SOUL OF A PARTY – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  What does the Republican Party really stand for?  Does anyone know?  What we have seen in the debt debate is a split, with Reagan conservatives, along with some moderates, on one side, and the Tea Partiers are on the other. 

While the Tea Partiers also claim the Reagan mantle, and no doubt a large number believe in the Reagan Revolution, there is a militant chunk who clearly do not.  And they can drive the GOP back to the 1930s, a party of green eyeshades that pines for the "old Republic" and has no problem with a modern-day isolationism.  From the Washington Examiner:

As Washington begins to digest the bipartisan deal to hike the debt limit, one thing that’s clear that it will set up an obvious intra-conservative battle between defense hawks and the anti-tax crowd.

For decades, the central difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to fiscal policy is that liberals want to reduce the deficit through tax hikes and cuts to defense spending while conservatives want to focus on entitlements and other non-defense spending without raising taxes. Given that any deal between the two parties would have to involve Republicans giving something up, there’s always been the potential for tension between these two strands of conservatism. That underlying tension is going to rise to the surface in the coming months.

The anti-tax crusaders, led by Grover Norquist (with assistance from elements of the tea parties) have already won the first stage of this battle. Norquist urged Republicans to hold the line on taxes, but he has also argued that the conservative movement should get behind cuts to the defense budget. And the current deal includes defense cuts, but not tax increases. What’s more, it creates a joint Congressional committee to find additional savings, and if the committee cannot find enough, it triggers further defense cuts – but not any tax increases.

I will have to say it:  Grover Norquist, who is "Mr. Tax Cut" in Washington, is widely reported to be very close to Islamic causes.  His wife is Muslim, and his children have Muslim names.  I stress that I don't say that with any ethnic prejudice, but when a man with this background stresses defense cuts we have a right to know his full agenda.  He's been leading a campaign to get us out of Afghanistan to save money, but it is legitimate to wonder if there are other motives.

By the way, John McCain, a man devoted to national defense, has given his take on the deal:

Sen. John McCain says he'll vote for compromise legislation averting a government default, although "I will probably have to swallow hard."

The Arizona Republican who lost to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election says he's concerned about the impact of the deficit-reduction deal on defense spending.

But McCain also tells CBS's "The Early Show" that officials in Washington realized "we were not going to let the government shut down."

He also says that while he's worried about the Pentagon budget, he believes the new, special committee that will be established to follow through on promises of deficit-reduction will be more successful than similar panels established for this purpose in the past.

McCain notes the new panel will have the authority to order "up or down votes" on proposed cuts.

COMMENT:  At the heart of the Reagan Revolution was a strong and growing national defense, not a liberal-style gutting of the Pentagon, which we had in the 1970s and, to some degree, again in the 1990s.  We are going to have a fight on our hands for the soul of the GOP, but also the soul and future of this country.  I think the issue is very much in doubt.

Next month will mark ten years since the attacks of 9-11.  Look what we've come to.  Look at the leadership we have.

August 1, 2011