Posted on 06/22/2011 9:20:38 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
The 2012 Election cycle is shaping up in many ways to be a mirror image of the 1980 election, which brought the Country and the world the great Ronald Reagan. The Democrats are set to renominate another monumentally failed and politically weak President, as they did with Jimmy Carter in 1980. The GOP Establishment is threatened, genuinely threatened, for the first time since Reagan menaced it thirty years ago, by the advent of a new Conservative superstar, Sarah Palin. And the Establishment champion who is designated to slay the new Conservative dragon? Well, you might say, "The cupboard has never been barer before." In Mitt Romney, the Establishment is fielding its weakest candidate in memory, an unskilled and stiff politician freighted with a legacy of big government, social liberalism and mandates in an election cycle in which libertarianism and the TEA party are ascendant. In other words, he needs help. Lots of help.
The Establishment failed to lure its first choice for a stalking horse, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, into the race. It has had to settle for three term Congressman Michele Bachmann and is busily engaged, through its media organs in pumping her up as the new Palin. Even some of the Conservative talk show hosts whom I respect (such as Mark Levin) have taken to lumping Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann (and even poor Herman Cain) in the same group of conservatives who are being "savaged" by the Establishment. (Comparing the treatment received by Michele Bachmann with that of Sarah Palin--rendering it for all intents and purposes, equivalent--is like comparing some light hazing at the SAE house on a sunny Saturday afternoon to twenty years in the Gulag Archipelago). Have we ever seen anything like this before, that is: a supposed conservative stalwart trying to take out the main Conservative threat to the Establishment? Well, yes we have. For those who don't remember, including even those radio talk show hosts who worked on Reagan 's 1976 and 1980 campaigns, and should remember, let me take you all on a little walk down memory lane.
During the 1980 Cycle, there was a six term Congressman from Illinois, Phil Crane, who was a leader in the conservative movement. In 1976, he had been Chairman of Reagan 's Illinois Primary campaign against President Ford. In 1978, he became Chairman of the American Conservative Union, which was gaining notoriety and funds for its high profile opposition to President Carter's Panama Canal giveaway and to the SALT II Arms limitation treaty with the Soviets. Also, in July 1978, a full 18 months before Reagan himself declared in November 1979, Crane announced that he would seek the Presidency in 1980. Crane tried to pose himself as a younger Reagan, "Reagan without wrinkles", one of his supporters said. Although it was patently obvious to all that Ronald Reagan was preparing his own run for the Presidency, Crane publicly stated his belief that Reagan would not run. (Sound familiar?)
And what was Reagan's reaction to this? Publicly, he was his sunny optimistic self, laughing off the age issue and declining to attack Crane. But privately? As Craig Shirley recounts (at page 33) in his epic story of the 1980 Campaign, "Rendezvous with Destiny", Reagan was hopping mad about Phil Crane's betrayal :
"Reagan was not happy about any of this. Earlier, Crane had as much as told Reagan's men that he would support Reagan again. Worse, Crane threatened to compromise Reagan's support among New Right leaders. Richard Viguerie, for example, joined Crane's direct mail fundraising. Although Crane was nowhere in the polls, he had assets. The America Conservative Union claimed 300,000 members. He had written three books, including 'Surrender in Panama', and had a nationally syndicated column...CRANE KNEW HIS CHANCES FOR WINNING THE 1980 NOMINATION WERE SLIM, BUT IF A MODERATE LIKE HOWARD BAKER OR GEORGE BUSH WON THE NOMINATION, THE CANDIDATE WOULD NEED A CONSERVATIVE RUNNING MATE TO CREATE A UNIFIED CONVENTION AND PARTY. AND IF CRANE SHAVED A FEW POINTS FROM REAGAN IN THE PRIMARIES AND IN SO DOING COST REAGAN THE NOMINATION, WELL, c'est la vie." [emphasis supplied].
But was Crane consequential? Yes and No. He did not succeed in denying Reagan the nomination, as he had pretty clearly intended to do. But he did have an impact on the nomination race. Thanks in part to Reagan's failure (as a result of bad advice) to engage in any retail politicking in Iowa, he was narrowly beaten by George H.W. Bush in the 1980 caucuses, 32-30. Indeed, Crane succeeded in his goal to "shave a few points from Reagan" in Iowa. The seven per cent Crane received in the Hawkeye state came almost entirely out of Reagan's hide. Had the Gipper had five days instead of five weeks, to recover in the New Hampshire primary, George H.W. Bush would likely have won the Granite state primary and, with it, the GOP nomination.
Can Michele Bachmann have a similar impact on the 2012 race? While that certainly appears to be her intent, no serious observer actually believes that she can defeat Romney or any other Establishment candidate any more than Phil Crane could have done in 1980. Like Bachmann, Crane's campaign was motivated by personal ambition, the desire for the Vice Presidency on a ticket headed by a moderate. However, there the similarities between Bachmann and Crane begin and end.
Crane's campaign was not so transparently a stalking horse operation as is Bachmann's. It boasted not just Viguerie, but New Right heavyweights such as Paul Weyrich. In short, there were no Establishment fingerprints on Crane's operation. It seemed to most observers to be a pure challenge to Reagan from the Right. Bachmann's campaign is top heavy with Establishmentarians, most notably (but not exclusively) Ed Rollins. Unlike Crane in 1978-80, she has received warm, recent and conspicuous praise from CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and other lamestream media pipe organs, lending further support to the belief that she is engaged in a mission of which they approve. The Establishment's failure to promote Crane as a stalking horse may have been its fatal error of the 1980 cycle, and it was a direct result of its refusal to take the prospect of a Reagan nomination seriously. Make no mistake, the Establishment takes the prospect of Palin's nomination (and election) very seriously and it is responding accordingly.
Another distinction between Bachmann and Crane is that Crane's decision to run against Reagan was much less a frank betrayal than is Bachmann's challenge to Palin. To be sure, Reagan and his men considered it such, as did William Loeb, the influential publisher of New Hampshire's Manchester Union Leader (Rendezvous with Destiny, p.47). Crane had been a Reagan SUPPORTER, who was now deciding after a period of several years, to challenge the Gipper for a number of arguably valid reasons, most prominently his advanced age. Michele Bachmann is more properly characterized as a BENEFICIARY, a very recent beneficiary, of Sarah Palin who campaigned for her in a tough reelection fight just six months ago and raised boatloads of money for her, some of which is being used to pay Establishment "hit men" like Rollins to slime Palin. This leaves many voters, not just Palin supporters, with a queasy feeling about Bachmann and her character. Crane had no such problem with grass roots conservatives.
Can Bachmann succeed in derailing Palin or at least damaging her in the way Crane did to Reagan in Iowa? In another election cycle against another conservative candidate, I would say it was possible. Bachmann's is the third in a series of challenges from right wing long shots against more prominent, more nominatable conservative candidates. The first was Crane's challenge to Reagan. The second was Pat Buchanan's challenge to Phil Gramm in Louisiana and Iowa in 1996. Gramm was positioned as the conservative alternative to the Establishment champion, the ancient Bob Dole. He planned to ride momentum from victories in the Louisiana and Alaska Caucuses to a strong showing in Iowa, where Dole was favored and then defeat Dole in New Hampshire (where he was weak), before the race turned south where Gramm would sew it up. It was a good plan with a very good chance of success. However, Buchanan mounted a vigorous challenge to Gramm, painting the very conservative Texan as "soft" on embryonic stem cell research. He shocked Gramm, defeating him badly in neighboring Louisiana, a loss that crippled Gramm and likely ended his campaign. Buchanan went on to finish a close second to Dole in Iowa and defeat him in New Hampshire before the Establishment closed ranks against Buchanan and Dole secured the nomination. The upshot of the Buchanan challenge is that it eliminated Phil Gramm, whom the Establishment might have tolerated but did not want.
The problem with a successful challenge by Bachmann to Palin is two fold. Bachmann lacks the credibility with conservatives which Buchanan had achieved as of 1996, both in his work for Reagan and in his strong challenge to Bush 41 in the 1992 primaries. And Phil Gramm, a good conservative to be sure, is in no sense the political equal of Sarah Palin. Palin, like Reagan, is a transformational candidate with a huge national following that will stick with her through thick and thin. She veritably crackles with charisma. Poor Gramm, with his slow Texas drawl, was ripe target for the acerbic, quick witted Buchanan. Palin, it must be admitted by even her detractors, gives as good as she gets.
So, based on a historical analysis of other long shot candidacies in the recent past, it does not seem to me that Bachmann's challenge to Palin will turn out to be much more than a rather expensive snipe hunt, brought to you by the Establishment (specifically Mitt Romney), in which Bachmann will play her proper part but which, in the final analysis, is unlikely to succeed.
If, however, Bachmann's fool's errand does succeed, where Phil Crane's failed, it will mean the nomination not of Michele Bachmann but of Mitt Romney. If that happens, some of the conservative pundits who are railing against the Establishment, and recalling that the "Establishment threw everything they had at Reagan...[Howard] Baker, [George]Bush and [Bob]Dole", will be forced to concede that they forgot that it was a conservative quisling from within our own ranks who very nearly derailed the Gipper in 1980, Phil Crane, and would have been perfectly happy with a moderate like Baker or Bush, especially if it advanced his [Crane's] ambitions.
Reagan and his men never trusted or had anything to do with Crane again. They despised him for his treachery. While both Howard Baker and George Bush were welcomed into the Administration, Crane went from ascendant star in the conservative movement to a backbencher. Conservatives sometimes need to be reminded of the same history that we all lived through.
Good essay. Some can’t see the forest for the trees.
Excellent post and is spot on. Thank you for that precise insight.
Perhaps you all might want to hold your fire until you find out what Palin is going to do. You are all going to look incredibly stupid if Palin does not run and does endorse Bachmann.
Might want to wait and see what Palin does before sawing off the political limb you are standing on.
Let her stay where she is. She doesn't have the "it" factor for me.
Tell me just exactly 'WHAT' has Michelle Bachmann done or accomplished, either by political accomplishments or personal accomplishments, to deserve even to RUN for the nomination, let alone BE the nominee?
LOL! I get it, you used to be the Neighborhood Bully didn’t you?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-bully.htm
It's actually a sign of conservative strength when there is more than one conservative in the race. The idea that conservatives other than your favorite are all traitors is absurd. I don't see anyone from the Bachmann Haters Overdrive attacking Herman Cain for allegedly being a pawn of Romney. I don't see them attacking Rick Perry, even though every time Perry has intervened in a Presidential race, it has been on behalf of a RINO or a Demonrat.
The imaginary media conspiracy which has been impressed by Bachmann includes columnists of unquestioned conservative credentials. People need to consider that these writers are impressed with Bachmann quite simply because she is....well, impressive.
#33, Potsie.
What makes everyone think that in the 'unlikely' event that PALIN does not run for the nomination, that she will 'endorse' anyone?
YUP!
1980 2012
Reagan Palin
Crane Bachmann
G.H.W.Bush Romney
Baker Pawlenty
Anderson Huntsman
Connolly Perry
Cain Ben Fernandez
Paul Harold Stassen
um yeah, okay.
She’s a strong social conservative. Both in her personal life (foster kids, protesting outside Abortion clinics, vote in MN House/Congress) have been towards the protection and sanctity of life. She’s also on record as supporting DOMA, believes in the traditional definition of marriage and is prepared to protect it via constitutional amendment if the courts continue to overstep their boundaries with judicial activism.
She’s also a strong domestic policy conservative. Since day one, she has fought against the abomination known as Obamacare. While the media tried to slam this down our throats, it was her office that helped organize the protests against it and continued the fight as such even after it passed. She has worked tirelessly in the Congress to defund it. There is no doubt if she were President, she would demand the Congress pass a bill repealing Obamacare that she would immediately sign.
She’s also a strong economic conservative. Who was there and didn’t sell-out with Boehner when the GOP leadership caved on the CRA? She has taken this fight also onto the unfriendly networks (CNN, PMSNBC). She won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling without (real) trillions in spending cuts.
She knows big government (EPA) (Obamacare) destroy job creation as well as the over-burdening corporate tax structure.
When Michele Bachmann has said she’ll do something, she does it. She has a House voting record that everyone can look at and see where she has fallen on these key issues.
In the military, it is commonly said you are not promoted because of your past accomplishments, but are promoted based on your “potential” to succeed at the next level. This is what I take away from Bachmann.
“Worth a read, if you are willing to over look the fundamental problem with the article. Palin is not a candidate.’
Excuse me, what qualifies one as a candidate? She is OUR candidate, has BEEN our candidaate since before bam was elected, and she will BE our candidate until she says otherwise. That is not likely to happen.
Does serving a picnic to uninterested reporters make you a candidate? Does smiling into the CNN camera and gushing that just for YOU, dahling, I am honoring you by my presence in the race make you a candidate? Does standing in front of the Statue of Liberty with your hard hair NOT blowing in the wind and praising obama make you a candidate?
No. I suggest to you, that standing in the wind and rain before a crowd of thousands gathered in the cold in Wisconsin with union thugs trying to drown you out and saying, “MR. PRESIDENT, GAME ON!” makes you a candidate and we don’t need no stinking, phoney backdrop. We got it...even if some of you didn’t.
Nice campaign flier. All I see are positions/votes, not accomplishments.
For me, the giveaway was when Chris Mathews suddenly proclaimed Bachmann to be his "hero." My preferred ticket now would be Palin/West.
However, I have total trust in Sarah - to paraphrase an old Henry Fonda line, whoever suits her will just tickle me plumb to death!
It is often argued, in law and logic, that a person can be held liable for, and to have intended, the logical consequences of her actions. A back-bencher with a paper-thin resume of accomplishments and no executive experience cannot defeat Romney, and Bachmann's effort will only derail Palin and guarantee RINO Romney's nomination. So I'll hold her responsible for advancing the establishment and Romney's cause, even if there is no tape recording of a conversation between Mitt and Michelle setting up this strategy.
Anyway, the conversation was most likely between Romney's camp and Rollins, who may well be on the payroll of both campaigns (whether Bachmann knows this is another matter).
Many are doing the same when it comes to Perry. Refusing to take an honest look at him for what he is, not what he says he is. Its getting more and more clear how someone like Obama got elected. People REFUSED to listen. You cant blame it all on the media. The info was out there and many were shouting it from the house tops. Will 2012 be a repeat? Voting for what you wanted to believe is true, but only to find out to late, that its not? We shall see.
Oh yeah, previous accomplishments are way more important that actual votes on positions taken. After all, it previous accomplishments that get stuff done in Washington, DC. /Super Extreme Sarc
You seem to hate everyone here (including the Palin people). What are you, a Ron Paul supporter?
I'm impressed. Heck, I didn't even know about Crane back then.
LMFAO!
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1347159
I love the line that says “Romney praying for Palin to get in”. Who’s the stalking horse now???
Bachmann Derangement Syndrome Lives!!!
Excellent analysis.
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.