This. Damned shame, really; Rollins is absolutely going to hobble Bachmann's campaign, long-term... and it doesn't have to be that way.
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.
Excellent post!!!
Absolutely! I think Bachmann should go back to Minnesota and study for a couple years, perhaps get a better understanding of where all the famous US battles took place.
But before she heads back to Minnesota, I think a public apology is in order for her treatment of Gov Palin, through Rollins, and the stuff she said herself
“Advice...jump”
Ah yes, there you are in the valley too. Have you met Gargantua down there yet?
You betcha!
This. Damned shame, really; Rollins is absolutely going to hobble Bachmann's campaign, long-term... and it doesn't have to be that way.
This possibe scenario is another illustration of the adage that there is "nothing new under the sun". The same strategy was used by the Establishment (they were called the Money Trust back then - Rockefeller, J.P.Morgan, Randolph Hearst et al.) in 1912 when they flattered and stroked Teddy Roosevelt's ego and convinced him to run as the "Bull Moose" third party candidate against William H. Taft-R and Woodrow Wilson-D.
The Money Trust was desperate to get the Federal Reserve Act passed (Taft opposed it - Wilson supported it). Through their agents they funded and supported in the major newspapers (which they owned, of course) both Roosevelt(secretly) and Wilson(publicly). Roosevelt, of course, pulled the most votes from Taft, thus handing the election to Wilson. This led directly to the enactment of both the Federal Reserve Act and the Thirteenth Amendment(the income tax).
Just as today, whether Roosevelt knew his backers were the same ones who were publicly pushing Wilson is unknown and unprovable. Since he was such an egotist that he could be easily played, my personal opinion is that Teddy was simply a an unwitting dupe.
Two things are certain: history repeats, and we refuse to learn from it... /g
Quite a Dr. Evil complex you have there, Chip. Pfft.
I suspect it's due to a sadly inadequate... ummmmmmm... "Mini-Me." ;)
Yes, I realize there is no proof. That is why I said I’m not sure if Bachmann is a participant or just a dupe. And when I referred to the press, I wasn’t thinking about Rolling Stone, but more the likes of MSNBC.
I’ve always liked Michele. She always said the right things and seemed to agree with me on most issues, but I no longer trust her. The first thing that raised my eyebrow happened during the gov’t shutdown debate. She was interviewed and made an impassioned statement about how hard Boehner had fought for us. Later, we find out the deal was smoke and mirrors and we got squat out of it. That was the first time I felt betrayed by Bachmann. Yes, I felt betrayed by Boehner as well but I expected it from him. Michele’s job in the whole ordeal seemed to be to try to pacify the tea party by using her credibility to make us believe the Republicans weren’t selling us down the river - again.
Fast forward a few months and you have Michele entering the presidential race. The more the merrier I guess, but she has no executive experience and we’ve already seen how that works with Obama. Granted she’s not the communist he is, but we need someone who knows how to get things done. We need someone who’s not just going to maintain the status quo, but who’s going to reverse course. I’m not sure that’s Michele.
A couple weeks ago, the press started their “cat fight” meme about bad blood between Bachmann and Palin. I was very happy to see Michele say in an interview that there was no bad blood, that she considered Sarah a friend. Twenty-four hours later, we have Ed Rollins out trashing Palin on TV. Michele’s response...................(crickets chirping)? I’m still waiting to hear Michele defend her friend, or in some other way, indicate to the public that she does not condone Ed’s idiotic remarks. He does work for her, after all. That was betrayal #2 and showed a distinct lack of loyalty, considering that Palin helped her get re-elected.
Election night Nov 2010, I watched the interview with Bachmann and Chris Mathews. The mutual disgust between the two was pretty evident, especially on Mathews side. Not only that but he went away from the interview angry and embarassed because she brought up the leg tingle remark. Fast forward to this past week, where he said on his show that she was by far his favorite Republican candidate. He said it with a straight face and no sarcasm in his voice. The complete turn-around in his opinion would make anyone wonder what the he!! is going on. He’s not the only one in the LSM that has been singing her praises over the last week, where before they were either calling her stupid or crazy.
So no, I don’t have amy proof. It’s not like they are going to be stupid enough to write it down if a deal was made. The point is I can no longer trust her to be working in our best interests. If you support her, that’s great but don’t expect those of us who don’t to change our minds simply because you accuse us of being part of the Bachmann Hater Overdrive. You wouldn’t support someone you don’t trust either.
With all due respect, how can you know Bachmann doesn’t have skeletons (or things that can be turned into skeletons) that would derail her candidacy? Full disclosure: I am a Palin supporter and at this point I have no clue who I would support if she doesn’t run...but I’m not asking facetiously as I figure someone who is as supportive of Bachmann as you would be well aware of her history.
Every single politician in history has skeletons and right now the atmosphere is very contentious (one of the advantages I think Palin...and even Romney...has is they’ve been vetted so thoroughly we couldn’t learn more if we were privy to their proctology exams). By virtue of his playing on the national stage in the corporate world, Herman Cain may fall in this category as well.
However, Bachmann has only recently become a player on the national stage. Minnesotans are much more familiar with her to be sure but scrutiny on a state level is hardly the same as what a national news media can do. If you think Bachmann’s going to be spared the extreme scrutiny Palin got (and her being just the VP nominee) then you simply don’t have a healthy understanding of who the media is. Hell, Palin had an 80% approval rating and appeared well-loved and well known in her state and look what happened to her. This was long before the “she quit” had become a meme Goebbels would be proud of.
One or even a couple disgruntled foster children are to be expected. If the media trots out more than that (or ones whose “stories” can garner the kind of “horror” the media will be looking for) with reasonably plausible stories they can milk that until she looks like the wicked witch of the west. Heck, look what the did to Palin because her daughter (not unlike many teenage girls) chose a complete loser for a boyfriend and made the stupid decision to have sex with him. That’s a situation millions of GOOD and DECENT families confront everyday but Palin was made to look like the second coming of Andrea Yates.
And what about subsidies? Does she support them? They may play well in certain areas of the country but most Americans are in no mood to have their hard-earned money spent in ways better managed ONLY by the private sector. What about earmarks? What kinds of earmarks has she gotten for her district? Can any of her actions be seen as cronyism (either as special favors or other perks) to family or supporters? Again, these are serious issues because these are serious times. If she gets the nod can she take the heat? When you’re in congress criticism is spread around and even as a supporter of the tea party she hasn’t received the criticism and scrutiny of some of it’s more vociferous and prominent supporters. She’s also had a job to do in congress so she hasn’t been able to be “out there” like other have. This is to her credit since she has people she was elected to represent.
As a Palin supporter who was completely stunned by the level of scrutiny (and thankful that there was really nothing TO uncover...not that they didn’t make hay with what they had) these are serious questions I have. Running for congress and having the eyes of a small portion of the state and a few local media outlets on your tail is a whole different ball game than having the full weight of the (sometimes international) press digging through your life from the hour of your conception.
Honestly, I’m not denigrating your candidate but it’s important to know what we might be up against should she be our nominee. A few establishment campaign managers aren’t going to cut it. They did nothing for Romney, Huckabee, McCain, H.W. Bush, etal in previous elections/primaries.
Cindie
If she endorses anyone it will probably be Rick Perry. He will be sold as the candidate with the best combination of conservatism and electability, a middle ground between Bachmann and Romney.
>> “Bachmann’s is the third in a series of challenges from right wing long shots...” <<
.
Sorry, but Bachmann is not from the right, but the left.
She was big on Carter-Mondale, and has been a part of numerous leftist overtures in her legislative career in Minnesota.
Were she a conservative, she would be attacking the liberal Romney, rather than playing footsie.
Bachmann destroys, rather than building.
Bachmann is a liberal, by her record, both in the past and in the present.
She is decidedly on the side of raising the debt ceiling; an action that will doom the US to irrelevance on the global scene due to the unmanagable debt level.
She is also leaning toward support for general amnesty with no strings attached for illegal immigrants.
>> “I see a lot of wild unsubstantiated nonsense.” <<
.
Stop reading your diary.
Does your husband know you’re posing for shots like that?
>> “ It increases the odds of ending up with the best one to defeat Obama” <<
.
No, it does the opposite:
It assures a RINO appointment by the GOP/DEM establishment.
Bachmann is playing Ross Perot on a primary scale.
It’s Phil CRANE, 1980, not Phil Gramm. In 1980, Gramm was still a Democrat.
Phil CRANE was actually very handsome, well spoken, telegenic, decidedly conservative, with a big beautiful family. I also don’t see where this article established that Crane was anyone’s, much less ‘the establishment’s” stalking horse. His run may have infurated the Reagan folks (or not) but the ‘stalking horse’ argument has not been made in this article.
Someday you might become intellectually honest. That post was not. It does nothing to help the “candidate” you support.
I feel very sorry for you.
>> “Long before Karl Rove was known outside of Texas, Bachmann was a solid Conservative voice in Minnesota politics.” <<
.
That is an unforgivable lie!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69153-bachmann-was-a-jimmy-carter-democrat
Bachmann is a typical liberal elitist politician.
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.
