Hickabee 08!
Posted on 01/22/2008 2:02:22 PM PST by unspun
I was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives 34 years ago. I have watched this party change for a long time. Some changes have been better than others.
Two years after that first election, I went to work on the Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. I was one of the leaders of that campaign in Georgia, and my friend, Paul Coverdell, led the establishment's efforts to nominate President Ford.
It was the typical establishment-versus-interloper campaign. Most of the friends I had made in the party were in the establishment. Most of them thought the nomination of Ronald Reagan was not only impractical, but would destroy our party.
Reagan had just served two terms as the governor of California. His record was not all that conservative. He signed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state. He got the best he could get with a Democrat-dominated general assembly. He signed a bill legalizing abortion. But governors have different challenges than presidents.
Frankly, most of the establishment couldn't have cared less about abortion. They thought the discussion of it was, well, tacky. But we were, at the time, the party that Barry built, and the new foot soldiers cared about abortion.
Their concern with Reagan was that he just wasn't up to it. What did he know about foreign policy? How could he stand up to the Soviets? Did he understand detente?
During that campaign, as in all campaigns, the establishment sat at the head table, and the rest of us milled around the small round tables below.
Coverdell approached me, after Ford had won the first several primaries, and urged me to switch sides. Paul was convinced that Ford had the best chance of winning. Paul recited all of the reservations mentioned above and then said, "John, Reagan cannot win. No one will take him seriously." That was also the consensus of the Republican writers and commentators.
I said, "Paul, I think politics is all about what you believe. I know what Reagan believes. I have no idea what Ford believes. But you need to watch Reagan connect with the people. He is the best communicator I have ever seen. He is bringing new people into the party. And these are folks you won't be meeting at the club for lunch. They carry a lunch bucket to work. Or a brown paper bag."
Four years later, I worked again for Reagan and Paul worked for George H. W. Bush. Again, the Wall Street crowd sat at the head table, and the Main Street crowd sat at the small round tables on the floor.
The same arguments came from the establishment. His tax cut idea was a "riverboat gamble." In fact, his tax cuts doubled the size of the economy and doubled revenues to the treasury. Unfortunately, they spent that and more.
Reagan didn't understand that the world is a dangerous place and dealing with the Soviets required a more "understanding" policy. It also required a willingness to sign more treaties. They didn't know that Reagan had no interest in understanding the Soviets. He wanted communism consigned to "the ash heap of history."
It was a neverending series of put-downs until New Hampshire. Then it was over.
Reagan won that election with the support of Larry Lunch-bucket and Betty Brownbag. They were called the Reagan Democrats. When we celebrated that victory, I asked some of them why they chose to join us. They said, "When he talked, we felt that he was talking to us." The Reagan Democrats believe they have been ignored since 1988.
The establishment doesn't like change. They have always felt that their seats at the head table were threatened by those new to the club. The establishment that so ardently opposed Reagan's nomination in 1980 crawled all over each other to chair his 1984 race.
Today they now see themselves as those who put Reagan in power. His presidency was their presidency. They believe they are the keepers of the flame.
Today's establishment includes elected officials, consultants, lobbyists and even conservative writers and commentators. Unless you allow them to write the rules and approve of your positions you are unwelcome. Anyone who does not genuflect before their altar is "not conservative."
When you look at the many fine candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president, who do you believe can best speak to those Reagan Democrats?
I believe that candidate is Mike Huckabee.
When Reagan became president, one of his first moves was to reduce income taxes from 70 percent to 50 percent and ultimately down to 28 percent. As pointed out above, both the size of the economy and the federal revenues doubled in eight years.
Huckabee doesn't want to lower income taxes. He wants to abolish them - along with the IRS, the most intrusive, coercive and corrosive federal agency ever. Mike would replace those taxes on income with a sales tax - the FairTax. Every American will become a voluntary taxpayer paying taxes when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend. How conservative can one get?
Rep. John Linder, R-Duluth, has served in the House of Representatives since 1992.
You put Hillary at #4?
Huckster?
McDole? I will Switch2Mitt
no
Do your research, I shouldn't have to do it for you.
As governor he opposed the NRA, as presidential candidate he buys a life membership. As governor he supported the Brady bill, as presidential candidate, he opposes it.
As Massachusetts Senatorial candidate he supported marital rights for gay couples. As Presidential candidate, he opposes them. As governor he opposed a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, now as a presidential candidate he doesn't.
In 2005 he told the Boston Globe that McCain-Kennedy was "not amnesty." Now running against McCain he says it is amnesty.
His nickname is "flip-flop!" There is a whole litany of changed positions from when he was campaigning for office in liberal Taxachusetts, and now for office in the conservative GOP.
Just Google it. They are all there. Even on Youtube!
He is a fake and I will not support him in any way.
To consider EVER pulling the lever for chucklebee is just a . . . chuckle.
As a believer, I am in such a pickle. I can’t stand Hucks fiscal policies, but probably agree with him theologically. OTOH, I agree with Mitt on fiscal policy and wholeheartedly disagree with him theologically.
Since I am looking for a President and not a Pastor, I lean toward Mitt.
This whole thing is a mess!!!!
Yeah, right, I'm a liberal. I've written speech lines for top Republicans that have been quoted worldwide, my late father founded the Republican Party in our Texas county and helped get Phil Gramm elected as a Republican, and if it weren't for the behind-the-scenes efforts of another relative of mine, Gore might gotten away with stealing Florida and the White House. I told you: I know these people.
Did you seriously believe when Coulter was attacking Huckabee with arguments that contradicted themselves within the same column that she wasn't using whatever it took to tear him down so she could later shove the Mittster down your throats? I'm just surprised she openly admitted it after a few weeks. I have no doubt at all that if this media apparatus had been in place in '76, you'd be screaming that Reagan was a squish and he'd never have gotten the nomination.
You are being played like a fiddle, and I guess you like the music.
Something is going on and it has the acrid aroma of certain November defeat. It is reminiscent of '92 when a feckless abandonment of Bush 41 delivered Clinton to us. When principles become more valued than the virtues they are intended to serve, it is an indication that we have lost our bearing.
I didn't even mention mormonism; maybe you were talking to someone else.
Unfortunately, Huckabee is the best choice available. I am grudgingly leaning towards him.
Romney is the only one running for the Republican nomination who could have just as easily run as a Democrat. He was a Democrat in every way when he was governor except for the R.
Well, I’m not happy about it, at all but since he’s the only social conservative left, I guess I’m in yall’s camp now.
I see a shift here on FR to fall to Romney as a last line of defense.
My concern is that, in the general election, the public will sense the same unappealing “slickness” about Romney that caused most conservatives to instinctively recoil from him.
If conservatives move to support Romney because he is “safer” that McCain or Rudy, I think we will be walking into a massive defeat.
Worth repeating.
Inform me. What danger does Mormonism pose for Christianity?
#210 - what an excellent post. Love to see some common sense around here.
On that note...Those that know me on FR know that I have a great deal of respect for our President... I’ve refrained from attacking hin on most things... My primary issue is him allowing the lib, and the Msm, to define who we- conservatives, are... Not fighting b9k during the ‘04 debates, while the dems lied profusely about us... The yellow-cake, kennedy’s lie after lie... All of these events... Cheney was a disaster and disgrace, and Frist and Hastert were worse... In my opinion, this is what caused the greatest damage to us of all... And for that, I’ve lost most of my respect for Bush and all for Cheney...
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.