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.
and you have been whining about the treatment of Huck from those that do not see him as you do. In other posts you have question the viability of Free Republic because of such.
But I dont expect you to get that either.
Whine?
A real, heart-felt lament, ma’am.
Finally. Another Huckabite to come gather in the self-congratulatory circle on how much smarter they are. Nevermind that the guy who ran as a Christian ran a singularly misleading candidacy. I mean, if the Mormons are a cult, but the Baptist pastor lies just as much, how is the Mormon the bad guy?
Hard to believe than any intelligent person would vote for a phony.
I suggest you take all incongruous and off-hand or impassioned remarks from all politicians (and any other mortal) with a grain of salt.
One ex-gov from Arkansas POTUS is one too many!
Looks like there is a lot more FR here than there is Huck...
But reality seems to be an issue with you...
I think your post pretty much captures a good snapshot the intellectual acuity of the most active FReepers, in the last few months (or years, maybe).
LDS WEBSITE:
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is the stuff , that when the Clintons get a hold of it, will KILL Romney. This just scratches the surface of the kooky stuff LDSers believe in.
All that said, this Bible thumping, right of right-wing, born-again Evangelical will vote for Romney over Huck any day of the week. Huck does not have the stuff.
All of us Christians need to seek the Lord for guidance on this one...
Man, Huck is the Clinton nightmare, just in a different jersey.
Share what you are smoking with the Paul folks, all the money thay have blown has reduced their stash...
If we are all idiots, why are you here?
Most of the people on FR are still going through Fred separation anxiety.
Give it a few days.
I just puked so hard I lost some toenails!
LLS
Thank you for the suggestion. I, however, see a man who discusses policy but has no underlying core principles to discuss that policy. He will tell a group whatever they want to hear. A man who is grounded in the Constitution and the 10th Amendment would never advocate a federal ban on smoking because it goes against everything the 10th Amendment stands for. It is not a federal issue. If he can be led astray by his audience or his minute by minute passion he has no real grounding in the Constitution.
You can give it an “Effing” lifetime sport, it ain’t gonna change. Huckabee has run a nasty, deceitful, double-talking campaign...hmmm reminds me of another Arkansas Liberal governor...FReepers will never support the Arkansan Huckster.
I agree. Most Romney supporters have no idea how crazy and unchristian the religion he believes in is. We’re talking aliens living on the sun, the Egyptian Book of the Dead actually being a secret book of the Bible, God having a wife, people becoming gods, and all sorts of stuff. It’s pagan; there’s really no other good word for it.
I think the nation as a whole could use some guidance here. I’m leaning Huckabee because, despite a mixed bag of lef and right political issues, at least you know he’s a Christian and where he stands on the right to life.
In government hands, you bet they are. If the Gov is running a surplus it means they have taken to much of the PEOPLES money.
The whole thing is a mess. As true conservative and a Bible and Bible ONLY believer, I am confused as to where to go. I think a lot of prayer is needed.
Huckafeller is very far from Reagan. He’s a liberal who supports nany-statism (a food fascist), a tax raiser, a big spender, pro-amnesty, and liberal in almost all ways except a few social/moral issues.
I don’t trust him.
Hell no to the Huckleberry Clown.
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.