Posted on 07/01/2011 6:13:52 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
I recently posted an article suggesting that Mchele Bachmann's candidacy, and its impact on Sarah Palin, is reminiscent of the 1980 candidacy of Phil Crane, which Ronald Reagan considered a threat to his nomination:
Is Michele Bachmann Sarah Palin's Phil Crane?
As I point out in the article linked above, Crane never really thought he had a chance for the nomination, and he was content to have one of the moderates (Baker or Bush) get the nomination in hopes that they would install Crane as the Vice-Presidential nominee. I did not explore some of the reasons why Crane's belief was well founded.
2012 looks to be very similar to 1980. The Eastern Establishment candidate, Mitt Romney, will be matched against the conservative Western former governor, Sarah Palin in roughly the same way that George H.W. Bush faced off against Ronald Reagan. 2012 also involves Michele Bachmann, conservative Congresswoman from the Midwest, whose opposite number in 1980 was Crane, a rock solid conservative Congressman from Illinois. As Crane was poised to damage Reagan, so (it is assumed)will Bachmann siphon votes from Palin. It must be conceded, however, that even with the similarities, no two cycles are precisely the same.
Why, one might ask, did Phil Crane believe that his chances for the nomination were slim? Quite simply, no Congressman, since James A. Garfield in 1880, had ever won the Presidency. Indeed Garfield (who was a dark horse selection on the 30th ballot of a brokered convention) was the LAST Congressman ever nominated by either party. But Michele Bachmann's prospects for the GOP nomination are even bleaker than were Crane's in 1980.
In order to give Bachmann's electoral viability every benefit of the doubt, let's expand the subset to which she belongs (that is: House members) to include members of the United States Senate as well. Sure, Bachmann has never won a state wide race. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume that she is U.S. Senator Bachmann, instead of Congresswoman Bachmann. The GOP has nominated three members of Congress in the last fifty years, all Senators with long tenures, specifically Goldwater, Dole and McCain. There hasn't been a sitting member of Congress--Senator or Congressman--nominated AND elected by the GOP in nearly 100 years, since Senator Warren G. Harding turned the trick in 1920.
The Democrats on the other hand--as the statist party-- have had recourse to Congress (again, only the Senate) more often, and more successfully, than the GOP. In the last 50 years, they have nominated four Senators-- Kennedy, McGovern, Kerry and Obama-- two of whom (Kennedy and Obama) won and only one of whom suffered a landslide defeat (McGovern). The Democrats as the party of Washington, are comfortable nominating candidates from the Congress, and their base responds favorably to them. The GOP, as the anti-Beltway party, is always more formidable with an Executive, whether a Governor, a former Vice President or a Commanding General than with a member of Congress. Indeed the GOP tends to nominate Senators only in years in which the prospects of victory are slim.
In 1964, the country, still reeling from the Kennedy Assassination, wanted stability. As Barry Goldwater himself observed, the country did not want three Presidents in eleven months. Goldwater lost by 20. In 1996, the economy was on the upswing and Clinton looked difficult to beat, especially with Perot planning a third party run. So the GOP could comfortably nominate the ancient Bob Dole, knowing well that the White House that year was beyond reach. Dole was beaten by 10. In 2008, the collapse of the housing market and the economy, war weariness and Bush fatigue presaged an electoral disaster for the GOP. The pre-convention polls had the Democrats comfortably ahead by anywhere from 6 to 15 points. After a brief surge into the lead (fueled by Palin's surprise VP selection and boffo convention speech) the stock market crash drove a stake through Senator John McCain's chances for an upset. In spite of the crash and his Beltway tarnish, however, McCain--aided by Palin-- ran better than any of the other recent GOP Senate nominees, losing by only 7.
Unlike 1964, 1996 and 2008, the GOP in 2012 has a genuine, indeed excellent. shot at victory. It is not going to exacerbate the disastrous formula of those election cycles by nominating a mere Congresswoman whose resume is even thinner than the Senators who went down to crashing defeats. 2012 is a year in which the GOP will nominate a governor to challenge a President, who came from Congress without Executive experience and has been a catastrophe. It will have two governors to choose from...Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin. Those who are inclined to vote for Michele Bachmann should know that they are very likely casting a vote for Mitt Romney. Bachmann cannot generate the political or financial support to defeat Romney, nor can she overcome the visceral reluctance of anti-Washington GOP primary voters to nominate a member of the hated Congress. Her impact, if she has any at all, will be to assist Mitt Romney in securing the nomination by drawing voters away from Palin. Let us remind our confreres, whom Bachmann is trying to lure, that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
I think you have a hard time convincing the Tea Party that she is not formidable or gutsy or a leader. She was there with them from the start and was very influential in driving the agenda and is a very strong fundraiser. By the way, tax and spending cuts are what we need to turn the economy around and her positions are all about that.
I say again, her chances of being the vice president grow by the day.
The choice was obvious, eh? What exactly was wrong with the other 2?
Also, Carly Fiorina over Chuck Devore? John McCain over JD Hayworth?
BTW, I hope you aren’t planning to go door-to-door for Governor Palin. I don’t think that will go well for you or her. I could see it now “Hey moron! Get a clue and support my candidate!”. Yeah, that’ll win over a lot of voters.
Also, can you please enlighten us with your DU/Kos/HuffPost Username? Only a liberal refers to personal attacks when they can’t defend the facts. It’s okay though, I’m not offended by being called stupid since it isn’t the first time and won’t be the last time. And it’s kind of ironic, considering my given nickname is Genius.
YOU stated Palin knows Perry was a flake. Palin Endorsed him. There is no rule that says Palin had to endorse anyone, but she did. And since she did, I highly doubt she thinks Perry is a flake. Otherwise, that would be pretty dumb.
2 little thingies of interest:
bachmann continues to state thet she RAISED 23 children.
Bachmann and her husband also provided foster care for 23 other children, all teenage girls. The Bachmanns were licensed from 1992 to 2000 to handle up to three foster children at a time; the last child arrived in 1998. The Bachmanns began by providing short-term care for girls with eating disorders who were patients in a program at the University of Minnesota. The Bachmann home was legally defined as a treatment home, with a daily reimbursement rate per child from the state. Some girls stayed a few months, others more than a year
bachmann has repeatedly stated that she received NO money from her “father-in-law’s” farm.
Bachmann also has an ownership stake in a family farm located in Waumandee, Wisconsin. Since the death of her father-in-law in 2009, the farm and its buildings have been rented out to a neighboring farmer who maintains a dairy herd on the farm. Although Bachmann said in June 2011 that “my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm”, personal financial disclosure reports showed that the farm produced income for Bachmann of at least $32,500 and as much as $105,000 from 2006 through 2009. From 1995 through 2010, the farm got about $260,000 in federal crop and disaster subsidies.
*****************************************************
It seems to me that what michele bachmann has done is learn to play the system...very well...while saying the complete opposite.
Bachmann is not “of the people;” she has been placed in office by the perty establishment, and does exactly what she is told.
She has authored no legislation in her entire career, and has not voted “for the people” and against the party bosses even once.
Yet you puke up Liberal Talking Points to join the rabid, putrid Left in demonizing her.
You jerks are worse than useless; you're a drag on our Republic and a negative force for Truth, Liberty, and Good. How you can be pleased with the vile, vituperative crap you shovel here night after night is as despicable as anything I have ever witnessed from the retarded Left.
You are horrible, disgusting vermin, and I hope you reap precisely what you sow here. You have earned it in spades. I am going to enjoy Palin winning the White House a thousand times more than I would have otherwise just hoping that some of you might decide to end it all as a result.
;^\/
>> “To her credit maybe. She’s anti Establishment , just like Palin” <<
.
Tell us one single thing she has done against the party establishment?
Nothing, and that is why they are jacking up her diversionary candidacy, with media help too.
Palin has the highest favorables among GOP voters of any candidate.
Guess again.
Now that is out right stupid! The Gacy comparison was brought up by the demonic MSM. I never knew Gacy was born in Iowa and probably neither did MB. Is a sick 'Sunday funnies joke, and for you to spout it is disingenuous.
We both agree she has good positions (so do you and I), but she is 55 and has never shown the ability, talent, or drive, to lead or cause change, or be effective, her decade in government was just passive voting, and taking a back seat to more competent people and leaders.
That sitting president was hated by the public for pardoning the man that had destroyed the GOP and essentilly gave Vietnam to the commies after the war had been won, by yanking all logistical support from under the Vietnamese.
Get out from under that cabbage.
>> “I never knew Gacy was born in Iowa and probably neither did MB” <<
.
Then why did she say that John Wayne was born in Gacy’s home town?
It was her gaffer-special tongue that did it.
People don’t realize that with all the tea party wind behind her back, with all of her new celebrity, Cantor ate her lunch, spanked her, and sent her back to her assigned seat after the 2010 election victories.
I was furious at the time, and my posts reflected it, but since then I have come to understand her better, and realize that she is not a power player, she just does well on stage and camera.
(2) Because she had the audacity to jump into the race which is a hinderence to Palin’s inevitable coronoation.
______________________________________________________________
Bachmann is no hindrance to Palin.
Palin is on a whole different level.
Bachmann is irrelevant to Palin.
Actually that’s a brilliant way of saying you’re a serious person.
We are generally intelligent and informed, and we know the myriad excellent reasons why Sarah is putting off announcing for as long as possible. Thus, we are not concerned, rather we applaud her exceptional campaign so far, and are happy to wait and watch as she continues to control the entire 2012 cycle with her elegant pinkie finger.
You?
;^\/
>> “Carly Fiorina over Chuck Devore? John McCain over JD Hayworth?” <<
.
Neither Devore, nor Hayworth had any measurable support for a statewide race.
Devore literally belived that he was entitled to the spot, and did most of his campaigning at a folksey bar and grill in the motherlode.
That you, Rollins?
Amen!
>> “I was furious at the time” <<
.
So was I, having donated $1500 to her campaign, but I got the education I deserved, I guess.
She votes against them. Stimulus, debt limit, Obama care etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.