Replies

((( MITT ROMNEY PING )))

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ ON ] or [ OFF ] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

Kyle Hampton, a contributor at MyManMitt.com, offers the following rebuttal and commentary for this article by David Frum:

Is the Reagan Revolution over?
The American Enterprise Institute has an article written by David Frum. He says that the Reagan Revolution is over. Why? He explains:
In some shrewd instinctive way, the Republican party is sensing that the United States has changed. And just as the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Grant eventually ran out of Civil War generals to nominate to the presidency, so perhaps time has run out for the old Nixon-Reagan coalition that came together to vote against the social upheavals of the 1960s and the 1970s.
So what does this have to do with Mitt Romney? Frum explains after extolling the virtues of Rudy Giuliani:
Mitt Romney had an equally compelling story of executive leadership to tell. He chose not to. He chose to run as Bush's heir in a year when even Republicans are looking for Bush's opposite. That choice is looking more and more misguided. It may soon look fatal.
Frum’s complaint is essentially that, in spite of Romney’s executive leadership abilities, Romney is a social conservative. He laments that Romney “has given short shrift to his breakthrough health-care achievement,” that he “chose the George H. W. Bush presidential library as the site of his first major foreign policy address,” and that Romney “dropped hints that if nominated, he would choose Florida governor Jeb Bush as his running mate” (although he mentioned at least 4 other names in that same conversation). For these unforgivables Frum declares the end of the Reagan movement.

Frum’s complaint seems overly dramatic. Does Romney’s social conservatism REALLY mean the end of the Reagan revolution? It hardly seems to be the case, since EVERY GOP candidate (including his beloved Rudy) has invoked Reagan and is attempting to follow in the footsteps of the Great Communicator. Rather it seems that Compassionate Conservatism has experienced an untimely demise. There is little doubt that conservatives feel burned by the Bush administration, but it is not because of Bush’s social conservatism. Indeed, one of the high points of his administration has been Bush’s nomination of Justices Roberts and Alito. The frustration with Bush is because he has failed to follow Reagan’s lead to shrink government and competently fight our enemies abroad. Had Bush been able to accomplish these goals, he would be universally praised. However, Bush has not competently pursued these goals, allowing government to bloat and our enemies to fester.

Thus, Romney’s social conservatism hardly connotes the end of the Reagan Revolution. Moreover it indicates the return to conservative principles across the board. Romney would be a return to Reagan’s principles where Bush deviated. Rudy’s candidacy would patently discard an important part of Reagan’s legacy. Romney, however, accepts all of Reagan’s principles: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and, yes, social conservatism.

Time for a history lesson. The media and the Democrats want you to believe that somehow the 2006 election was different, something special. No, the losses the GOP suffered WERE to be expected. Let us review, shall we?

President / Mid-term / Senate / House

Grant (R) 1870 -4 -31
Grant (R) 1874 -8 -96
Hayes (R) 1878 -6 -9
Arthur (R) 1882 +3 -33
Cleveland (D) 1886 +3 -12
Harrison (R) 1890 0 -85
Cleveland (D) 1894 -5 -116
McKinley (R) 1898 +7 -21
TR (R) 1902 +2 +9
TR (R) 1906 +3 -28
Taft (R) 1910 -10 -57
Wilson (D) 1914 +5 -59
Wilson (D) 1918 -6 -19
Harding (R) 1922 -8 -75
Coolidge (R) 1926 -6 -10
Hoover (R) 1930 -8 -49
FDR (D) 1934 +10 +9
FDR (D) 1938 -6 -71
FDR (D) 1942 -9 -45
Truman (D) 1946 -12 -55
Truman (D) 1950 -6 -59
Ike (R) 1954 -1 -18
Ike (R) 1958 -13 -48
JFK (D) 1962 +3 -4
LBJ (D) 1966 -4 -47
Nixon (R) 1970 +2 -12
Nixon (R) 1974 -5 -48
Carter (D) 1978 -3 -15
Reagan (R) 1982 +1 -26
Reagan (R) 1986 -8 -5
Bush ‘41 (R) 1990 -1 -8
Clinton (D) 1994 -9 -54
Clinton (D) 1998 0 +4
Bush ‘43 (R) 2002 +2 +6
Bush ‘43 (R) 2006 -6 -28

(1) With only four exceptions, EVERY single President since Lincoln has lost seats in the House in the midterm elections. The only ones to buck the trend were the Roosevelts (TR because he was the mostly popular President EVER his first term, FDR because of the Depression), Clinton (because of Republican miscues during the Impeachment) and Bush ‘43 (because of 9/11). GW was bound to lose this one.

(2) Midterm years that are the dreaded “six year itch” are 1874, 1894, 1906, 1918, 1938, 1950, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1986, 1998 and 2006 . I have marked 1966 as one in that LBJ was finishing out what would have been JFK’s second term. GW is his sixth year. Losses in the midterm were almost certain.

(3) Wilson (1918), FDR (1942), Truman (1950) and LBJ (1966) all lost seats both in the House and Senate when the country was at war. McKinley (1898) gained Senate seats, but lost seats in the House. Guess the country had mixed feelings about thumping Spain. Bush ‘41 can also be considered in this group as the country was gearing up for Gulf War I. Another category that the 2006 election fits into.

(4) In terms of serious setbacks in the midterms this one doesn’t even come close. 1894 ranks as the all-time thumping with an astounding 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats changing hands. 1994, 1974, 1966, 1958 (I thought everyone liked Ike), 1938 (so much for the New Deal being popular), 1946, 1930 or 1874 were much, much worse.

(5) Voters don’t like scandals and take it out on the party in power. Foley, et al doomed the Republicans at the start.

(6) Voters don’t like excess spending. The thumping the Republicans received in 1890 was a voter rebellion against the “Billion Dollar Congress”. The same can be said about FDR’s spanking in 1938 (New Deal overreach) and Clinton’s in 1994 (attempted takeover of the health care system). With bridges to nowhere is it any wonder the GOP lost seats?

(7)The historical average is a loss of 3 Senate seats and 34 House seats for the President’s party in the midterms. For the “six year curse” the averge is 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats. The 2006 losses fit the historical norms.

8) The margin of victory in three of the six lost Senate seats were razor thin. A swing of a couple thousand votes in one of those races and Republicans would have retained control in the Senate.

Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing over the elections is unjustified. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow.