The romantics in the current Republican Party herald back to the 1980 Reagan coalition and his victory born of the “three-legged stool” of Reagan Conservatism: a strong defense, a strong economy and strong social values.

Now, over two decades later, the incongruity among those three ideals haunts the Republican presidential nomination process. As the plethora of Republican candidates stake their claims, the dissatisfaction of the Republican electorate over their choices reflects the fact that it is impossible to obtain all three of the Reagan goals simultaneously.

How can the United States spend huge amounts of money in the name of national defense (in Republican-speak “The War On Terror”) and also care for the “least among us” without bankrupting the country?

While seeking election, Bush touted the ideal (hoax) of “Compassionate Conservatism,” then vetoed healthcare for children and stem cell research to cure the sick. He cut taxes to create a strong economy (allegedly) then spent over one trillion dollars on the War On Terror.

As the gap between the rich and poor widens, the economy is slipping; the national debt ceiling is raised and raised; fewer people have healthcare; the CPI rises faster than incomes (the “core inflation” statistic is a ruse); and the world appears to be less safe (to say the least).

Need any more evidence that all three legs can’t be accomplished at the same time?

Among the current Republican candidates, conservatives have:

Rudy Giuliani: Strong defense (9/11, 9/11, 9/11…)

John McCain: Strong defense and fiscal conservatism

Mike Huckabee: Strong social values

Fred Thompson: Not strong on anything

Mitt Romney: Strong on anything that might get him elected

Is it any wonder that Republicans aren’t happy with their lot?

It’s Lyall’s Law:

The most important leg of a three-legged stool is the one that’s missing.

Or in the case of most of the Republican candidates: the two that are missing.