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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.