Then, they'll appreciate this.
Be careful of what leaves and what remains.
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.
Wow, Jim, the folks you've nurtured in your guarded space here, the last few years....
I see it shaping up like this: Democrats will be Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama, GOP will be Mitt Romney/Fred Thompson, Independents will be Mike Bloomberg/Chuck Hagel and Libertarians will be Ron Paul/generic general or admiral. The Greens will run Cynthia McKinney/Ralph Nader.
What do you think?
Thank you for this article. Rep. Linder provides a very interesting analysis. As he says, politics is about what a candidate believes. I’m afraid Romney only believes what the polls and consultants tell him the voters want him to believe at that moment.
FYI, Romney has never flipped on gay marriage. He’s always been against it and fought against it while Governor. He’s also never flipped on guns. He supported the AWB then and he still does. So does GWB. Does that make him any less a conservative?
So, by my count, Romney’s only flipped on the abortion issue. At least he’s flipped in the right direction and that’s good enough for me.
“Romney will collect his supporters 3:1 over everyone else.”
I don’t think so. It is more complex than that.
Of Fred’s supporters (based on primary issues):
Social Conservatives - Huckabee will get most of these except for the uninformed that don’t understand mormonism and the danger it poses for Christians. Romney with get these uninformed types. NRTL and other pro-life groups might endorse Huckabee or no one at all. If they endorse Romney the backlash against them would be intense...really intense.
Fiscal Conservatives - Probably Romney and Guiliani and McCain will split these.
National Defense (military) - McCain will get the most with some to Guiliani.
Border Defense (illegals) - ???? Ron Paul?
NRA types - Huckabee will get these.
Balanced (Ronald Reagan) Conservatives (all legs) - They will continue to vote for Fred when he appears on a ballot or attempt to write him in where allowed. Or, they will just sit it out. Fred was the last fully balanced candidate left.
The end result is that everyone will pick up some. However, Huckabee will gain the most status (not necessarily votes) because he will clearly be the only true and unquestioned social conservative left in the race. Social conservatives are the working base of the GOP. This won’t win him the nomination, but it will give him influence.
Mike Huckabee has yet to show he has any intellectual heft whatsoever. Placing his name with the likes of Adams (last week it was Jefferson - what happened did you become a federalist overnight unspun?), Madison and Lincoln is just ridiculous. He could never hold a candle to them intellectually or philosophically.
Mike Huckabee has used the Christian faith in the most cynical and unseemly fashion. Ronald Reagan would never have done such a thing (nor would any of the Founding Fathers).
Mike Huckabee is a self-promoting opportunist. You could tell that Ronald Reagan loved this country. Mike Huckabee loves himself.
I would rather vote for an honorable man who really shows he loves this country, even if I don’t agree with everything he stands for, than for a cynical opportunist who says he stands for everything I believe in but shows that he cannot be trusted.
Good luck to your man. May his candidacy be short-lived for the sake of this great country and all the men who gave their lives for it.
John Linder is my representative, I’ve never really had a problem with him, however lately I’m getting leery of him. When I just read he’s been in politics for 34 years it made me cringe. His area of Gwinnett has turned into a cesspool with all of the illegals.
He is probably endorsing Schmuckabee because of the Fair Tax. Personally I like the Fair Tax but with Islamists ready to kill me and illegals taking over the country it’s just not on the top of my list of things to do. Besides, Schmuckabee will say anything to pander so I don’t trust he would do anything about the Fair Tax anyway. What a waste of an endorsement.
So if you agree that hes flip-flopped you must be able to see that he has lied about it?
I wouldn’t trust the flim flam man as far as I could throw the Huck.
But, there are a great number of very nice men for whom I'll never vote. Governor Huckabee is among them.
I know Huckabee fries up squirrels, but you guys must be smokin’ ‘em!
I think that pretty much sums it up.
What sort of atmosphere exists on the planet you live on?
Then, they'll appreciate this.
Be careful of what leaves and what remains.
Just seeing the name Hakeem and intellectual heft in the same sentence makes me laugh...
“He’s also an anti-Mormon bigot.”
Anyone who know anything about Christian theology and cares about the integrity of the Christian message will be anti-mormon. This is a plus. Only the liberal or uninformed/ignorant don’t care if the president is a mormon.
He’s another Bill Clinton.
Here’s some proof he is a real classy guy. In order simultaneously furnish his 7000 square foot home while skirting state ethics laws, soon to be ex-governor Huck registered for gifts (just like a bride) at two department stores. Straight out of the Bill and Hillary playbook.
http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2006/11/13/week_in_review/news/saturday/news09.txt
So I take it you are in favor of national anti smoking laws as well, just like Huck...
Very Fascist of you...
When did you convert?
This “uninformed” will NOT ever vote for Huck...because I am informed about him. Thats all I need.
NO HUCKLINTON
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.