All posts by Craig Shirley

Taxpayers tired of Wall Street welfare queens

ALEXANDRIA, Va.

An old saying goes, When the elephants are fighting, the mice are at risk. But when the elephants are making love, the mice aren t much safer. Sometimes Washington and Wall Street make whoopee other times, war.

Right now, Americans are witnessing the sorry spectacle of government battling Wall Street, and regardless of the winner, they will find themselves squashed or taxed to death.

Some choice.

Republicans are yelling, Permanent bailout! Democrats are yelling Parade of bamboozlement! The mice simply shake their heads.

They know that unchanged, the outcome even a compromise will result in an even greater concentration of unprecedented power in Washington and on Wall Street, all at the expense of the people.

The elite of both parties and both cities power centers are trapped in the unhelpful choices of their cultures. Many don t want to really solve anything but rather protect their favored friends and win plaudits from the media for solving the problem.

Americans know that under President George W. Bush, his Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout of Wall Street bankers was the largest wealth transfer in the history of Americans, more than $700 billion taken from Middle America and plopped into midtown Manhattan.

They also know that in the past year under President Obama, the four biggest banks including Wells Fargo now control more than 50 percent of all private lending in America. This unhealthy concentration of banking power came directly from government intervention. Power is being concentrated even more and more at the top and the United States is more and more taking on a European style-corporatist-socialist-elitist caste.

Despite all the corruption in both New York and Washington since the beginning of the financial crisis, there has been nary a cry of foul, only the barest of investigations Goldman Sachs notwithstanding and Washington and Mr. Obama are poised to put the American taxpayer right back into the soup, forcing them to underwrite future corrupt schemes of Wall Street.

The so-called common people know what is going down. Corrupt lobbyists, on behalf of dishonest bankers, are lobbying unethical regulators and politicians to look the other way. So what if new reforms are passed and signed into law? Does anyone really think it is going to change anything?

Americans are rightly asking themselves what s in it for them when the U.S. government lends billions of dollars to Citibank, only to see their own money lent back to them in criminal 29 percent interest-rate charges on their Citibank credit cards. They are also rightly asking themselves why it is that big banks have been bailed out and will be again under the current scheme devised by Mr. Obama, but neither Americans who lost their 401(k) plans were bailed out nor was the lost equity in their homes. Wells Fargo deducted billions of losses on its corporate taxes, yet citizens could not, by law, deduct their own investment losses.

New thinking and new approaches are required. The system is so rife with a self-protecting bureaucracy, it is impossible to reform. So bypass it.

Baseball s Wee Willie Keeler advised, Hit em where they ain t. Douglas MacArthurs brilliant tactics avoided frontal assaults and instead cut his enemies supplies lines, forcing early surrender while saving soldiers lives on both sides. What is needed in the case of banking reform real banking reform is to bypass New York and Washington and put the diffused power back where it will do the most good while being subjected to the least corruption with the local community bankers of America.

It has become a truism that our policies are now guided by the mantra, too big to fail, but it stands to reason that too big is also too dangerous and to save the American people from further financial harm, money, lending authority and power should be diffused among the thousands of small community banks, where lending policies can do the most good. When, if one failed, a domino effect will be prevented, as it would not in the current scheme. Again.

It doesn t take much imagination to come up with incentives in tax and regulatory policies to create more incentives for the community banking system. Keeping money in the states would reduce corruption and the power of the big banks and increase the power of the citizenry. The Obama administration says America is in a jobless recovery. If this is true, then isn t it time to consider new policies that would produce a jobs economy ? Clearly, the system is not creating jobs, just a lot of corporate welfare queens on Wall Street.

Worse, the proposal being served up by Mr. Obama would reward incompetence, greed and avarice on Wall Street and with the big banks. Guess who gets the bill for a plan to, in perpetuity, bail out big banks?

The American people the long suffering mice in this debate are beginning to roar and the elite elephants ought to be nervous.

They hate nothing more than common sense.

LOAD-DATE: May 18, 2010

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

NOTES: Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs and the author of two books on Ronald Reagan including Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America. Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs and the author of two books on Ronald Reagan including Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America.

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Reinventing Conservatism: When the mice begin to roar

An old saying goes, “When the elephants are fighting, the mice are at risk. But when the elephants are making love, the mice aren’t much safer.”

Sometimes Washington and Wall Street make whoopee – other times, war.

Right now, Americans are witnessing the sorry spectacle of government battling Wall Street, and regardless of the winner, Americans will find themselves squashed or taxed to death. Some choice.

Republicans are yelling, “Permanent bailout!” Democrats are yelling “Parade of bamboozlement!” The mice simply shake their heads.

They know that unchanged, the outcome – even a compromise – will result in an even greater concentration of unprecedented power in Washington and on Wall Street, all at the expense of the people.

The elite of both parties and both cities’ power centers are trapped in the unhelpful choices of their cultures. Many don’t want to really solve anything but rather protect their favored friends and win plaudits from the media for “solving the problem.”

Americans know that under President George W. Bush, his Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout of Wall Street bankers was the largest wealth transfer in the history of Americans, more than $700 billion taken from Middle America and plopped into midtown Manhattan.

They also know that in the past year under President Obama, the four biggest banks including Wells Fargo now control more than 50 percent of all private lending in America. This unhealthy concentration of banking power came directly from government intervention. Power is being concentrated even more and more at the top and the United States is more and more taking on a European style-corporatist-socialist-elitist caste.

Despite all the corruption in both New York and Washington since the beginning of the financial crisis, there has been nary a cry of “foul,” only the barest of investigations – Goldman Sachs notwithstanding – and Washington and Mr. Obama are poised to put the American taxpayer right back into the soup, forcing them to underwrite future corrupt schemes of Wall Street.

The so-called “common people” know what is going down. Corrupt lobbyists, on behalf of dishonest bankers, are lobbying unethical regulators and politicians to look the other way. So what if new “reforms” are passed and signed into law? Does anyone really think it is going to change anything?

Americans are rightly asking themselves what’s in it for them when the U.S. government lends billions of dollars to Citibank, only to see their own money lent back to them in criminal 29 percent interest rate charges on their Citibank credit cards. They are also rightly asking themselves why it is that big banks have been bailed out and will be again under the current scheme devised by Mr. Obama, but neither Americans who lost their 401(k) plans were bailed out nor was the lost equity in their homes. Wells Fargo deducted billions of losses on its corporate taxes, yet citizens could not, by law, deduct their own investment losses.

New thinking and new approaches are required. The system is so rife with a self-protecting bureaucracy, it is impossible to reform. So bypass it.

Baseball’s “Wee” Willie Keeler advised, “Hit ’em where they ain’t.” Douglas MacArthur’s brilliant tactics avoided frontal assaults and instead cut his enemies supplies lines, forcing early surrender while saving soldiers’ lives on both sides. What is needed in the case of banking reform – real banking reform – is to bypass New York and Washington and put the diffused power back where it will do the most good while being subjected to the least corruption – with the local community bankers of America.

It has become a truism that our policies are now guided by the mantra, “too big to fail,” but it stands to reason that “too big” is also “too dangerous” and to save the American people from further financial harm, money, lending authority and power should be diffused among the thousands of small community banks, where lending policies can do the most good. When, if one failed, a domino effect will be prevented, as it would in the current scheme. Again.

It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with incentives in tax and regulatory policies to create more incentives for the community banking system. Keeping money in the states would reduce corruption and the power of the big banks and increase the power of the citizenry. The Obama administration says America is in a “jobless recovery.” If this is true, then isn’t it time to consider new policies that would produce a “jobs economy?” Clearly, the system is not creating jobs, just a lot of corporate welfare queens on Wall Street.

Worse, the current proposal being served up by Mr. Obama would reward incompetence, greed and avarice on Wall Street and with the big banks. Guess who gets the bill for a plan to, in perpetuity, bail out big banks?

The American people – the long suffering mice in this debate – are beginning to roar and the elite elephants ought to be nervous.

They hate nothing more than common sense.

* Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs and the author of two books on Ronald Reagan including the newly released, “Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America.”

LOAD-DATE: May 7, 2010

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Trust us, Karl Rove is no conservative

Karl Rove’s book, “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight,” has relaunched much debate about key moments of the George W. Bush presidency, such as the decision to go to war in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Antiwar protesters even heckled Rove off the stage at a Beverly Hills book signing event recently, calling him a war criminal and trying to handcuff him. For many conservatives, though, the trouble with the book is simpler. Rove has written an exciting memoir and, when it comes to his childhood, even an endearing one, but we believe it makes at least one misleading statement — and it’s in the subtitle.

It comes as a surprise to many of us on the right who have known him over the years that Rove describes himself as a “conservative.” A compassionate conservative? Sure. A big-government conservative? No doubt. But a conservative, pure and simple? Now that’s a real revelation.

From William F. Buckley Jr. to Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan, the creators of the modern conservative movement always taught that excessive concentration of power in government leads inevitably to corruption and the diminution of personal freedoms. But while Rove credits these leaders for shaping his early political views — “at the age of thirteen, I was wild for Barry Goldwater,” he writes — he did not pursue their values while in the White House. To the contrary, as the chief political architect of the Bush presidency, Rove was instrumental in directing an administration most notable for its enormous expansion of national government.

Throughout his memoir, Rove is partial to “compassionate conservatism” — the phrase made famous during Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign — and describes the “four big foundations” of the idea as “education reform, the faith-based initiative, a generous middle-class tax cut and Social Security and Medicare reform.”

Consider that list. Bush’s tax cut was, certainly, basic conservatism in action, yet even President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, did as much. And the faith-based initiative mainly allowed religious groups to compete equally with other groups seeking federal grants — commendable, but still merely leveling the playing field for access to government largesse, and an initiative in keeping with the principles of Jimmy Carter.

The truly unique aspects of Bush and Rove’s compassionate conservatism were in the arenas of education and entitlements. The goals of Bush’s No Child Left Behind education initiative were certainly worthy, but its trampling of states’ rights sounded early alarms for traditional conservatives. And Bush’s market-oriented proposals for Social Security reform notwithstanding, the Medicare prescription drug benefit the president signed into law in 2003 has created an unfunded liability of $9.4 trillion over the next 75 years, according to the 2009 report from the Medicare trustees. This is far beyond what the White House estimated would be saved with Social Security reform, and the first new major entitlement since the days of Lyndon Johnson.

And we all remember steel tariffs, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, a massive agricultural subsidy bill, and other spending and regulatory moves by the Bush administration that tilted power toward Washington and away from individuals and states.

In his memoir, Rove defends the Bush record as a truly conservative one. “Some on the right argue that by putting the word compassionate in front of conservatism, George W. Bush somehow diminished the principles that have animated the conservative movement since at least the rise of Barry Goldwater in 1964,” he writes. “This wasn’t my sense of it at all. Bush is among the most conservative presidents of the modern age. Just look at his tax cuts, pro-life and pro-family stands; his support of free trade and reducing regulation; his belief that competition improves health care, the environment and Social Security; and his insistence on education results.”

But the results speak otherwise. In total, Bush increased federal spending on domestic programs more than any president since Richard Nixon, easily surpassing Bill Clinton, Carter and his own father, so much so that by 2008, America had two big-government parties. Rove writes that as a teenager he carried around a paperback copy of Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative,” but he should have heeded the book’s first few pages, in which Goldwater warned against hyphenated conservatism.

The Bush administration’s move toward big government was not gradual, either; it was signaled during then-Gov. Bush’s campaign. In 1999, the journalist Tucker Carlson interviewed Bush in Austin and asked him if he was a small-government conservative. Mr. Bush replied no; he said he was an “efficient-government conservative.” Bush’s campaign rarely called for spending cuts of any kind and even opposed eliminating the Department of Energy, whose abolition had been in every GOP platform since 1980.

Bush was not the first Republican president to claim the conservative mantle yet merrily grow the size of government; Nixon and Gerald Ford did much the same. Rove and Bush are heirs to a brand of Republicanism rooted in a Tory-style, top-down defense of the status quo. It is not modern conservatism, not the brand that today is finding voice in the “tea party” movement, and certainly not the populist conservatism that found electoral success beginning in the late 1970s.

Modern American conservatism has roots in the ideas of philosopher John Locke, the founding fathers and the notion that humans’ natural state is freedom. This thinking later fused into a modern political movement with Buckley, who also championed the idea that that liberty is God-given, thus broadening the movement’s appeal to social conservatives. Over time, American conservatism evolved into a well-defined political movement that is anti-status quo, opposed to excessive government, populist and pro-individual.

As he prepared to deliver a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2008, Bush made clear his feelings about traditional conservatism. According to a memoir by former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer, the president was unhappy about references to the conservative “movement” in the draft of the speech. “Take out all this movement stuff,” the president said. “There is no movement.”

And Rove reveals his true heroes in his memoir, when we learn that he decorated his White House office with memorabilia of progressive Teddy Roosevelt and pragmatist William McKinley.

After losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections (when post-vote polls showed that about 60 percent of Americans thought the Republicans were the party of big government) and the presidential contest in 2008 (when nearly 20 percent of self-identified conservatives voted for Obama), the GOP is suffering from an identity crisis, an inevitable legacy of big-government Republicanism. The party’s problems are complicated by its good manners; Republicans do not wish to upbraid Bush and Rove for leading the GOP and conservatism astray. People such as Glenn Beck and Mark Levin who have even mildly criticized the spending and excesses wrought by Republicans have been churlishly attacked by defenders of the era.

The astonishing concentration of power in Washington today has created a huge opportunity for conservatives and the GOP. With President Obama’s policies of big government, big bailouts, big banks and big bureaucracy, the Democratic Party has jettisoned the working men and women of America, who are increasingly coming to reject being ruled by one corrupt city along the Potomac. They want to be governed by themselves in their communities, their localities and their states, in a 21st-century version of the founders’ federalism.

But thanks in part to their recent big-government legacy, Republicans have been slow to seize this opportunity. In his concluding passages, Rove concedes that Bush “went deep into Democratic territory to show how government can use the tools of capitalism to soften its rough justice” — an admission that neglects state, local and individual alternatives to creating a just society, and that confirms our worst fears about hyphenated conservatism.

Recently, President Obama visited a bookstore in Iowa and joked that he was there to purchase Rove’s memoir. Conservatives can only hope it was not to get any more ideas on how to expand government.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Craig Shirley is the author of “Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America” and the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs. Donald Devine, who served as Reagan’s first director of the Office of Personnel Management, is a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union.

From the archives: Recent Outlook coverage on the conservative movement includes Marjorie Dannenfelser’s “What the Republicans aren’t saying” (March 14) and Steven F. Hayward’s “Is conservatism brain-dead?” (Oct. 4).

LOAD-DATE: April 4, 2010

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DISTRIBUTION: Maryland

GRAPHIC: IMAGE; Ron Edmonds/associated Press; Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s top political adviser, claims the conservative mantle in his new memoir.

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Reagan, reformation and the GOP

Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer, and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help?

With that incisive phrase in his landmark speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater in 1964, Ronald Reagan began a remarkable career in American politics, which rejected the destructive choices of the modern elites and recast the questions about government to the benefit of his American conservative philosophy and the private citizen. It is a lesson that the Republican Party of 2010 needs to relearn if it is ever going to rephrase the argument and chart a path back to power – ironically, by giving power back to the American people.

That’s right. Power in Washington for conservatives must be based on returning power from Washington to the American people.

Just this past week, President Barack Obama announced a monstrous huge new budget, laden with destructive deficit spending and yet another government-centered jobs bill. One year ago, he proposed a huge, pork-stuffed, deficient budget, with yet another jobs bill. But after billions spent in 12 short months, our nation is further in debt and millions more are unemployed, all at the hands of Obama’s policies, despite his pitiable attempts to blame George W. Bush.

Obama, like other members of the modern elite, is an architect of the same old unhelpful choices brought to us by these articulate, privileged shepherds. Indeed, some of the very liberal elements of his party are now trying to frame the spending debate as one between jobs and deficits, even though it was proved in 2009 that deficits do not lower unemployment. Deficits increase unemployment. It is entirely legitimate to ask Obama to read the score back to America, since no one in the Republican Party has effectively made this argument. Thus, the president and his followers continue to dominate the debate.

The governmental elites have embraced these destructive choices, as they allow them to dictate the terms: bank fees vs. bank corruption, property tax hikes vs. cutting police and fire service. They are the false choices of C.S. Lewis’s “Screwtape Letters.” If a man’s house is on fire, give him a lighter. If he is drowning, give him a bucket of water. The false and destructive arguments of the elites are designed to keep people’s eyes off the ball. In most cases, Republicans still fall for the same gambit, still trying to kick the football held by the liberal Lucy.

When Reagan ran in 1980, the elites in both political parties rejected his embrace of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, seeing them as irresponsible. “What?” they cried. “Tax cuts for businesses, maybe, but certainly not for the American people.” Others in both parties simply derided tax cuts at any time, for anybody or any entity. Reagan rejected the arguments of both sides, pushing tax cuts for individuals, reducing federal spending and beginning an unprecedented quarter-century of economic growth while creating millions of jobs.

In fall 1980, in a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Reagan had inserted in his draft remarks the phrase “noble cause” in referring to America’s loss of the Vietnam War. It was unsettling to the intellectual classes of America. They said America had lost Southeast Asia because of the incompetence and corruption of the Pentagon, as well as the incompetence and corruption of the South Vietnamese government, and that 55,000 American soldiers had died in vain. In their view, the defeat was certainly not because of the evil intentions of the Communist North Vietnamese.

Non-Reaganites in the campaign took the phrase out of the draft. Reagan put it back in. They took it out again. Reagan put it back in. Sound familiar? It went on like this until Reagan gave his speech, with the “noble cause” phrase kept in. The elites came down with the vapors, but the American people loved it.

Reagan had a framework for governance based on freedom and the individual over the state. He was a populist who was suspicious of any concentration of power, whether corporate, union or governmental. He knew concentrated power was unhealthy as it inevitably led to corruption and the diminution of personal freedoms. Obama and his enthusiastic band of contemporary elitists understand the argument, which is why they embrace government over people. They understand this is about power.

We have a Department of Energy created by President Jimmy Carter, whose purpose was to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Billions of dollars later, the United States is more dependent than ever on foreign oil. We have a Department of Education, again courtesy of Carter, whose purpose was to raise academic standards. Take a wild guess on the success of this bureaucracy. If walls imprisoning people can be torn down, then so, too, can more than useless and wasteful bureaucracies.

What mattered for Reagan then – and should matter now for the recovering but not yet recovered Republican Party – is that his was a lifetime of thought and conviction that grew steadily into those principles that mattered both at home and abroad. He then had the courage to state them and keep on stating them for 16 years, from 1964 until 1980, and then live out those convictions as president. During the 1980 primaries, he made open appeals to Democrats and independents to cross over and join his “community of shared values,” which was maddening to the entrenched country clubbers of the GOP but which laid the basis for the new political movement.

In a nation of more than 300 million people, in a nation as vast and diverse as the United States, it is simply impractical to believe that 50 sovereign states can be governed by one corrupt city on the Potomac River. It’s a good lesson to learn on this, Reagan’s 99th birthday and the beginning of the Reagan Centennial.

It’s time for those on the right to follow the lead of the tea party advocates and start demanding of their anti-intellectual political leaders that they read the score back once in a while.

And begin the process of reframing the debate.

Newt Gingrich served as House speaker from 1995 to 1999. Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs and the author of two books on Ronald Reagan, including the newly released “Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America.”

LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2010

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication

No confidence in Obama;America’s new normal: Quick changes in Washington power

When President Obama stood before Congress Wednesday night, he was less the president and more a European-style prime minister who has just lost a no-confidence vote.

American politics and governance have entered a new paradigm, essentially evolving into a European-style parliamentary system.

With the near-complete polarization of the two major parties and gerrymandering practiced to perfection by both as well – resulting in just a handful of truly competitive House seats – all elections are federalized or seen as such, as in the case of New Jersey and Virginia late last year and the Senate special election in Massachusetts last week. Late last year, a special election for the state senate in Kentucky was turned into a referendum on President Obama and, as a result, a Republican won in a district that had been held by the Democrats for years.

There are no more liberal Republicans in the guise of a Jacob Javits, nor are there conservative Democrats in the persona of a Strom Thurmond.

The two parties represent competing and argumentative philosophies, as in the case of Great Britain or other Cabinet governments.

“Freedom” has been more or less the organizing viewpoint of the Republican Party from the time of its first nominee, the great explorer John C. Freemont, who ran on the slogan “Free men, free soil, Freemont” in 1856. The party deviated from time to time but saw this philosophy reintroduced by Ronald Reagan and the populist conservatives he led in the late 1970s.

Of late, “security” replaced freedom for a time as the essential philosophy of Republicans, but with the departure of George W. Bush a year ago, a struggle took place inside the party. Did it stand for Reaganism or Bushism?

Did it stand for the top-down conservatism of Edmund Burke or the bottom-up conservatism of Thomas Paine?

The results were never really in doubt, helped by Mr. Obama’s unexpected headlong rush toward big-government liberalism.

Reaganism won out, and the Republican Party is moving back toward becoming a pro-freedom, anti-Washington party once again.

In the first decade of the 21st century, America had, in essence, two big-government parties in America, but this could not hold, as the rise of the Tea Party movement gives evidence.

So, too, has the Democratic Party deviated over the years, although its trajectory has been more consistent, especially since the New Deal. Its philosophy – at least on the surface – has been “justice.” Casual observers would say justice and freedom can coexist, and this is more or less true, but freedom to some means the ability to trample over others, while justice to those of differing political viewpoints means taking freedoms away from some and giving them to others in the name of that justice.

That said, this means there can be little accommodation between the two beliefs. Power cannot be diffused and concentrated all at the same time. It can only be moved around.

Thus, each election is more or less in the parliamentary style, seen and conducted as a national vote of confidence/no confidence in the ruling party and the presidency it controls, which will result in wildly shifting control, probably for a long time to come.

Indeed, Mr. Obama is sometimes criticized for being a “figurehead” while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been accused often over the past year of being the head of the government. Moreover, we have seen opponents from the opposition party, as in the case of Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, openly challenge the leader of the other party, again akin to parliamentary systems.

The rise of governmental “czars” also gives evidence to our new form of government, responsible to no one except their own political party.

Deviation from the orthodoxy is little tolerated, as the much ballyhooed “litmus test” over which the Republican Party is about to argue at its Hawaii cavalcade underscores.

It will be unlikely from here on out that America will see one party or the other dominate for more than a limited time, as did the Republicans from 1860 to 1912 or the Democrats from 1932 to 1980. Inevitably, the ruling party will disappoint some of the citizenry at the middle and they will turn to the out-of-power party to become the “in party.” In turn, the newly dominant party inevitably will fail to meet expectations, and the whole process will begin anew.

The elections of 2006 and 2008 were more a vote of no confidence in Mr. Bush and the ruling Republicans than they were a positive affirmation of the choice of Democratic rule. All things being equal, the elections of 2010 will be a rejection of Democratic rule rather than the voters all of a sudden falling for the homely Republicans.

The seasons for both parties will come with increasing rapidity; that will make both very uncomfortable.

Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs and the author of the newly released “Rendezvous with Destiny”(Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009), the first ever detailed accounting of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign.

LOAD-DATE: January 28, 2010

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper