| Huckabee Presents the Best Choice for Reagan Supporters |
|
|
|
| by John Linder | Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:29 PM |
|
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 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 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 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 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.
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (15)
![]()
...
written by Dr. Peter Stern , January 24, 2008 Mike Huckabee may be the candidate of the Bible-thumping minority in this nation, but NOT the Reagan Republicans nor the GOP at-large. BTW, you can't afford the TRILLIONS of overseas expenditures on a Fair Tax program.
...
written by Michele Samuelson , January 24, 2008 This was a great eulogy for President Reagan - but you haven't convinced me that Huckabee's our man. I believe in the FairTax and want it enacted, but there are other concerns, too.
...
written by Martin , January 24, 2008 I am fascinated by Mr. Huckabee's desire to amend the constitution and find it a far cry from Mr. Reagan's approach. The history of state religions is not encouraging. The Iraqi Constitution says, in its Article 2: First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. So, the fight becomes one over which interpretation of Islam shall prevail. Since, to each true believer, there is only one correct, established interpretation, the stage is set for sectarian power struggles -- all entirely outside of the moderating and balancing effects of the remainder of the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers approached it differently. Article I of the Bill of Rights said: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is a fundamental, and damning, difference between Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Reagan.
...
written by Right Wing Republican Volunteer , January 24, 2008 To compare Huckabee to President Reagan is simply laughable.
...
written by Dr. Peter Stern , January 25, 2008 Addendum to Right Wing Republican Volunteer, et. al.: To compare the current GOP to the REAL brilliant Republicans of the Dwight D. Eisenhower period also is laughable!
...
written by Grrr , January 25, 2008 Oh, all of you Republicans are laughable these days! But without a viable candidate, you might as well laugh . . . or drink yourself to sleep . . . or something.
...
written by Dr. Peter Stern , January 26, 2008 Careful, Grrr, Democrats may get what they want in 2008. Hillary or Barack at the helm is pretty scary also.
...
written by Steve Heath , January 26, 2008 They're all a joke -Democrats and republican- excepting Ron Paul. it looks like the powers that be are giving us Hillary and McCain.Other than Giuiliani, those are the two worst candidates. Both parties are corrupt and beyond repair. I look forward to Ron Paul's third party candidacy. Bring on Bloomberg also -the two major parties need to be shaken to the core. They are both responsible for putting us into one big mess. 2008 should make that very clear. If not 2008, then 2009.
...
written by James W. Walker , January 26, 2008 Please. Ronald Reagan was in favor of lower taxes and small government and had an excellent understanding of the importance of foreign policy in a dangerous world. Huckabee as a Governor showed his stripes as he raised taxes substantially and then tried to deny it in this race as a mere hike in fees. Add to that his apparent dislike of foreign policy issues, and he is the least of the candidates running. His off the cuff approach to serious foreign policy issues, and his apparent disinterest in studying white papers in the interim to acquaint himself with some basic issues, is a frightening reality. Using his surrogate Chuck "B Movie" Norris to attack McCain on the age issue is gutless. McCain may not be my candidate of choice, but he is certainly an American hero and an individual that has sacrificed much for our freedom. He has my respect, but not my vote because he is wrong on so many issues (i.e., campaign finance, illegal immigration, etc.) Rudy G is a study in calculated failure - favor abortion and civil unions, avoid the early races to hide the fact your positions will not sell in a Republican caucus or primary, and hope there are enough snowbirds in Florida to elevate your campaign overnight. Rudy never had a chance and will be gone after February 5. The reason I support Romney is he is the best candidate for main street and wall street. He will stand up to the Democrats, and even the Republicans, in Congress on spending and earmarks and taxes - something Bush has hardly done and something our country very badly needs. Romney will be strong on supporting our security at home and abroad. He will represent our country well abroad on matters of national security, but just as important, he will represent us well on matters of global finance and economy. This global economic focus is critical to keeping our country and its economy strong and finding new economy jobs to replace the old economy jobs we have lost. Whether or not you like his religious denomination, he is undeniably a man of faith and family and the debate should stop there as far as I'm concerned. Are we really going to allow the human secularists to shape the debate so that Freedom of Religion becomes Freedom from Religion to such an extent that only certain denominations are now deemend acceptable? Has the Religious Right matured as a political force in Republican politics? Yes, absolutely. This has never bothered me because I am fine with 99% of their political agenda. Has this maturity as a force in our political system now led many in their ranks to essentially canabalize their own by now arguing over which religious denomination is deemed acceptable? It sure looks that way. Between the secular left and the now well established Religious Right, we are forcing people of religious faith out of the political mainstream under the guise of political purity from both sides. Ultimately, I fear this will lead to no denomination being deemed acceptable and only atheists will be eligible for the office. For Republicans, the right candidate capable of carrying Reagan's mantle and reinstituting our previously successful program of smaller government, lower taxes, faith and family friendly policies, and strong, genuine engagement in the rest of the world to serve our national interests from both a security and economic standpoint is here - he's about to win Florida and he is named Mitt Romney! Republicans would be wise to embrace Romney and unite behind him as soon as possible to strengthen our hand come general election time! We can win this race. The Democrats have built a no-win scenario. If Hillary coerces and connives her way to the nomination by means of playing the race card and having her pit bull boob of a husband attack Obama, she will be a strong uniting force for the Republicans and many independents and even many women will shy from her in the general election. Her biggest problem? She may force her party to reinstate delegates and break any rule necessary to win (at the expense of a spineless and ineffective DNC Chair Dean), but she is ultimately unelectable. Obama? He is an exciting glimpse into our future perhaps, if you set aside his policies, but ultimately he has about one year in the Senate under his belt and I do not believe America will hand an individual of so little experience the reins to the most powerful nation in the world. Plus, the people both Hillary and Obama will appoint to their respective cabinets and other offices will likely be all the usual suspects from inside the Beltway that will simply put their snout back in the trough and go back to doing what they were doing before they were so rudely interrupted by the election. That cannot be said about the Republican candidates. Rudy G is a closet liberal, McCain is more of an independent than a Republican and does not deserve the GOP's imprimatur, Huckabee is another product of Hope Arkansas - 'nuff said. Let's get it together GOP! Vote Romney!
...
written by ElHombre , January 27, 2008 '...I do not believe America will hand an individual of so little experience the reins to the most powerful nation in the world.' That didn't stop the conservatives from putting Bush in office. For two terms, no less.
...
written by James W. Walker , January 27, 2008 Actually,President Bush was a two term Governor of one of the great and most vibrant states in the Union when he was elected to the White House. A little more than one year in the Senate for Obama pales in comparison to two terms as the chief executive of one of the most populous and diverse states in the country.
...
written by Right Wing Republican Volunteer , January 29, 2008 Hey Jim, Excellent posts! Today, I put a Romney bumper sticker on my vehicle.
...
written by James W. Walker , January 30, 2008 The McCain-Romney battle for the nomination continues. My hope is that Romney's organization and planning will pay off in the end. The way he has run his campaign, with the focus and drive to get the job done, with incredible management of resources and organization, is a glimpse into what he can do as President. He will be a true force to contend with and the Democrat controlled Congress (I still get a rash saying that) will have to accept that they cannot run wild through the fiscal wilderness. Without a strong economy, we will not be able to afford a strong national security. Romney's private sector bias and experience will provide our country the greatest hope for realizing both. As I have said, McCain is, in my view, an American Hero. He is just not the right person for the GOP to hand the keys to the White House. I also believe Romney will run a great general election campaign and will compare quite nicely to Billary or Obama on the debate stage. Watching McCain read his speech last night, my fears that he will not be as compelling a general election candidate as Romney were confirmed. We have to win this election for the White House. Having a shrew like Billary or a cub scout like Obama resident in 1600 Pennsylvania with the likes of Pelossi and Reid in charge of budgets and taxes down the street may be more than we can handle.
...
written by ROBERT PALMER , January 30, 2008 HUCKLEBEE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE AND WILL GAUARANTEE A MCCAIN VICTORY BY STEALING VOTES FROM ROMNEY. HIS PAYOFF WILL BE A VP SLOT UNLESS THEY ARE STOPPED AT A BROKERED NATIONAL CONVENTION.
...
written by Texan4Huckabee , February 03, 2008 I have always been convinced that Gov Huckabee is the man for our party - not mccain and certainly not romney. Thank you Mr. Linder for your truthful, timely blog. Truth stands on it's own. It isn't dependent upon the perception of people before us or after us. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|



























