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.
Seems like you speak for Palin as Rollins does for Bachmann.
“joining the MSM in bashing Bachmann”
Huh? Where have you been? The MSM is loving Bachmann. The Slimes, Politico, the ComPost, even Chrissie Matthews and Dana Milbank have all discovered they really like her.
Do you know how to use google? Cause if you don’t I will post the links. In fact, I think someone posted them earlier on this thread.
Palin Derangement Syndrome doesn’t just affect her detractors, apparently.
Ready for some real heresy? Bachmann is more reliably conservative than Palin, has lower negative readings in the polls, hails from a geographic area that will be a major battleground in both the primaries and the general elections, and manages to put forth her ideas without sounding smarmy and condescending.
In other words - she’s a better candidate.
I personally like Palin (my #2 choice) and I will back her to the hilt if she were to declare and win the nomination. However, some of these posts are too far over the top to be ignored.
You, on the other hand, bash through it all.
That only ticket that Bachmann would have a chance to be on would be Romney’s losing ticket. No, thanks!
Where have we heard that before?
and zero percent chance of winning.
No matter who the eventual nominee is, they will have better than even odds of winning. Bachmann isn't my first choice, but the venom directed at her, after all the great things she's done is truly astonishing. Those doing the spitting at a game changing player on their own side either should know better, or are too dumb and emotionally tied to Palin to know better.
She'd be torn apart by the MSM, Dems AND the Establishment GOP the minute she was other than useful to them
. Unlike Palin, right?
Game changer? Prove it.
No bullets left in their holsters for Palin—and she’s withstood them all. Bachmann would be as much a loser for the GOP as Dole was from the other side, but Mitt’s team would shred her, with ease, should she actually become a threat to him.
So you’ve heard the none-too-small point of zero executive experience (perhaps little substantive legislative accomplishment could be thrown in there as well?), but you soldier on anyway?
Batchelor is a snarky leftwing liberal elitist...at best.
If you're comparing Bachmann to Obama, that is ridiculous. Bachmann has been a leader in the House on conservative issues.
A leader, she is not.
Seriously? What are there, 230 some Republican members of congress? Name one more solidly conservative across the board. Name one that did more to prevent obamacare? Name one that can organize and turn out people out better. Name one that founded their own caucus. Name one that the left spends more money on in futile efforts to defeat? They seem to consider her influential.
Everybody, other than a particularly dense and obtuse poster on FR, considers her influiential; a game changer if you will.
She’s the leader of the Tea Party Caucus in congress.
Do you listen to his show? Sorry ill take his show over rush any day. Batchelor has great guests like mcotter, kudlow, pete king, john bolton, all the time.
Yes, I listen to his show and hence my comment.
When he has a round table of liberals, he lets down his mask and exposes him self as a snarky liberal elite.
That you prefer him to Rush, a true Conservative, speaks volumes of your RINO elitism. At best!
I suggest you rejoin DU and your Kos Kommies.
Game not changed
The rest of your post is mindless dribble.
Spanky did the same thing on Spanky and Our Gang
Are you familiar with the "petty" remarks about Palin that came from the Bachmann campaign?
Are you aware of the silence since those remarks from Bachmann?
I will remind you that Palin, similar to Bachmann, has been doing the heavy lifting, fighting Obama and the Democrats under fierce fire from the left. Yet the Bachmann campaign, on the Rat infested Politico, perpetuated Rat-like propaganda, about Palin.
It's really not too hard to see where some of this anger about Bachmann is coming from. I would hope that you don't have such a "frightening loyalty" and such an "adoring worship" that would prevent you from seeing that.
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.