I agree with a lot of her policy position, but Representative Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment. Her appearance on Hardball yesterday should appall anyone with a sense of history. Here is what she said: "What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." We have not heard that kind of rhetoric since the McCarthy days; such language is not only inappropriate is just plain ugly and possibly dangerous.

There is a concerted effort amongst most Republican officeholders to run away from George Bush. After all, he is extremely unpopular. Although they be running away from his record, it would appear that some Republicans such as Bachmann and the McCain Palin ticket have run toward the basic Bush campaign philosophy - vilify those who disagree with you and smear, smear, smear until the election. Here's the bizarre logic that underpins the startegy: You're with them or against them; you're a patriot if you are with them, and you are un-American if you are against them; you are a qualified candidate if your are patriotic, but you are not fit for office if you are un-American. Fool enough "low information" voters and you have won.

Winning for the sake of winning is not the style of Ronald Reagan. Reagan believed deeply in the value of ideas. He believed that communism was dangerous and told everyone why, but he did not vilify Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale as un-American communists. He believed that government was the problem, but he did not tag Carter or Mondale as un-Americans because they (especially Mondale) saw government as the solution. It was the strength of his ideas that inspired people - not the toxicity of his rhetoric. People believed his words, and more importantly, believed that he believed his words, and they followed. The result, an effective presidency - the last popular President to call himself a Republican - the last Republican President who even came close to advancing liberty and shrinking government. The last great Republican President?

The Bushies, Rovians, McCainites, and Bachmannites all claim the legacy of Ronald Reagan as theirs. However, in both style and substance they all fail miserably. They grow the size of government, fight back the cause of liberty, and spew venom unbecoming of any civilized person, not to mention public figures. The day of the happy warrior who stood for something bigger than himself is gone. Instead, we are stuck with a bunch of immitators, who, increasingly, appear less and less believable. This crew of incompetent hacks have killed the spirit of the Reagan Revolution more surely than the Democrats ever could. They should be embarrassed of themselves; I know I am for them.

I do not know whether McCain will win the election (I think he will, but who really knows?), but what I really don't know (and would like to know) is what will become of the Republican Party in a post-McCain campaign era. I have no doubt that the party will continue to exist and be a force in national politics; however, I wonder upon what intellectual foundation it will sit. The scenarios are interesting:

I fear that if McCain wins, that will mean the end of influence that conservatives have in this party. After all, McCain not only repudiated some of his prior positions, his reaction to the financial "crisis" has been one of repudiating the basic economic beliefs that he has said he holds. He has railed against the greed in Wall Street (read the private sector) and called for new, tougher regulation of the financial industry. How this squares with his Reaganist rhetoric in this past is beyond me.

The crisis provided an opportunity for McCain to not only talk the talk of the Reagan legacy but to walk the walk, and he failed miserably. The correct response to the "crisis" by a free marketer would have been to call oppose the bailout and call for less regulation (e.g., getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) not more. The vote for the bailout and the call for more regulation was an admission on his part that free market economics (his core belief we were told) does not work and that government intervention in basic economic transactions is necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. Instead of telling those individuals and businesses who made bad deals and saw their bets go bad that they would have to suffer the consequences of their risky behavior, instead, McCain advocated not only "rescuing" banks by infusing them with capital (stuffing them with increasingly worthless printed money), but also buying under-performing mortgages and renegotiating the deals - at tax payers' expense. These proposals were nothing short of disastrous for fiscal conservative thought in the party.

If McCain loses, this will obviously create a void to be filled within the next election cycle. Because McCain has alienated the fiscal conservatives in this party, you can bet on a very fractured party. In one corner will be the socially conservative/fiscally moderate voices lead by the likes of Palin and Huckabee. In the other corner will be the fiscally conservative (or what passes as such in the Republican Party these days)/socially moderate voices lead by the likes of Romney and Giuliani. The findamental question is whether these camps can come together to form something of a cohesive unit. It is my fear that Palin, especially, has so stoked anti-free market ferver in this cycle that the divide will not be healed. If the free marketers find their candidate, the social conservatives will sit out and vice versa.

It is tempting to imagine that the two camps will set aside their differences and join forces to restore a Republican to the White House; however, I fear that that just isn't likely to happen. The free marketers and extreme social conservatives are not really of the same party. A great many social conservatives espouse the small government line and decry runaway spending and fret about the size of government, but the truth is that a great many of these people are the beneficiaries of the largess they profess to hate. Fiscal conservatives know this and distrust them, and the social conservatives know at some level that they will not get as many government goodies if the fiscal conservatives regain power. This mutual disrespect and distrust have been exposed and picked at like annoying scabs by John McCain and Sarah Palin. One can only hope the scab eventually grows over and heals and does not become a major infection.