

Shade tree political pundits, who worked around the clock to douse ice water on Fred Thompson’s conservative campaign for President, are busy with their “I told you so” follow-ups. For them, Thompson’s departure from the race is interpreted as hard proof that the candidate was indeed “too old,” “too unhealthy,” “too lazy” and “too disinterested” in winning or leading. But for those who know Fred best, those who drafted him and worked to support him, his departure confirms something quite different…something much worse.

Thompson is simply too Conservative

At a time in history when conservatives are referred to as only a “fringe” of the Republican Party, and when fundamental American values and principles are called “extreme right-wing ideas,” a truly conservative candidate can’t win.

Conservative candidates never do well in liberal strongholds like New Hampshire, where nearly 50 percent of all voters are registered Independent and even Republicans vote liberal, or Michigan, the labor union capitol of the United States. Losing in liberal stronghold states is no surprise; in fact, it’s more a confirmation of one’s conservative credentials.

But not so long ago, there was no such thing as “too conservative” for South Carolina and that’s why Thompson bet his farm on South Carolina. Due to how early primaries are scheduled in liberal leaning states, a conservative candidate must begin his quest for national office in South Carolina, the first traditionally conservative state to hold a primary.

The History Thompson knows too well

For any conservative (or Republican) to win a national election, he must unite at least two of the three primary branches of the Republican Party. History provides a vital lesson in this regard. [...]

I think this explains a lot about why Fred quit after South Carolina. But I still wish he had not quit so soon. Independents were allowed to vote, which skewed the results. The weather was bad for voter turnout. There were too many candidates on the playing field... oh well. It happened the way it did.

This article looks at the history of the Reagan Coalition and Republicans in elections since then. It's an interesting history, with lots of plausible explanations for what we are seeing now. It's not a really long article, and worth reading the whole thing. It's an education. But I won't necessarily agree with the conclusion.

The fight is not over yet. In the end, we work with what we have. I don't know if it's even realistic to talk about the "Reagan Coalition" anymore. That was then, this is now. Reagan created the Regan Coalition in his time. He's gone, and so is the coalition... as it was. Something else new could spring from the roots of that, but if it does, it will be NEW and different. Perhaps inspired by the former, but not the same as.

That is the reality. Lets deal with it, and keep moving forward. Something good may yet come of it.
     

Fred Thompson: Restore the Reagan Executive Order on Federalism that was revoked by Clinton

I'm with Fred 100% on this. Here are some excerpts from one of his blog posts:

On Federalism

[...] The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.

This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency. [...]

Fred understands the importance of the separation of powers, and has seen firsthand while serving in the Senate the consequences of disregarding those principles. He also has some good ideas as to what should be done about it:

[...] A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.[...]

(bold emphasis mine) Do read the whole thing. Fred's understanding of, and respect for, the Constitution, and his understanding of where things have gone so terribly wrong in Washington D.C., gives me hope that we can re-drain that swamp and take our country back from the extremists of both parties.

Run Fred Run!

Hat tip to Born Again Redneck Bourgeois