As a long time GOP member, I see the following at work:

1. For many years, the GOP dreamed of Goldwater in 64, and Calvin Coolidge before that. The dream was to assemble a Congress and White House which would repeal the Great Society, and then at least parts of the New Deal. Control of the courts would role back the Warren era, to at least 1954 (stopping at Brown).

That dream died in 2000, when George W. Bush convinced his party to adopt *compassionate,* i.e., big government, conservative as a *tactic* to get in charge and then start working for change. His convention speech in 2000 should receive greater attention than it does, because he laid out a number of programs he would *not* roll back (similar to Reagen, in his 1980 debate with Carter, only more formalized). It was a repudiation of Gingrich in 1994, and Reagen and Goldwater before that.

Conservatives have never recovered from that convention. The dream of cutting government, to match cuts in taxes, is dead. The government is bigger than ever.

2. Other forces were at work. Our culture of deferral caused incumbents of both parties to borrow rather than spend. It became impossible for Republicans to cut cherished programs for their favored constiuents (e.g., Medicare for the elderly, farm subsidies for farmers), even as, in the case of Medicare and other entitlements, those programs dwarfed all else. The Republicans still had tax cuts, but these were ephemeral; if you don't cut spending, it's just a tax deferral, not a tax cut.

3. This year, there are two shipwrecks. The first is the general campaign. The second is the crack-up - remember, the Titanic broke before it sank - between evangelicals and high net worth moderates. I have heard moderates complain about Palin and say they would have voted for McCain if he had chosen a Lieberman or a Ridge. Yet, this overlooks the existence of the *evangelical base.* It may be too late to come to this realization in 7 days, especially with early voting, but moderates with high income would probably be better off with a Sarah Palin at the bottom of the ticket than Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Charlie Rangel in charge of their wallets. There are flickerings of understandings on that, but I can't tell if they will fully register in time.

4. As for the Peggy Noonans of the world, two things are worth mentioning.

First, their criticisms of Palin are rather tinny. Noonan says she is "just bad" for conservatism, in part because of her Ayres bashing, but she seems not to realize that *McCain* undoubtedly made this strategic choice. George Will says the party needs more than love for Sarah; it needs a platform. Yet again, how is that her fault? McCain is at the top of the ticket; it's his responsibility.

Second, there is some sore loserman here. David Frum of NR complains that Palin is worse than Dan Quayle. Christopher Buckley says his father would never have supported Palin. Both are wrong. I know what I'm talking about with Quayle; I'm from Indiana and watched every minute of the '88 coverage. He didn't have 1/10 of Sarah's talent, and besides, Sarah's most troublesome moments all preceded her successful debate. Palin is saving McCain's bacon all across the country; far more people want to see her than him. Additionally, National Review fought tooth and nail on Bush/Quayle's behalf, in part because GHW Bush was ahead and they didn't want Quayle's problems to bring them down. These fair weather friends find it all too easy to bury McCain/Palin and win cheap applause from the MSM because they are a few points behind in the polls. This tactic takes no guts.

5. Whither the Republican Party? Good question. It may just wait for the Democrats to go too far, then hope for a '94 type reaction. Or it may even pull off a come from behind win this year. But as for conservative principles, I don't see how they can reclaim them, without proposing meaningful cuts to *popular* spending programs. Maybe the country itself will get serious enough to give such a platform at least a fair hearing. If not, we'll have a liberal party and one that has no real idea why it even exists.

If you think the McCain ad is bad, check out the breathless coverage of this affair at the Neocon Review on-line.

McCain should be embarrassed by the fact there are seven days to go and he has nothing better to talk about. As a McCain supporter, I would much prefer even a full throated attack centered on Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko to this highly attenuated and confusing argument. If you don't like the Obama tax plan, just say so. Explain why. There's plenty there to criticize. Taking radio snippets out of context and then speaking of *socialism* is stupid. After all, we won the Cold War. They no longer have streets named after WWI-era communists in East Berlin.