Posted on 10/31/2008 7:57:52 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Anybody remember John Anderson? Let’s not always see the same hands. John Anderson was a Congressman from Illinois who ran as an independent for President in 1980. I remember him well, because I was involved in his campaign from the beginning.
Yes, all my life I’ve had a penchant for lost causes. Call it the Rhett Butler syndrome – Rhett joined the Confederacy only after the burning of Atlanta. I wrote a key memorandum to John Anderson urging him to drop out of the Republican Party and out of a debate in Dallas on 22 March as I recall, declare as an independent, and use the method I suggested to make the ballot in all 50 states. He did that, and that, and achieved that access.
Anyway, fringe candidates don’t have the same obligation to avoid saying anything that will offend anyone, on any basis, to the extent that can be done. Therefore, fringe candidates occasionally speak snippets of truth that go right to the heart of the matter. Anderson did that in 1980.
He said of Reagan’s pledge to cut taxes and increase military spending that it could only be done “with smoke and mirrors.” This is not a new complaint about political promises. At the time of Napoleon the question was whether France could afford both “guns and butter.”
Today, we have a candidate who promises to cut taxes, while making transfer payments for various purposes to 40 percent of all Americans. Now, that candidate wants to cut military spending (while we are in a declared war), but vastly increase social spending. When the subject is the overall budget, it doesn’t matter whether the extra funds are going to military or civilian purposes. All that matters are total outlays against total income.
In short, Barack Obama’s promises of tax cuts and welfare increases have the same defects that Anderson identified in President Reagan’s promises. They can only be done by using “smoke and mirrors.” In short, the magician’s trick of concealing what is right in front of the audience is the only way to make it seem to work.
Joey Bishop covered the same point in a line from a very forgettable film, saying to his wife, “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”
Do we have any confirmation from inside the Obama Campaign that their promises don’t match and are self-contradictory? Why, yes, we do. And we have the Times of London to thank for it. The lede in an article published there today (31 October, on Halloween) says this:
“Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.”
The article claims that Obama himself is “engaged already in expectation lowering.” It offers quotes this week from an Obama interview with a Colorado radio station and a speech in Sarasota as evidence that the candidate is backing away from his assertions that all his promises can be carried out.
A digression: This is only a matter of common sense. Why is this being published only in a reputable newspaper in Great Britain? Why isn’t it being published in any reputable newspaper in the United States? Is there not a single H.L. Mencken living and writing somewhere in the US who can stand up on his hind legs and attack contradictory promises as flat out bunk?
Mencken described is function as a journalist to “drive by sanctuaries at midnight, and throw in dead cats.” No offense meant to cat lovers, but we have entirely too many sanctuaries in the 2008 election that have a crying need for one or more dead cats.
We’ll see on Tuesday whether a majority of American voters manage to figure out the flimflam, without the American press doing its job.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced law in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. He now lives in Highlands, NC, and is working on a book on Thomas Paine. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
- 30 -
John / Billybob
My very first vote for Prez was for John Anderson.
Well, let me kidnap your thread for one second and say again, PLEASE don’t any Freepers vote third party this time around. Maybe McCain has a few warts, but as El Rushbo says, we need to drag him across the finish line, keep an eye on him, and work on fixing the party for the next election.
We can’t afford to let Obama get in because of a few purists who won’t vote McCain, the only possible way Obama can be kept out of the White House and prevented from destroying the country.
Yes, I remember Anderson, too.
Mine also. The media at the time had me scared of Reagan and I saw what Jimmy had done.
John / Billybob
I cast my first Presidential vote for Anderson as well....ashamed to admit that I bought into the hype about Reagan being a bit of a nut and I wasn’t voting for Carter under any circumstances, so that left Anderson.
I went with Reagan in 1984....
I was going to vote for Anderson, but as the election drew close, I didn’t want to cast a vote that could potentially throw the vote to the democrats. I have never considered voting for a third party since then.
They say that Perot caused Bush I and Dole to lose. I am skeptical, but it should be noted that Clinton was not able to get over or near 50 per cent in the two contests.
Good piece and I remember how the enemedia tried to paint Ronald Reagan as not being able to do as he promised.
I was born and raised in So CA and was a staunch Reagan supporter for his two terms as Governor so I wasn’t the least bit hesitant in voting for him.
The enemedia at least tried to cover some of their animosity towards Reagan then but don’t seem the least concerned about being in the tank for BHO now, maybe that’s one reason many of them are going broke now.
fringe candidates occasionally speak snippets of truth that go right to the heart of the matter. Anderson did that in 1980.He said of Reagan’s pledge to cut taxes and increase military spending that it could only be done “with smoke and mirrors.”
Are you saying that the Reagan cuts in tax rates did not precede an increase in tax revenue?
John / Billybob
John B. Anderson turns 94 today.
Used to call them "drugstore cowboys" because these city slickers would go into a drug store, buy a Stetson hat, a pair boots and a pack of chew and instantly they'd be pretending they was John Travolta - or maybe George Strait.
Anyway, this John Anderson, he represented the protest vote of those "reasonable Republicans" who felt that Ronald Reagan was a loose cannon who would lead us to World War 3 or worse.
It did not matter. Reagan still won in a landslide.
Look for a similar third party alternative should Trump be nominated this year.
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.