Where's the compelling narrative for 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls?

By R.K. Barry

One of those things you hear said about electoral politics, particularly about presidential elections, is that people like to vote for candidates who have a clear vision for the country, who speak in terms of hope and of better things to come. Ronald Reagan's famous "Morning in America" motif is often identified as this kind of successful messaging.

More or less on that point, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) said on Monday that she is displeased with what she is hearing from GOP hopefuls who have been coming to her state to woo potential voters.

Here is what Haley had to say:

A lot of what bothers me with where the presidential politics is right now is that I don't want to hear about how awful President Obama is right now. I want to hear what they are going to do different.

And then:

There is a group that has come through South Carolina. They are trying to tell me how they are going to win. I don't care how they are going to win. I want to know how they are going to fix our country. 

Governor Haley seems to understand that you can energize the base by attacking Obama but you will have a very hard time winning independents unless you can articulate a vision for the country that isn't simply based on the fact that you dislike the guy who currently holds the office. Without those independents, it would be very hard, as Haley knows, to win the White House.

I don't think it's inconceivable that the right Republican candidate could construct a narrative that would be attractive for a majority of Americans. But what we do know is that we have not yet seen that candidate nor have we even begun to hear the outline of a vision.

To be fair, we have heard a narrative of sorts, but it's hardly compelling, and it doesn't paint a particularly pretty picture. It can be described, as was done at FDL, as "more tax cuts for rich people and corporations, less regulation, less spending on the poor, deporting the Mexicans, protecting traditional marriage and teaching Intelligent Design in public schools."

It's going to be hard for anyone to make that into beautifully crafted political ads and a vision that attracts enough voters. Maybe "It's Morning on Wall Street."

Craziest Republican of the Day: Lee Bright

By Michael J.W. Stickings

South Carolina's Republican secessionist flag

Republicans really seem to miss the Confederacy. And they certainly seem to hate America. For yet another example of secessionist, anti-Washington thinking, let's head down to South Carolina, one of the craziest states in the union:

Continuing a pattern of attempts to assert South Carolina's independence from the federal government, State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has introduced legislation that backs the creation of a new state currency that could protect the financial stability of the Palmetto State in the event of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

*****

"If there is an attempt to monetize the Fed we ought to at least have a study on record that could protect South Carolinians," Bright said in an interview Friday.

"If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup."

The legislation cites the rights reserved to states in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in making the case that South Carolina is within its rights to create its own currency.

Um... really? I'm hardly an expert on constitutional law, but Article I, Section 10 states no state shall "coin Money" or "emit Bills of Credit," which is to say, no state may have its own currency. Yes, a state may allow "gold and silver Coin" to be "a Tender in Payment of Debts," but as Madison explained in Federalist 44, "it may be observed that the same reasons which shew the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States; and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded." That's pretty clear, it seems to me.

Now, Bright wants South Carolina's currency to be "gold or silver, or both," according to the legislation. His target is the federal reserve system, which is to say, the federal government (which is explicitly authorized by the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to "coin Money" and "regulate the Value thereof," and one suspects that the Founding Fathers would not be amused.

But we're not there yet. "Bright's joint resolution calls for the creation of an eight-member joint subcommittee to study the proposal and submit a report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1."

As Phil Bailey, the director of the state Senate Democratic Caucus, quipped, "[i]t's a waste of time; it's a waste of resources. I mean who's paying for this study? Will they be paid in actual dollars or gold doubloons?"

Good question.