Reagan Vs. Ford II (Huckabee Vs Republican Pudits)

I wanted to thank Illinois4Huckabee for publishing my research on the Nashsau Article calling Ronald Reagan a tax raiser. I did not only find that article I found two others that correlate to today's attacks on Gov Huckabee. Here's one that William F. Buckley wrote on the attacks on Reagan from the Republican leadership. Good read. I especially like the phrases in Red. Speaks volumes on how non-establishment candidates are treated. Remember we had a Brokered Convention and Reagan missed the nomination by 92 delegates

Reagan vs. Ford
william f. buckley
'. . . Ford now
worries about
Ronald Reagan . , .'
From 12/21/1975 - Sunday Messenger, The

Up until the electrifying Gallup Poll, the resistance to Ronald Reagan was slouchy, disorganized, mostly mute. Not many months ago James Reston was advising Ford to "stop worrying about Ronald Reagan." Clearly Ford now worries about Ronald Reagan more than he worries about the
Russians, which is melancholy commentary on the passion people invest in clutching on to power.

It had been a formalistic opposition, reduced to clichéd objections. Reagan is extremist, unqualified by background, that kind of thing. Time Magazine published a letter by a doctor in Cincinnati who actually presumed to put his name under the single sentence, "Ronald Reagan is the prototype American politician of the 70s: mindless, witless, positionless and worthless." No wonder malpractice insurance is going up. if grown doctors are capable of such imbecilities. But 1,000 of these taunts are deflected every day by Reagan, with a good humor totally free of spleen. Thus, when the Democratic candidates, who include everybody except Shelly Winters, issued their demand that every time an old Ronald Reagan movie was shown on television they should be given equal time, Reagan replied that every time an old Ronald Reagan move was shown, he should be given equal time.

But now of course the great assault has begun. Led by Howard Galloway, a former secretary of the Army, A Reagan supporter summed up Calloway's remarks. "All he said was that Reagan is incompetent, unpopular and insincere."

If Galloway had been Nixon's, or LBJ's campaign manager, one might safely assume that the remarks were authorized by the boss. In the present circumstances, one cannot be certain. Last summer, Galloway was sprinkling little jets of disparagement of Nelson Rockefeller, which one day firehosed into the declaration that it was by no means to be taken for granted that President Ford had decided he wanted Vice President Rockefeller on his ticket in 1976. On that occasion, a) Ford went to extravagant lengths to dissociate himself from his talkative campaign manager — I think he even shared a helicopter with Rockefeller, which suggests the desperation; b) Reagan, at a press conference, proffered his sympathy to Rockefeller over the coarse handling he was receiving at Callaway's hands; and c) Rockefeller telephoned Reagan to express his gratitude. (by the way, shortly after this article Ronald Reagan movies were banded for the rest of the Election cycle.)

Perhaps before these words are printed, we will know from Ford whether he disowns the animadversions of Galloway. It will be less interesting to see whether Rockefeller returns to
Reagan, Reagan's courtesy of last summer.

Ford will have to ask himself — sooner than we thought, thanks to the Gallup Poll —whether he would prefer to see a Democrat elected President, than Ronald Reagan. There is little doubt that, following the lead of Rockefeller, whose disavowal of Goldwater in 1964 split the Republican Party, Ford could probably guarantee the loss of the election by Reagan. If he were to do so — by advertising Reagan's alleged insincerity, unpopularity and incompetence — he would be acting out of personal petulance far more clearly than Rockefeller in 1964. At that time there were genuine divisions between Goldwater and Rockefeller, respectively the conservative and the liberal leaders of their party.

But Ford is, by and large, a conservative; so that any attempt by him to ruin Reagan's chances, in punishment for Reagan's challenge to Ford's re-nomination, could not be understood as less than masochistic spite. Out of character, one would think, in a man renowned for his fairness and geniality.

Meanwhile, Reagan's progress at the polls is a political phenomenon of the first magnitude. Not only did he suddenly zoom ahead of Ford with the Republicans, but also with the independents. So much for the alleged narrowness of his appeal. The professionals in both parties are waking up to Reagan's singular qualities as a politician. Gradually, for instance, they concede that his sense of timing proved superior to theirs. And that his rule against criticizing fellow Republicans makes his detractors look childish and boorish. It is now left only for someone in a red wig to pay Charles Mathias to enter the race. Perhaps that has already been arranged.

This is an Electoral Election not a National Election

I found a great webpage for looking at this coming election. http://www.270towin.com/ is a website that just looks at the electoral numbers for the upcoming election. First thing you will see is Map of the US and each states' electorals. You can change the map between undecided, Republican and Democratic states. It also allows Maine and Nebraska's districts to vote differently. You know, 2 districts go Democratic and one district and the total state vote goes Republican. It lets you see what it will take for the Republicans to win in next November.

I believe that the country is still split into the same areas as in 2004 and 2000. http://www.270towin.com/ set you up with the states that were 5% difference in vote set to the victor and leaves all the others undecided.

It is amazing at how strong President Bush was in most states he won. Of the 286 Electorals that he won by in 2004, 246 Electorals were won by more then 5% and 183 were won by 10%. Compared to 183 and 91 of the Democrats. That is also great news that 106 Electorals were decided by less then 5% of that states vote. Min., Wis., Mich., Iowa, Oh., and Pa. are all inplay. I will say in 2006 Michigan elected more Republican Representatives then Democratic and a very close race in 2004, Michigan has a very good chance to move to the Republican side. And who surging in Michigan? Florida should be a Republican state in 2008 with over 5% victory in 2004. And with 27 Electorals it will really be an important Republican state to win. Who is Surging in FL? And who is leading in Rammussen's head to head Poll against all the Democratic Candidates?

All this means is that with the right candidate the Republicans can win in 2008. That is even if Hillary is not the candidate. (I am so tempted to change my party so I can vote for Hillary in my Primary.) She is the greatest thing to happen to the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. OK, not that great, but it would be a great thing to have her as the Democratic Nominee.

Is It Huckabee or Reagan?

I came across this article from 1975 on a conservative Governor that was bucking the establishment leadership and pudits. This is from the Nashua, New Hampshire Telegraph.

Our Opinion
Nashua Telegraph 11/25/1975
Mr. Reagan's Record

Ronald Reagan, or so the ultraconservative legend runs, brought the yeasty state of California to the brink of perfection during his two terms as governor.

Since his tenure as governor constitutes his first and only governmental service and experience, Mr. Reagan and his flacks make much of it; too much, in fact.

When he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination last week, Mr. Reagan performed the obligatory "mess in Washington" routine and promised to clean it up tidily, using the techniques he employed as governor of California to "manage government more efficiently." "We found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the federal level." So much for the rhetoric. Now for the record:
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state budget soared from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion — a more than 100 per cent increase.

While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state sales tax was increased from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, the corporate income tax was increased from 5.5 per cent to 9 per cent, and the top personal income tax was increased from 7 per cent to 11 per cent.

While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the number of state employees increased by 5.7 per cent. This is the mart who promises to cut armies of employees off the federal payroll, who promises to balance the budget, who promises to begin paying off the national debt and who, to top his program of conservative delights, promises to cut taxes to boot.

Some people may be charmed by Ronald Reagan's pitch; some people may even be persuaded, but the difference between promises and performance, between the Reagan rhetoric and the Reagan record is a difference that should be made plain to the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation.

Why Huckabee

I created this blog to talk about the visions of this country and the political reality. I am going to hop right into heavy politics.

I have been a "Keyester" for the last 8 years. He is a man with great ideas and I would be mesmerized by him time and time again whenever I heard him talk about his vision of America.

His explanation of the importance of respecting and protecting life from the time of conception moved me completely to the Pro-Life view. He has since moved me to the importance of the Fair Tax, the importance of following the Constitution's first Amendment that "Congress shall make no laws "Respecting" the Establishment of Religion of the Free exercise of..." and all the issues he talks about.

I was very excited that people of Iowa gave Amb. Keyes 14% of the vote in the 2000 Caucus. I believed that he had an important job to do in the campaign of 2000. That was to keep the conservative view fresh in the candidates minds. He did what he had to, he kept George W. Bush, who stayed closer to the Conservative vision from loosing to a very questionable vision of John McCain.

After that he came to Illinois to run against Barack after someone blindsided Jack Ryan over child custody papers. They were opened illegally and showed Mr. Ryan in a bad light. Mr. Ryan decided that it was not worth it and quit the race. Mr. Keyes must of viewed the race in Illinois as un-winnable and spent most of his time attacking Mr. Obama and trying to marginalize him for further advancement. This was my first issue with Mr. Keyes. I was expecting him to try and win, not attack Obama for 4 months for political reasons.

Come Aug. 2008 and I am looking for a candidate for President. I was looking at the candidates to see Newt.That looks good. He didn't run. Thompson is toying with joining the fray, but he is taking his time. The more I saw other candidates the more I liked Fred. In September, Fred decides to run. He has his first chance to get in a debate, which is where I hear their vision and how strong the visions are. This is why I vote for a candidate in the primaries. The debate is the Faith2Action debate and Fred and the other big three avoid like the plague. That told me all I needed to know about these candidates. This says they are afraid of conservative values. I did notice that Alan Keyes was joining the fray and joining this debate.

In the last few years I have noticed the that true conservatives (Christians) have been having to hold there noses when pulling the ballot leaver. The Senators are closer to RINOs then in line with the vision Ron Reagan had. House members are not far behind. With President Bush pushing more and more liberal things like open borders and with the Spending out of sight. I felt that the 2006 elections were more about Republicans ignoring the Conservative base then the Democrats winning. Sure we got a tax cut and revenues have exploded, but so has spending. We should of had a surplus by now with all the revenue that has been generated.

So I made a conscious decision that if Alan Keyes does (like he always did) show the same vision he always has and the viewers agreed, like always, I would support Amb. Keyes like I supported him in 2000 and 2004. I would talk to other conservatives and explain his vision and try and get him to the convention to express the conservative vision the way only he has been able to.

I saw the debate and was very surprised. Alan was his normal self, but he was not the one that caught my attention. Mike Huckabee was very good at expressing his vision and he did it with out the exuberant passion that Alan Keyes has. The only negative I see with the presentation of Amb. Keyes is that he seems to come of like a Baptist Minister. The former Baptist Minister came off with the same vision but he did not sound like one. Fair Tax, Pro-Life, Protecting the Constitution from the activist judges, these were all visions that both held. I now was torn between Gov. Huckabee and Amb. Keyes. After the poll after the debate showed that Gov. Huckabee had impressed more then just me.

I then decided to talk to other conservatives in my area that I respected. Neighbor said Huckabee was his choice at this time. My wife's Great-Uncle said Huckabee. Then finally I asked my pastor and he said that he liked Huckabee. Three for three told me that it was Huckabee that I was going to back this year unless there is something I did not know.

I Started by visiting the website and he was what I thought he was. Then came the Florida Values Debate that all the candidates were in. The day before each candidate gave a speech to the Conservative Christian group Value Voters. Mike Huckabee was given huge marks. Then the debate and he showed why he had won me over at the September 18th debate.

Since this day Gov. Huckabee has been attacked from every part of the Republican leadership. Every time he has been attacked he has shown that he is ready for the position of President. Plus he has tried to live by the Reagan motto of "Thou Shall not Attack a Fellow Republican".

I will try and keep you up to date with the attacks on Gov. Huckabee. I will do this with my view on his stand, old news articles that refute others views, and talking about the view I have on the coming race for the nomination and then the White House.

I have come to the conclusion that the establishment of the Republican party will not allow a conservative to win this nomination. it seems like the leadership likes our votes, but not our leadership. I believe that the election of 1976 is very close to today's election. Not the old "Jimmy Carter" comparison, but the anti-establishment run of Ronald Reagan.