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.
“Nonsense. Ronald Reagan was running the second he finished his GOP Convention speech in 1976.”
Post the proof. Show me the incontrovertible, public statement from Reagan’s own mouth, before November 1979, that he was running in 1980. You can’t because there wasn’t one.
Reagan declared in November 1979. And the rumors were rampant during all of 1978 and 1979 that he would NOT run in 1980, because of his age. He would be 70 at his inauguration, the oldest man ever to hold the office. I remember it well, and that is the absolute truth. Crane was helping to fuel the rumors. Get your history straight.
Reagan endorsed Phil Krane in the late 70’s in his Ill senate race.
Exactly
Laughable. You sound like someone from one of those lib sites. Show me the statement. Everyone old enough to recall the Reagan campaign knew the second he walked out of the convention he was running for President in 1980.
Reagan was a crusade not a campaign. Palin...well we will just have to wait and see.
“Phil Crane! Now there’s a name from long-ago.”
(That said, Phil in a dress woulda been a helluva sight better than Carter.)
I don’t have a clue whether Perry is running. I don’t really care. If he runs he will damage Mitt Romney more than he does Palin. For all the “secesh” talk and the rest of his so-called conservatism, Perry governed a conservative state. He didn’t make it so. He just rode the wave, and frankly when he tried open borders policies, he got his hand slammed in teh cookie jar. If he had been in Massachusetts, I think Perry would have been comfortable with that flow as well. Perry is not someone who is going to go against the grain. At least that is my perception of him.
“Is that decipherable enough, groupie?”
It is completely unintelligible. Crane was not anonymous> he was Chairman of the American Conservative Union, had written three books and had a nationally syndicated column. He had been in Congress for six full terms and was a well known and well respected Reaganite, having run Reagan’s Illinois operation in 1976 against Ford.
He was in fact considered very charismatic, was a handsome man with a beautiful family. Seriously, you really are too lazy to get any facts, aren’t you? Just post Bachmann’s talking points. You don’t strike me as a groupie. You are too lazy.
You seem more like a hireling.
“You sound like someone from one of those lib sites.”
You sure sound like someone from oneof those “ad lib” sites. Just make it up as you go along. I ask you for proof. What do I get? Crickets.
Palin and Romney have been neck and neck, trading first and second place for almost three years.
Nailed it again, Bean ;-)
Palin has the highest favorables in the party, and is officially second, and sometimes beats Romney for first.
My hope is that someone will do a photoshopped version.
Aside from Palin, I count 6 potential candidates that still might declare, and those are just the ones I've heard about.
Palin isn't sitting in Alaska just doing crossword puzzles. Either she's quietly putting together an operation, which is possible since her inner circle seems leak proof, or she's speaking with a few that might be contemplating a run. From what I've observed, she has a good grasp of the political landscape. Remembering something she said a few weeks back, the field was likely to change dramatically this summer. I suspect she knows more than we do about who's running.
What we've got is an incomplete picture.
“My hope is that someone will do a photoshopped version”
This sounds like a job for Diogenesis or Kent.
I think both Bachman and Palin are viable candidates and I’m glad to see them both in the race.
I wished folks on FR WOULD STOP trying to pitt these two against each other. I expect a clean campaign from each towards to other. I refuse to participate in creating a fight between these to camps. Both ladies have great merit and either would have my support in a general election. IF either of them is the eventually nominee, I consider it a WIN situation.
I consider it a foolish mistake for conservatives in the GOP to fight among themselves over who is best of the two. Of course, you need to express your opinion and chose the one you think best (or another candidate for that matter), but it is just counter productive to stop a war amoung conservatives.
I have similar concerns of him, but you must take at least some heed that because Palin has made positive statements about him in the past and campaigned for his reelection, that he would be the one governor in the race that she could support should she choose not to run.
Perry’s campaign has also been manufactured by Rush as a stick in the eye to the GOP Establishment. They went after Rush and called him “non-essential” to the GOP nominating process after McCain was able to secure it. So, without Rick Perry ever giving a thought about running for POTUS, Rush threw his name on Greta as his “Dream Candidate” and has been promoting him ever since. And since that time, Perry did a 180 and started looking into running.
Why did Rush choose Perry over Sarah? My guess is that had he supported Sarah off the back, he would have been looked at as a bandwagon supporter by the GOP establishment and they would not have given him credit for steering the nominating process in her favor, because Palin would have been credited in her own right. Rick Perry, however, needs Talk Radio and the conservative media to mount a challenge, something Rush can steer.
And if Rick Perry runs, you can be guaranteed 110% take it to the bank, that Palin will not enter the race. You may not like it, but even most of the ultra-Palin folks here will understand her decision and why. You will almost certainly end up with primary results in states that look like the following:
Romney: 21%
Perry: 20%
Palin: 18%
Bachmann: 12%
Cain: 11%
Paul: 11%
Gingrich: 4%
Huntsman: 3%
Others: 1%
We know that that Paulites will never pull out. It’s accepted that most of the Gingrich/Huntsman/Others would go to Romney. That leaves Bachmann/Cain’s 23% to fight for. The Bachmann people would probably give an edge to Palin over Perry, but the Cain people would probably be even with even some of them going to Romney. A 4 man race would look like the following:
Romney: 33% (Gingrich/Huntsman/Others/4%Cain/Bachmann)
Palin: 30% (9% Bachmann, 3% Cain)
Perry: 27% (3% Bachmann, 4% Cain)
Paul: 10% (Because they just wont go away)
Exactly!
Crane never got higher than 1 or 2 %. He was seen as boring . He was never a threat to Reagan, not even close. Later, he lost his House seat, never rising to leadership position... Your obsession with Palin is bizarre and embarrassing, IMO. She’s going nowhere.
Too late for that, opening her campaign with an attack against Palin has ruined Bachmann for many conservatives, Bachmann hired Rollins and attacked the wrong person in the race.
Reagan was not running, officially, until November 13, 1979. Sarah isn’t running officially either, yet. All the Bush people said Reagan was too old and wasn’t running. History repeats.
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.