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.
I like your handle. I met Chesty Puller’s son. Read his book. Didn’t think much of it. He couldn’t live with the wounds he suffered in Vietnam and punched out soon after I met him. Sad.
Good article thanks for posting.
I would say Madison’s philosophy concerning religion in politics would be the antithesis of Huckabee’s. I find much of Madison’s writing to be applicable ABOUT Huckabee, but I don’t see as how Huckabee’s position is ALIGNED with those particular sentiments.
Slick Mitt is an anti-gun, pro-queer agenda, forced nanny state health care tyranny, forced subsidies for abortions, no guts to veto liberal tyranny, NE liberal.
No.
My list so far...
1. Romney (ugh)
2. Guiliani (dont ban me. He still in?)
3. Mc Cain (only because he actually WAS a war hero)
4. An Orangutan’s buttocks.
5. Huckabee
6. Paul
I sent a matching contribution to the orang’s butt.
Yep.
Pure BS. The media has been attacking Huckabee since he started to rise in the polls. He got a couple of puff pieces like ‘Huckawho? what?’ then after that they trashed him continuously. Then Romney shill Drudge posts a ‘leak’ about how democrats want Huckabee as the nominee. If you believe that you have to believe that there is a high level mole in the Dim party who is trying to help Republicans win by warning Drudge that Democrats KNOW that they can beat Huckabee and desperately want him to get the nomination. Somehow I doubt it.
Rush and Anne have repeated the absolutely shockingly stupid line that you know who the best Republican is by who the MSM attacks the most, and thats Flipper. How does the MSM have this magical ability to know who is the best republican? Aren’t they the ones who picked Kerry as the most electable Democrat in 2004? Does this ability to know who is the best candidate only work for the Republican party? Even if the MSM is picking on Mitt more than the others(they aren’t) how in the world could they possibly know who the best nominee would be for the Republicans?
Its BS
Y'all act like you've never seen each other post before. That's cute.
Yeah, right. NO SALE.
Hopefully many other people outside of FR will believe you.
If not we will see another President Clinton.
Exactly. This “evangelical Christian conservative” longs for the day Huck exits the race. He is the GOP Jimmy Carter when you examine his record.
Please feel free to cite exactly when Huckabee said he wants "open borders for Jesus" since you put it in quotation marks as an actual Huckabee statement. Otherwise you might consider applying for Hollywood writer yourself since you seem to be quite apt at writing fiction while accusing others of doing so.
Contrary to your delusions that he's running on "open borders", Huckabee's campaign platform calls for a secured border and has received high marks from immigration reform groups, which may explain his endorsement from Jim Gilchrist.
Any self-proclaimed "conservative" who would support an clearly pro-abortion, gun-grabbing east coaster who marches in gay-"pride" parades over a proven pro-life, pro-family, staunch second amendment champion tells me more about your idea of "conservativism" than Huckabee's. We don't need any more country club Rockefeller types who value tax cuts over morality. You're probably the very thing you accuse him of being, a RINO.
He is definetly the choice for Social-Conservatives (Who are 'Social conservatives?' ANSWER: 'Conservatives' who care about the culture (values) as well money! :)
KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE BALL SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVES of all kinds, Religious and non-religious.
Let's be quiet but determined! :)
LITTLE ROCK - Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.
Holt, R-Springdale, replied later that Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.
Senate Bill 206, filed Wednesday, also would require proof of citizenzhip to register to vote and would require state agencies to report suspected cases of people living in the country illegally.
“Somebody needs to ask Sen. Holt what welfare this bill would stop,” Huckabee said in a question-and-answer period with reporters on Thursday morning. Many aid programs are state-administered but federally funded and are mandated to be available to people in need, Huckabee said.
Even if benefits to people who are in the U.S illegally could be stopped, “I don’t understand how a practicing Christian can turn his back on a child from this or any other state,” Huckabee said.
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.