The Johnny-come-lately media conservative commentators (Sean Hannity, Bill O\u2019Reilly, etc.), as well as those of the has-been professional Republican class (Karl Rove, Ed Rollins, etc.) appear fearful that Republicans will ruin all chances of defeating Barack Obama in 2012 by nominating a true conservative.<\/p>\n
For example, Hannity and O\u2019reilly have suggested that \u201cestablishment\u201d Republicans are so fearful of a repeat of 1964\u2026 when Barry Goldwater suffered a defeat of landslide proportions at the hands of Lyndon Johnson\u2026 that they are willing to join liberals and Democrats in destroying any conservative who might achieve frontrunner status in the 2012 primaries.\u00a0 As evidence, they cite the relentless attacks on Newt Gingrich\u2026 from the left and from Republican moderates\u2026 since his rise to the top of the opinion polls.<\/p>\n
They are either too young to remember political history, or they tend to remember political history\u2026 conveniently.<\/p>\n
The Draft Goldwater Committee was organized in the early 60s by a group of dedicated Young Republicans who understood that, in order to nominate a true conservative to run against John F. Kennedy, it would be necessary to seize control of the Republican Party from the Rockefeller wing of the party\u2026 the \u201ceastern liberal establishment.\u201d\u00a0 As a card-carrying member of the Draft Goldwater Committee, I traveled across the Midwest with other Young Republicans, helping to build support for Goldwater and recruiting convention delegates.<\/p>\n
We sold the Goldwater-Kennedy contest as the classic confrontation between liberalism and conservatism.\u00a0 And although Goldwater did not actively seek the nomination, when it became evident that, like it or not, we were going to nominate him, he finally relented.\u00a0 Our efforts were so successful that, by November 22, 1963, the day that JFK was assassinated, we had sufficient support nationwide to guarantee a first-ballot victory at the 1964 convention in San Francisco.<\/p>\n
What many of today\u2019s pundits fail to understand is that those of us who planned and executed the Goldwater candidacy never once considered the possibility that we would be facing Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1964 General Election.\u00a0 They fail to appreciate what we knew by day\u2019s end on November 22, 1963, which is that we would have to work on Goldwater\u2019s behalf for an entire year, seven days a week, knowing that we were going to suffer a massive defeat in November 1964.\u00a0 With Johnson and the Democrats benefitting from an unassailable sympathy factor, our defeat in November 1964 was preordained.\u00a0 This is a bit of history that many fail to understand.<\/p>\n
Until the very last minute at the Cow Palace in San Francisco, \u201cestablishment\u201d Republicans did everything in their power to sidetrack the Goldwater nomination, even going so far as to arrange an eleventh-hour nomination of liberal Pennsylvania Governor William F. Scranton.<\/p>\n
As predicted, Goldwater lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, but it wasn\u2019t because of his conservative ideology; it was because the American people simply were not up to dismissing a president who had been in office for less than a year.\u00a0 Their innate fairness dictated that they at least give Johnson a chance to see what he could do.<\/p>\n
Establishment Republicans had everything their way during the following three presidential campaigns, nominating Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, and Gerald R. Ford in 1976.\u00a0 After Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976, conservatives again became concerned about the ability of establishment Republicans to advance the conservative cause.\u00a0 A meeting of movement conservatives was convened in Chicago in December 1976 for the purpose of deciding whether to scuttle the Republican Party and form a Conservative Party, or to allow the party to live on, working within the party structure to nominate a true conservative in 1980.\u00a0 The consensus of opinion was that conservatives follow the latter course.<\/p>\n
When Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination at the Detroit convention in 1980, his short list for vice president contained three names: former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon, and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.<\/p>\n
I was in Detroit as a member of a small staff of Simon aides, attempting to win the vice presidential nomination for the former Treasury Secretary.\u00a0 No one knows which of the three on Reagan\u2019s short list was his personal favorite because, once again, establishment Republicans intervened to control the selection process.<\/p>\n
On the third day of the convention, after Reagan had won the presidential nomination and delegates were awaiting his choice of running mate, establishment Republicans attempted yet another end run.\u00a0 Believing that Reagan would be incapable of governing without a great deal of help, establishment Republicans launched a rumor suggesting that former president Gerald Ford would be selected as Reagan\u2019s running mate.<\/p>\n
Unless the rumor was quickly squelched, it threatened a major split in the party.\u00a0 Reagan\u2019s hand was forced.\u00a0 Watching the convention from his suite at the Renaissance Plaza Hotel, Reagan made a quick decision.\u00a0 In the interest of party unity he selected his principal primary opponent, the darling of the Rockefeller wing of the party, George H.W. Bush, as his running mate.<\/p>\n
As I was arriving at the Joe Louis Arena that evening, Ronald Reagan was just stepping from his limo, a determined look on his face.\u00a0 I walked through the entrance to the arena that evening shoulder-to-shoulder with Reagan as he went to the floor of the convention to announce his selection of George Bush as his running mate.\u00a0 I have often thought of how history might have been changed if only I had stuck out my foot and put \u201cthe Gipper\u201d flat on his face.<\/p>\n
Bush served eight years as vice president, during which time he stacked every conceivable government agency with loyalists, campaign aides who merely fed at the federal trough until Reagan had completed two terms in office.<\/p>\n
Beginning in 1986, conservatives mounted several campaigns, all attempting to prevent Bush from winning the 1988 nomination.\u00a0 The opposing candidates were former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, former Delaware Governor Pete duPont, former Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole, and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld\u2026 any one of whom would have been far superior to Bush.<\/p>\n
As deputy campaign manager in the Rumsfeld\u2019s exploratory committee, I was amazed to see the extent to which conservatives went to deny Bush the 1988 nomination.\u00a0 Unfortunately, Bush was able to parlay his years of service to Ronald Reagan into a path to the 1988 nomination.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, Bush was not up to the task of dealing with congressional Democrats and they used his \u201cread my lips; no new taxes\u201d pledge as a weapon against him.\u00a0 The antipathy toward Bush among conservatives was palpable.\u00a0 When Bush and Quayle ran for reelection in 1992, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick was asked whether or not she was disappointed with Bush\u2019s performance in his first term.\u00a0 Kirkpatrick replied, \u201cOf course not.\u00a0 In order for one to be disappointed, one must have had some expectation of him in the first place.\u201d\u00a0 Touche<\/em>!<\/p>\n Bush\u2019s performance as president ultimately gave us Bill Clinton and Al Gore for eight years, and eight years later establishment Republicans gave us George W. Bush.\u00a0 We all know how that worked out.\u00a0 The failures of Bush (43) and his principal brain trust, Karl Rove, were such that few Republicans are now able to defend their own party from Democrat attacks.<\/p>\n Now, as the field of Republicans is narrowed to four and former Speaker Newt Gingrich has won the all-important South Carolina primary, the talking heads of the networks and cable TV news are in a state of total bewilderment, not understanding why their moderate hero, Mitt Romney, cannot seem to break above 30% in the polls.\u00a0 Sean Hannity and Bill O\u2019Reilly quiz Karl Rove on almost a daily basis, asking, \u201cWhy is it that Romney can\u2019t seem to go any higher in the polls?<\/p>\n As a dedicated member of the Republican establishment, Rove is not about to explain to conservative newcomers Hannity and O\u2019Reilly that the Republican Party is roughly 80 percent conservative and only 20 percent moderate and that, as such, conservatives preach to 80 percent of the choir while Romney has an audience of no more than 20 percent.\u00a0 Nor do they understand the current mood of conservatives.\u00a0 They fail to understand that, after Bush (41), Bush (43), and McCain, conservatives are in no mood to settle for a candidate without a solid conservative core, or a candidate without the intestinal fortitude to take on Obama and the Democrats.<\/p>\n After suffering through three establishment candidates\u2026 the two Bushes and John McCain\u2026 nice guys no longer need apply.\u00a0 It\u2019s as simple as that.\u00a0 Conservatives don\u2019t just want to see Obama defeated, they want to see him embarrassed.\u00a0 \u00a0Of the current crop of candidates, Newt Gingrich is the only one with the toughness to absorb the attacks that are sure to come and still win the presidency.\u00a0 The nation cannot afford another Republican moderate.\u00a0 If Floridians allow Mitt Romney to come out on top in their January 31 primary, the outcome of the 2012 General Election will be in serious jeopardy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Johnny-come-lately media conservative commentators (Sean Hannity, Bill O\u2019Reilly, etc.), as well as those of the has-been professional Republican class (Karl Rove, Ed Rollins, etc.) appear fearful that Republicans will ruin all chances of defeating Barack Obama in 2012 by … Continue reading