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.
That is all ya got isn't it? Someone told you this was a horrible thing and you nod, but can't articulate why can you?
“Charging tuition is not a service.”
Charging in-state tuition is a service. If your tuition is being subsidized by the taxpayers it is just as much a service as taxpayer subsidized health care.
Actually I get speechless when I see that kind of stupidity...
I think a person saying that they are a “Conservative” advocating spending ANY money on illegal immigrants, other than the money need for enforcement is...
Well, I put “conservative” in parenthesis for a reason...
Why stop there, lets educate the planet...
Damn, just damn....
Yeah, me and Rush.
Thank you. So he should have asked for out of state tuition fees? Or is all tuition subsidized?
When did going to college become a right?
I didn't see it as spending money on illegals. I saw it as allowing them to spend their own money to go to college. Now I see where y'all are coming from. I wasn't thinking that tuition was subsidized. Oh do I feel stupid. So, they should just have to pay the unsubsidized tuition? Correct? That is the conservative position?
If they want to go to college, sure they should pay out-of-state tuition. But, they should also leave the country and apply for a student visa, just like other non-legal-resident students must do.
Sorry Rush doesn’t support Huckabee. In fact Huckabee and McCaine are the only two Republicans he has directly opposed.
And is that the actual difference between out of state and in state tuitons? Because the out of stater didn't contribute in the state he is attending school, he pays the actual cost of his education?
“Huckabee presents the best choice for Reagan supporters”
BullHuck
In as much as I have an issue with them even being in our public high schools and such, since many pay some taxes, I see it as being just like eveyone else, the government does k-12.
Not even citzens are guaranteed College.
Fix your liberal state first. You might then see how liberal Mike is.
It would seem so.
NO way in Hell will huckabee get a vote from me.
No surprise. On a different thread unspun quoted Carl Marx and said it was Lincoln or Jefferson.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1947514/posts?q=1&;page=1
I guess he thinks it is WE who are stinking up the joint by our stupidity in not unabashedly supporting Huckabee, while he decries the declining standards of conservatism here on Free Republic. Meanwhile he uses the names of great American thinkers and patriots as buzz words while ascribing the words of Marx to them.
This is about par for the course as far as Huckabee supporters; I have found.
Madison’s words that I find applicable to Huckabee.....
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]
Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774]
One more little comment. If your late father founded the Republican Party in your Texas county, you must be over a century old, since the Republican Party of Texas dates back to Reconstruction. Maybe a small exaggeration on your part?
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.