Does McCain = Phil Gramm?

Maybe.

Sen. McCain has been wobbly on tax cuts. Mitt Romney’s attack ads continue to point this out. My own view, after interviewing McCain several times over the past year, is that he’s more interested in spending and earmark restraint then he is in cutting taxes. And while he did vote for the Reagan supply-side program in the 1980s, he opposed the Bush tax cuts in recent years.

That said, I believe the real McCain value-added is his robust foreign- and military-policy experience. He was absolutely right on the Petraeus surge. And he was absolutely right on criticizing Don Rumsfeld for bungling the post-Saddam period in Iraq. There’s every reason to believe that a President McCain would be a very strong leader in the global war on terror.

Circling back to economic policy, I’ve got two key words for a potential President McCain: Phil Gramm. Look for a President McCain to hand the economic policy reins over to the former Texas senator. Gramm would either be Treasury secretary or chief of staff in a McCain White House. This is good.

Phil Gramm remains a strong, zealous, free-market advocate. He has been sorely missed in the U.S. Senate following his retirement a few years back. Gramm has been working as an investment banker on Wall Street for the global firm UBS.

Gramm is a staunch free trader, tax cutter, budget cutter, and entitlement reformer. Most important, he’s tough as nails on policy issues.

The conservative Mr. Gramm would steer a possible McCain presidency in the right direction.

Anyone reading this blog knows I’m a FredHead. I’m been vacillating on my fallback position should Fred not get the nomination. It’s been either McCain or Romney, depending on who I last read something bad about. Should Thompson drop out, this suggestion above makes me favor McCain more. If McCain wants to cinch my support up, he’s announce this publicly. Heck, if Gramm jumped into the race himself now, I’d have to think twice about dumping Fred for him. Gramm’s the man! (I was a staffer in his Delaware Presidential campaign office in 1996.)

This Day in History 1861: Delaware rejects secession

This Day in History 1861: Delaware rejects secession

Just two weeks after South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union, the state of Delaware rejects a similar proposal.

There had been little doubt that Delaware would remain with the North. Delaware was technically a slave state, but the institution was rare by 1861. There were 20,000 blacks living there, but only 1,800 of them were slaves–Delaware was industrializing, and most of the commercial ties were with Pennsylvania. In 1790, 15 percent of Delaware’s population was enslaved, but by 1850 that figure had dropped to less than three percent. In the state’s largest city, Wilmington, there were only four bondsmen. Most of the slaves were concentrated in Sussex, the southernmost of the state’s three counties.

After South Carolina ratified the ordinance of secession on December 20, 1860, other states considered similar proposals. Although there were some Southern sympathizers, Delaware had a Unionist governor and the legislature was dominated by Unionists. On January 3, the legislature voted overwhelmingly to remain with the United States. For the Union, Delaware’s decision was only a temporary respite from the parade of seceding states. Over the next several weeks, six states joined South Carolina in seceding; four more left after the South captured Fort Sumter in April 1861.

What I found strange is that Delaware’s “This Day in Delaware History” email didn’t mention this, but did mention that Generals Grant and Sheridan attended a wedding on this date in 1866. Priorities, people! (By coincidence, some good friends of mine are descendants of General Sheridan, although, they’re apparently a little embarrassed about it due to some of tactics he used in prosecuting the war. Having discussed that with people who know far more about the Civil War, they shouldn’t be embarrassed by anything he did.)

Quote of the Day

“We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience.”

— Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782)

Quote of the Day

“We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience.”

— Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782)