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.
how so? many times, the voting population of the US has been referred to as a “sea of voters”. I got what she meant.
>> “Big difference of course, Reagan was running, Palin who knows?” <<
.
You know!
You wouldn’t be spending so much time here fighting her excellent and brilliant candidacy if you really didn’t believe that she was headded for a victory.
Speaking of the Hannity interview, I’m surprised no one has brought up her slip calling “Speaker Pelosi”. Seems everybody when bat-crazy when she said “President Romney” the other day saying it was a Freudian slip. I guess this means she wants Nancy to take over her old job again. /sarc
Palin earned her reputation kicking tail in Alaska, kicking tail is what got her into politics, and she did it all the way up the ladder, and then she struggled to drag McCain across the victory line, and she never stopped. In November and December of 2008, and January and so on, Palin was fighting tooth and nail, and taking on all takers, then the tea party started and history was made.
Ask yourself what Bachmann was doing all those quiet, non-productive years in the state Senate, and then the Congress, do you really think the establishment fears her, they know her, she was one of them until she found the tea party stage and a willing, sympathetic, audience.
The establishment has already lost a Governorship and a state to Palin, they know what she means for them.
“And you know this how? Have you ever spoken to Crane about why he ran? Or did you pull this straight out of your rear end?”
No. I understand that you might have surmised that since so much of what you wrote seems to flow from that particular spot. It is set forth on page 33 of Craig Shirley’s excellent book on the 1980 campaign, “Rendezvous with Destiny”, which was quoted in my original article and linked in this one. Look it up. And enjoy your crow.
7 % in Iowa!! Wow! And the guy was from neighboring Illinois.. It was so disappointing he was one of the early dropouts.
The "liberal leaning" Bush benefited from the Press trying to paint Reagan as near - senile (which he recovered from in NH), not the "charismatic" Phil Crane, the career benchwarmer.
Pain’s unfavorables not dropping. Her support is deep but narrow.
Unpopular here, but true nonetheless.
>> “Reagan was a 2 term governor with an extensive base of suporters in the Party.” <<
Just plain nonsense!
Outside California, Reagan had zero party support, and an extensive list of devoted enemies in DC.
He, like Palin, did have strong popular support though.
That is the most paranoid and ridiculous premise I have ever heard.
She was 100% voting record with ACU. Liberals have been attacking her long before she even thought about running for President. The Republican establishment threatened to cut off funding for her last House race because she was so conservative.
Shirley is not so universally revered as you seem to think. I will not eat crow because YOU posted BS, as you did the last time.
You ought to get an original source if you are going to post this kind of crap. Why don’t YOU call Phil Crane and talk to him about what went on instead of reading someone else’s source as if it’s Gospel? Especially when the source you quote might just be someone with an axe to grind?
You don’t have to worry, I shan’t sully my computer with any more hits to your threads.
>> “I think the key to whether Palin will actually run or not depends on what Rick Perry does.” <<
.
You wish!
But fortunately nothing could be further from the truth.
Palin knowa that Perry is a flake, and she knows that stopping him is as important as stopping his twin, Romney.
You wouldn't believe how I ended up with that Crane taking New Hampshire thing. but it was sure wrong.
“You don’t have to worry, I shan’t sully my computer with any more hits to your threads”
If that is a promise you have my thanks. Adios.
She stuck her pointy finger up as she said it.
It sounded stupid.
Maybe she was trying to sound like Rush, who uses the analogy often of
licking the finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
Stupid gaff on her part, mixing metaphors.
Not the first, won’t be the last.
I didn’t say that she didn’t vote well when more dynamic leaders put bills before her, just that she never led, or passed anything, never accomplished anything, she was just another politician during her 10 years.
Honest mistake ansel. Truth be told, with his effect on the race in Iowa, Crane almost took New Hampshire adn gave it to GHW Bush.
You were probably thinking of Buchanan in ‘96 taking New Hampshire from old Dole.
put down the Kool-Aid, my FRiend
I am not a Perry backer, but I am stating the facts.
So Perry is a flake, eh? What does that say about Palin’s judgement since she endorsed him his reelection bid?
I disagree (he had the West sewn up at least), but certainly you would agree California has more weight than Alaska
No, it wasn’t that, it was just a really sloppy mistake (mine) from a very real looking, but hypothetical 1980 race.
It was a whopper of a mistake on my part.
>> “Ronald Reagan was running the second he finished his GOP Convention speech in 1976.” <<
.
No F’n way!
I was on Reagan’s ground team in late ‘65 when the build-up for his first gubernatorial run got going, and after he left office in ‘75 we were notified that he would be making a stab at ‘76 but the funding was soft.
In ‘79 they jerked up our strings in july, and told us to block out time in early ‘80 to start the canvassing.
All the talk on 2012 is premature, and is being pushed because of Obama’s weakness, and Palin’s strength. They don’t know what to do to break her, so they are starting early.
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.