Or so John McCain is telling his troops, explaining why he is not quitting after some very rough times recently. A couple of campaign memoes are circulating from Team McCain, one of which explains that Ronald Reagan was broke in 1979 as well:

Chris Cillizza reports it:

The first document seeks to draw parallels between Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential bid and the current state of McCain's operation. "During the summer of 1979, Ronald Reagan's campaign reported that it was broke," begins the memo. "The candidate had to explain his weak fundraising and big spending, as well as overcome doubts about his age and ability." After firing much of his top campaign staff just before the New Hampshire primary, he went on to win that ballot, the GOP nomination and the presidency. "Ultimately when Ronald Reagan took control of his own campaign, he started to see successes," the document reads.

It's a nice narrative and a good find for the McCain team. Reagan hits hard times, nearly flounders, but changes his leadership and strategy and goes on to victory and eight years of changing history. I'm sure that the McCain team is hoping it's true. It's not.

On June 12, 1987, Ronald Reagan was a lame-duck President who was starting to warm up to the same Soviet Union he labeled the "evil empire" only several years before. The USSR was led by Mikhail Gorbachev and his ideas of "perestroika" and "glasnost" were ones that had never been previously entertained by a Soviet leader.

Reagan saw a chance to help Mr. Gorbachev along. He was scheduled to speak at the Brandenburg Gate at the wall in Berlin. On one side of the gate was West Germany--a nation that was thriving under free markets and freedom. On the other was East Germany, a Soviet puppet state where the populace was oppressed and those who attempted to escape to the west were shot or imprisoned.

Reagan had his speechwriters put into print a challenge to Gorbachev to remove the wall. The State Department and many Reagan aids thought speech too provocative at a time where Gorbachev was making slight headway with the ruling, rigid Politburo. Reagan decided to make the speech anyway and the rest is history:

Two decades later, what can we learn from the epochal events that followed - the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the Soviet Union? "People were afraid of the consequences of what Reagan would say," George Shultz, Reagan's long-serving Secretary of State, told me over lunch in Berlin last week. "But it turns out he was right." We were sitting in an elegant dining room overlooking the city, in a building that sits on the former border between east and west Berlin. "Saying something like, 'Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall' - that could be perceived as provocative. Things were breaking and were in a lot of flux. At the time some people argued, why stick your finger in [Gorbachev's] nose? But knowing Ronald Reagan as I did, I would have said don't bother. He was going to express his feelings."

Wednesday night, watching Boston's Fox-25 on TV, I saw a segment concerning actor David Arquette. Once known for his roles in the popular "Scream" movies, Arquette's now promoting a horror flick of his own, "The Tripper." It features a serial killer who wears ... a Ronald Reagan mask.

Arquette, who produced, directed, wrote, and acted in the movie, said that it has a "slight political statement," and that "the true violence going on is in the world around us." (He also made the "slight political statement" comment to the Daily Colonial, student newspaper of The George Washington University, and described his anti-Reagan beliefs in more detail.)

Arquette's comment about violence is accurate, but as far as assigning blame for it goes, Reagan left the Oval Office over 18 years ago. Is Arquette implying that George W. Bush is the heir to Reagan? The Gipper never involved us in costly "hot wars" like Bush did in Iraq. I'd say Arquette's reasoning sounds as flimsy as most horror scripts.

Jimmy Carter has broken every single unwritten law when it comes to ex-presidents. Generally, former chief executives retire and write their memoirs while staying above the fray. In Carter's case, he's been attempting to remake his legacy since that January day in 1981 when he handed over the keys to the Oval Office to Ronald Reagan and the hostages that were captured under his leadership were returning home.

The reason Carter is still quoted is because he says things the liberal press want to hear and print: condemnation of President Bush and condemnation of Israel. He's at it again as reported by the far-left British paper The Guardian:

Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: ``Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.''

``And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world,'' Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Let's parse these unbelievable words. Carter calling a foreign leader who has ruled his nation through some good and bad times "abominable" and "subservient", in other words, Bush's lapdog. What gives Carter the right to say this? He was the leader of our nation during the darkest times we'd seen since the second world war. His policies led us into a recession that was devastating. The highest taxes ever, high unemployment and inflation in double-digits. It took Reagan several years to get us out of that economic rut.

Let the grandstanding begin! Today Rudy Giuliani released his so-called Ten Commandments "Twelve Commitments to the American People." This hollow P.R. stunt ranks right up there with the Hillary Clinton's disingenuous "Listening Tour," and Mitt Romney's creepy "Five Brother's Blog," in terms of smarmy political pandering. In an attempt to out-channel Fred Thompson for the ghost of Ronald Reagan, Rudy lets us all know that it's morning in America again.

"I believe America solves its problems best from strength, not weakness, and from optimism, not pessimism," Giuliani said. "My Twelve Commitments are a promise to this generation and generations to come that we will keep the American dream alive. I believe it's the kind of leadership and common sense accountability the American people need in Washington."

So, without further ado, The Twelve Commitments:

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us.

--Seriously, the website capitalizes the word "us."

2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

--The epitome of pandering. Every non-citizen? The libertarian wing is very excited to be forced to get a biometric i.d. card.

3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.

--Is there a candidate out there that doesn't say he or she is going to do this?

4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.

--Another revolutionary idea. Bush I & ll promised the same on the tax code, so did Clinton.

Many on the Christian right are taking a hard look at Fred "The Tennessee Stud" Thompson, and wondering just how much enthusiasm they can muster for the man. Recent articles chronicle a clear desire for a Republican candidate who, like George W. Bush before him, will trod the well-worn path that non-believer Karl Rove cut in the ticket separating politics from religion. So, is Thompson their man?

Indeed, the subject of religion came up a lot yesterday on the campaign trail, and I'm happy to report that Thompson doesn't seem to have much of an appetite for it. From the AP:

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson, who has based his campaign on appealing to conservative voters, said he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion on the stump...

Talking to reporters later, Thompson, a former Tennesse senator, said his church attendance "varies."

"I attend church when I'm in Tennesse. I'm in McLean right now," he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. "I don't attend regularly when I'm up there."

Good for him. A return to a Ronald Reagan-like skepticism of wearing your religion on your sleeve has certainly been long in coming. Still, one has to wonder a little at Mr. Thompson's rather self-assured take on his current standing with God.

"I know that I'm right with God and the people I love," he said in Greenville. It's "just the way I am not to talk about some of these things."

Funny to hear someone talk about subjects that they aren't one to talk about. And I am interested to know how he knows that he's right with God. Is that like God telling George Bush that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Small questions, I guess. The larger issue remains that James Dobson and his throngs of hard-core Christian voters still don't have their poster-child.

The GOP candidates are getting ready for tonight's MSNBC debate in California. Apparently no less than ten Republicans are fighting for the party's presidential nomination, and they will all show up.

Rudy Giuliani: Has the problem of high expectations as he is widely perceived as the best and quickest speaker. on his feet He needs to explain his awkward stance on guns, abortion and his third marriage. May succeed by steering the conversation toward crime, experience and solving tough problems.

John McCain: Needs a home run, badly, used to be viewed as a front runner and is clinging on to about 25% of the GOP voters despite great name recognition. Will he go on the offense against Giuliani or play it safe? Vulnerable to attacks on the judges and campaign finance front.

Mitt Romney: Just needs to get noticed and get a few sound bites in. He is also hoping for a Giuliani-McCain mudfest so he can look presidential in comparison. He should also explain why Battlefield Earth is a really good book.

As for the rest, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Thompson(Tommy), Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore. The best they can hope for is a few soundbites so that someone will remember that they too are running for president. Of these I have the highest hopes for Hunter. He has no chance, but he is well liked by movement conservatives.

I expect lots of references to Reagan, picking good judges and a rush to see who will be toughest on terrorists and the best friend of the military. The excitement will come from those who have little to lose; the second- and third-tier candidates.

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Republicans Will Wrangle at Reagan Library
· Latest GOP Presidential Straw Poll

Karma will get you. When you violate the principles of a political ideology to the degree that the current Republican leadership has and to the degree that it has, it is only a matter of time that the voters will simply start abandoning the party.

According to the Politico, the polling organization Public Opinion Strategies has noticed a huge trend of voters no longer identifying/affiliating with the Republican Party. While the article mentions that the most significant drops in affiliation would be Independents who formerly favored conservative ideals, it also ignores the fact that many former registered Republicans are moving more towards the Independent ticket disenfranchised with the party. While these voters won't cast a pro-Democrat vote, they will simply opt not to vote at all preferring to stay at home in protest with the hopes that in the long run letting the current Republican leadership lose office and somewhere down the road be replaced by a legitimate conservative.

Yes, the Iraq war is a major part of the Republicans losing popularity, but there is more to it.

One of the huge fallacies about political groups in the United States is that all Republicans are conservative and all Democrats are liberals. This is not really an accurate sentiment as there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and moderates in both parties. (And, yes, there are also fringe element radical and reactionary groups within both parties as well.)

What is utterly perplexing about the Republican Party is that it has moved more and more towards a hybrid of the classical Rockefeller Republican (often derided as country club Republicans) and emerging Neo-Conservatives (There are variants to the origin of what a neo-con is, but it is usually a combination of former conservative democrats who drifted to the Republican wing and globalists) yet the base of the Republican Party is primarily classical Reagan and Goldwater conservatives and the base isn't happy with this new crop of Republicans who are heavy on government spending, open borders, globalization, et al. In June, rage and anger from the base over President Bush's pro-amnesty stance led to a revolution of sorts which saw a massive drop in grass roots donations combined and this has now manifested to a multitude of the conservative base moving towards independent status.

This should come as no surprise. Why should conservatives affiliate themselves with a party that is not conservative?

Since the end of Ronald Reagan's second term, the GOP and "Reagan Democrats" have been asking: where is the next Reagan?

George H.W. Bush had the chance to continue the Gipper's policies, yet yielded to Democrats and raised taxes, a move that condemned him to the dustbin of single-term chief executives. His son was believed to be the next to rekindle the fires of Reaganism and has proven to be unconservative in many policies including the prescription drug plan and various other proposals.

Now we have a man who is considering a run for the Oval Office who embodies many of the same ideals as Reagan: Fred Thompson.

Thompson has several things going for him that would propel him to the top of not only the GOP candidates, but all candidates. He has instant visual and voice recognition from his myriad acting roles. He is a man who exudes optimism and conveys the feeling of national pride, exactly like Reagan. He communicates his ideas in a forthright manner, yet is unyielding in doing what he thinks is best for the country.

Who is Milton Friedman? There is no justice in a world where everyone knows who Paris Hilton is, yet no one knows who Milton Friedman is or what he has done.

Milton Friedman revived the economics of liberty when it had been all but forgotten," said former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one of the politicians and colleagues who lauded Friedman on Thursday. "He was an intellectual freedom fighter. Never was there a less dismal practitioner of a dismal science."

Milton Friedman is the intellectual powerhouse behind what is popularly termed as "Reaganomics" or the idea that the less government is involved in an economic system, the better off the economic system is.

Example A: Hong Kong.

Example B (or more aptly, terrible warning B): The late Soviet Union.

And here is a great article by Friedman on Reagan:

To Reagan, of course, holding down government spending was a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end was freedom, human freedom, the right of every individual to pursue his own objectives and values so long as he does not interfere with the corresponding right of others. That was his end in every phase of his remarkable career.

We still have a long way to go to achieve the optimum degree of freedom. But few people in human history have contributed more to the achievement of human freedom than Ronald Wilson Reagan.

It is no exaggeration to say that without Friedmans ideas and Reagans ability to implement them, America would be a stagnant socialist state just like Canada or Europe, with all the unemployment, slow or nonexistent growth and crushing taxes that those countries enjoy. But for the grace of God and all that.

We are walking in the footsteps of giants.

On Leno. Fred Thompson said just the right things to kick his campaign off right. He's amiable and that will sell to many voters. Is he the next Ronald Reagan? Doubtful, but he sure talks a good game and he'd be about the closest candidate to him in this race.

Here's his announcement video on the Tonight Show. Very understated in his approach and he takes a few quiet digs at the other candidates.

Here's Fred's campaign kick off video from his web site, Fred08.com. It's long and hits on many points but I find it very effective. Fred is in and the dynamics of the campaign are about to change dramatically.

What is the Misery Index? It is a combination of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate. Jimmy Carter made the mistake of telling the voters that a misery index of over 13% was so bad the President Ford should not be elected. However, four years later, Ronald Reagan was able to point to a Misery Index of 21.88%. President Reagan got that number down to under 12%. President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have kept it under 8%.

The inflation rate is at 3.4% and the unemployment rate is 4.6%. The Dow Jones has crashed through the 12,000 ceiling and continues to rise. Taxes have continually decreased over the last six years. That decrease has saved money for the poor, middle class and the rich. So, why aren't the Republicans running away with these elections?

My guess is that the American voter just doesn't trust the president anymore. Conservative values have not disappeared. The problem is that when you establish a high standard for people, you have to live by that standard yourself.

At 69, Ronald Reagan holds the record as the oldest person ever to be elected president of the United States. That record may stand for only 28 years. John McCain will be 72 years old when he runs in 2008. Nobody deserves the position more but being elected president is not about being rewarded for a person's past performance.

There are those who believe that Reagan had the onset of Alzheimer's in the last few years he served as president. Will the American voter be willing to elect a 72 year old person?

McCain also had melanoma. In 2000, he had an operation to remove the cancerous melanomas from his face.

Sen. McCain has been outspoken in defense of civil liberties during the Bush Administration. He spoke out about the abuse of prisoners by the United States. However, he has also continued to support Bush's war in Iraq. Ironically, it may be his support of the war that eventually derails the "Straight Talk" express rather than his age. Whatever the final outcome, there is one thing of which I am sure, McCain would have been a much better chief executive than George W. Bush.

There's an old saying that states: "be careful what you ask for -- you might get it." The Democrats should heed these words because they now have power over the entire Legislative branch of the government. The old standby of blaming the GOP for every bad thing is over, they are now the ones making the rules.

It's time to see if the Democrats can shed the image of being complete wimps on national security. It goes back to Jimmy Carter and his inept handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis whereby he allowed students to take our embassy and hold Americans hostage for 444 days. As soon as Reagan took the oath, the hostages were released.

The image continued through the Mondale and Dukakis campaigns and ended only in 1992 when the threats we faced seemed lesser thanks to Ronald Reagan's destruction of the Soviet Union. We elected Clinton because we -- mistakenly it turns out -- believed that we were in a new era of peace around the globe. Sure, we had the wars in the former Yugoslavia occurring, but it didn't effect us here. As for Rwanda, Clinton and the UN had no problems letting the Tutsi's and Hutu's exterminate each other. The only major battle was in Mogadishu, but that was an operation started by George H. W. Bush so it was easy to pull out and wash our hands of the problem. Or so we thought.

Health care, energy, education, immigration. These are the issues President Bush will pretend to care about tonight. Who knows? Maybe we'll even get an update on the mission to Mars he proposed a few years back. Liftoff is imminent I'm sure.

But when Sen. Jim Webb delivers the Democratic response, you can be certain he'll be focussing on the issue most Americans are concerned about, the one that has plunged the Lame Duck in Chief to Nixonian lows in the polls.

Yes, Webb -- a decorated combat Marine and former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan -- will be talking mainly about Iraq. And it's hard to think of a Democrat more well suited to do so.

"The fact that he's a longtime Republican, until his recent conversion, plus his war-hero status, plus a strong association with Ronald Reagan, plus the fact that he delivered the Senate to the Democrats on the issue of Iraq – it makes him the logical choice for the Democrats," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

Namely, Webb will be asking: what would a victory in Iraq even look like?