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 frastration 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.

Steve Kornacki, an organizer for Unity08 (a group that advocates a bipartisan Presidential ticket in 2008) rehashes the same hit material on Mitt Romney that we’ve all heard before:

“But Mr. Romney’s political and financial positioning at this early stage actually invites a parallel to Phil Gramm and his lavishly funded—and epically catastrophic—quest for the G.O.P. nomination in 1996.”

“And it’s only a matter of time before Mr. Romney, who is blessed with a more agreeable personality than Mr. Gramm, sees his early appeal to conservative donors
undercut by YouTube”

“But in this era of viral video, how can Mr. Romney claim the “conservative’s conservative” mantle when he’s left such a vivid, meandering trail?”

You know, same old stuff. But the line that stood out to me was earlier in the piece:

“There is reason to believe that Mr. Obama’s exalted standing could be of the lasting variety, since his financial support indicates an enviable mix of grass-roots fervor and professional muscle.

But Mr. Romney’s view from the top may be very short-lived indeed.”

Somehow this is Kornacki’s astute analysis: Obama’s numbers mean something while Romney’s don’t. Then comes the tie in with Phil Gramm. There is no explanation as to why Romney’s numbers are meaningless besides the strained attempt to parallel the Gramm campaign. I mean no disrespect to Senator Obama, who in fact does have very enviable numbers both on the total amount raised and the number of donors. However, the attempt to paint Romney as a Gramm reincarnate is misguided to say the least. Did they both have successful fundraising? Yes. Are they both conservative? Yes. But the same comparison could be made to a number of candidates, past and present. Thus, if these were the only two criteria to compare one unfavorably to Phil Gramm, then Kornacki has unnaturally narrowed the field. Kornacki also glosses over the differences between Romney and Gramm, even the ones exposed in his own piece:

“Mr. Gramm, who was fond of noting that he’d flunked the third, seventh, and ninth grades…”

Does this sound like Romney? Or maybe this is Romney:

“The reasons were myriad: over-inflated expectations, strategic miscalculations, prolonged blundering on a politically sensitive topic in New Hampshire, and an obscene “burn rate” of campaign cash with no discernible benefits in return.”

None of these descriptors that Kornacki uses to describe Gramm match Romney. Indeed, in reading the article, it becomes painfully apparent that Kornacki is projecting. He wants Romney to be Gramm and so tries to parallel Gramm’s failed presidential bid. But wanting it to be so does not make it so. If Kornacki were more honest with himself he might see more parallels between a current candidate for president that raised the most cash, is a second term senator, faces inflated expectation, prolonged blundering on the most politically sensitive topic of the day (Iraq), and panders to the senator’s base: Hillary Clinton.

CNS cites several noted political scientists, including Larry Sabato, saying that Romney’s money is not just Mormon money.

Rudy has taken some heat for his comments in the Dana Bash interview for CNN. Rudy portrays abortion as a constitutional right that requires government subsidy for poor women. However, the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that constitutional rights must be publicly subsidized. In Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), the Court stated:

In Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977), we upheld a state welfare regulation under which Medicaid recipients received payments for services related to childbirth, but not for nontherapeutic abortions. The Court rejected the claim that this unequal subsidization worked a violation of the Constitution. We held that the government may “make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and . . . implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds.” Id., at 474. Here the Government is exercising the authority it possesses under Maher and Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), to subsidize family planning services which will lead to conception and childbirth, and declining to “promote or encourage abortion.” The Government can, without violating the Constitution, selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program which seeks to deal with the problem in another way. In so doing, the Government has not discriminated on the basis of viewpoint; it has merely chosen to fund one activity to the exclusion of the other. “[A] legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right.” Regan, supra, at 549. See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); Cammarano v. United States. “A refusal to fund protected activity, without more, cannot be equated with the imposition of a ‘penalty’ on that activity.” McRae, supra, at 317, n.19. “There is a basic difference between direct state interference with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant with legislative policy.” Maher, supra, at 475.

Thus, even with Rudy’s concept of federalism and state funding of abortion (as opposed to federal funding), there seems to be no requirement that states subsidize abortion either. Certainly a state can choose to subsidize abortions for poor women, just as the federal government could choose to do so. However, there is no requirement that they do so.

This is one of the areas of divergence between Mitt and Rudy and exposes the need for an executive who will promote life issues. Because it is a choice of the government, the position (on abortion) of the President is pivotal. It is not sufficient to appoint ‘strict constructionist judges’ when so many of life issues are left to the discretion of the political branches.

The Boston Globe and others are reporting Romney’s remarks about Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria:

Romney brought up Pelosi’s trip twice, both times unprompted.

“Frankly, the decision of Nancy Pelosi to go to meet with Assad in Syria is one which I find outrageous,” Romney said, the second time.

Defying Bush, Pelosi, D-Calif., met with the Syrian president Wednesday in an attempt to pressure the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with the Middle Eastern country. Democrats say the administration’s attempts to isolate Syria have failed to force the Assad government to change its policies.

Certainly there will be outcry against Romney for his denouncement of Pelosi and whether this is a politically popular move is yet to be decided, but…

Romney is correct.

The President is the sole foreign policy organ under the constitution. This was understood early on in the history of the nation. In 1816, the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations stated:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success.

(U.S. Senate, Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p. 24.). The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this principle by stating that “[i]n this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.” (U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936); Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)(concur. J. Powell)). Pelosi’s visit is, thus, patently unconstitutional so long as it conflicts with the President’s foreign policy.

Beyond the constitutional issues, the practical effect of the Pelosi visit is to present the United States as schizophrenic or bi-polar. One day nations are dealing with Bush-America, the next day nations are dealing with Pelosi-America. Neither schizophrenia nor bi-polarism is a healthy state for a person. Similarly neither is a healthy state for a nation. Which one is the one to deal with? Certainly the opposing viewpoints have their preferred representative, but that does little to solve the problem. Indeed it encourages similar behavior from other nations.

So Romney is right. He should be outraged that congressional representatives have acted outside the scope of their power and encouraged disregard for the Constitution itself.