|
Morris on the Republican contest
Dick Morris appearing on Greta van Susteren’s program last night made one of his trademark thought-provoking if not always moored-to-planet-Earth prognoses—this time about the Republican presidential contest. He said the Republican party is now divided between the Republican establishment and the tea parties. He said that Romney, mainly because there already are so many tea party favorites, would end up as the candidate of the establishment, and that the candidates of the tea parties would be people such as Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Sarah Palin, along with other “outsider” or “second-tier” candidates such as Pawlenty and Gingrich. He suggested that Bachmann might win in Iowa, and that Romney would win in New Hampshire with Bachmann as runner-up, setting up a contest between Romney and Bachmann for the nomination.
He also said that while the “outsider” has often beat the “insider” for the Democratic nomination (a friend and I came up with five instances since 1960 in which that has arguably been the case: Kennedy over Humphrey in ‘60, McGovern over Muskie in ‘72, Carter over Udall, Jackson, Humphrey in ‘76, Clinton over others in ‘92, and Obama over Hillary in 2008), and while the “insider” always beats the outsider for the Republican nomination, he said that this year the outsider Republican might win. So in effect he was sort-of, kind-of predicting Michele Bachmann as the Republican nominee.
- end of initial entry -
James P. writes:
You wrote,
He also said that while the “outsider” has often beat the “insider” for the Democratic nomination (a friend and I came up with five instances since 1960 in which that has arguably been the case: Kennedy over Humphrey in ‘60, McGovern over Muskie in ‘72, Carter over Udall, Jackson, Humphrey in ‘76, Clinton over others in ‘92, and Obama over Hillary in 2008), and while the “insider” always beats the outsider for the Republican nomination, he said that this year the outsider Republican might win. So in effect he was sort-of, kind-of predicting Michele Bachmann as the Republican nominee.
Not sure I agree that Clinton or Obama were “outsiders” in 1996 or 2008. Definitely don’t agree that JFK was the “outsider” in 1960.
One could argue, with respect to the GOP, Eisenhower was the outsider and Taft was the insider in 1952. Taft was a career politician, had an early lead, and was neck-and-neck with Ike until the convention. On the other hand, one could argue that although Ike was an outsider to politics, he enjoyed crucial “insider” support from Dewey and the eastern liberals. One could also argue that Goldwater was the outsider and Rockefeller the insider in 1964. Rockefeller was initially the front runner and did well until the “wife stealer” issue derailed him.
In my view, the real “outsider” Presidents and candidates were Nixon, LBJ, Goldwater, and Reagan, because they were not members of (or pawns of) the Eastern Establishment. In that sense, 1964 was the most interesting election, because neither candidate was the Eastern Establishment candidate.
LA replies:
I disagree on numerous points.
Clinton was universally called “second tier,” a not-ready person who was running in the absence of the supposed “first tier” Gore who had run in ‘88 but was not running in ‘92. In terms of ability, this was not true; Clinton was ferociously talented, at least in the “townhall” style campaign events. Ideologically he wasn’t an outsider, but in terms of his constantly evoked second-tier status he was an outsider.
In the build up to the 2008 primaries, Hillary was universally considered the inevitable nominee, and was enjoying a leisurely royal progress toward the nomination. You don’t get more insider than Hillary in the couple of years preceding the January 2008 Iowa caucuses. Obama was this odd newcomer whose chances were completely dismissed.
Kennedy was the original outsider—the first presidential candidate who truly selected himself to run, and did not wait for his turn, and was not the choice of any particular establishment. Humphrey was the beau ideal and leader of the liberal Democrats. Many liberal Democrats did not consider Kennedy a good liberal.
I agree that Goldwater was an outsider. In my conversation last night, I called him the only GOP outsider nominee since 1960. However, there’s an asterisk there, because his main opponent was also an outsider. Rockefeller was a big-government social liberal who had recently divorced and remarried. He was considered totally unacceptable by many Republicans.
I disagree somewhat on Nixon. While Nixon had become an outsider due to his loss to Brown in California in 1964 and his “this is my last press conference” remark, he had rehabilitated himself with assiduous campaigning for GOP candidates in 1966, and by 1968, while he still had an air of darkness about him (not perceptible to all), he was the favorite for the nomination.
I disagree on Reagan. Yes, Reagan was the outsider in 1976 when he challenged President Ford, but in 1980 Reagan was the insider, or at least he wasn’t the outsider anymore, considered from the start to be the favorite for the nomination. It was the standard GOP thing of making last time’s runner-up this time’s favorite.
James P. replies:
You wrote (I’m quoting your unrevised comment):
Clinton was universally called “second tier,” a not-ready person who was running in the absence of the supposed “first tier” Gore who had run in ‘88. In terms of ability, this was not true; Clinton was ferociously talented, at least in the “townhall” style campaign events. Ideologically he wasn’t an outsider, but in terms of his constantly evoked second-tier status he was an outsider.
The mere fact that a candidate was not initially a front-runner does not make him an “outsider”. The political establishment grooms a lot of people for office, but not all of them can win, obviously. Therefore the “insiders” have to compete with each other for the nomination, and these days, the candidate then usually opposes another “insider” in the election. That the political establishment often controls the candidates from both parties makes a mockery of the idea that an election represents real choice. We get liberalism no matter who wins.
In 1992, among the Democratic candidates, I would call Clinton, Kerrey, Harkin and Tsongas the insiders and the rest outsiders (in the sense that the establishment had groomed the insiders for national office but not the rest of them).
In 2008, Hillary was universally considered the inevitably nominee, and was enjoying a royal progress toward the nomination. You don’t get more insider than Hillary in the years leading up to 2008. Obama was this odd newcomer whose chances were completely dismissed.
I view this as another insider vs. insider struggle. I see no other explanation for Obama’s career but that the establishment identified him for high office at an early age, groomed him, and advanced him.
Kennedy was the original outsider—the first presidential candidate who truly selected himself to run, and was not the choice of any particular establishment.
I disagree. I think he was the Eastern Establishment’s chosen candidate. The Establishment knew that another “good liberal” like Stevenson or Humphrey wasn’t going to work.
I agree that Goldwater was an outsider. In my conversation last night, I called him the only GOP outsider nominee since 1960. However, there’s an asterisk there, because his main opponent was also an outsider. Rockefeller was a big-government social liberal who had recently divorced and remarried. He was considered totally unacceptable by many Republicans.
Rockefeller was the ultimate insider! His name is all but synonymous with “Eastern Establishment”. It is true that many conservatives detested him, and detested the Eastern Establishment and “country club Republicans” in equal measure—but the fact is that the conservatives were the outsiders, not Rockefeller and the Eastern Establishment. Goldwater was the outsider (conservative) candidate who appealed to outsiders (conservatives) not East Coast big government liberals. That is why he got crushed. LBJ was not an Eastern Establishment man, but bought them off with liberalism in order to get elected.
While Nixon had become an outsider due to his loss to Brown in California in 1964 and his “this is my last press conference” remark, he had rehabilitated himself with assiduous campaigning for GOP candidates in 1966, and by 1968, while he still had a kind of dark cloud hanging over him, he was the favorite for the nomination.
Just as being behind does not make you an outsider, being ahead does not make you an insider. Nixon was an outsider because he was not a member of the Eastern Establishment. Indeed, he had a difficult relationship with the Eastern Establishment, which ultimately turned on him and destroyed him in Watergate. Like LBJ, he had to buy them off with liberalism (and with the appointment of “insiders” to cabinet positions) in order to get elected.
Reagan was the outsider in 1976 when he challenged President Ford, but in 1980 Reagan was the insider, considered from the start to be the favorite for the nomination. It was the standard GOP thing of making last time’s runner-up this time’s favorite.
Like Nixon, Reagan was an outsider because he was not a member of the Eastern Establishment. Like Nixon, the Eastern Establishment ultimately turned on him and destroyed him in Iran-Contra. Like Nixon, he had to buy them off with liberalism (and with the appointment of “insiders” to cabinet positions as well as an “insider” as Vice President) in order to get elected.
LA replies:
Well, you’re mostly making valid points, we are just defining the terms differently. You are defining them purely ideologically, I’m defining them in terms of who is the person that is the consensus pick and seen as the favorite to win.
On Kennedy, you’re really missing the historic point that he jumped to the head of the line and selected himself to run, thus starting the modern tradition of self-selected (not establishment selected) candidacies and nominees.
I don’t know that I want to continue a long discussion about this side issue at the site, though. It gets too technical.
To return to Morris’s point so that you’re responding to Morris and not to me, which will simplify this discussion and bring it to closure: do you agree with Morris about the pattern in which outsider Democrats frequently have won the nomination, and insider Republicans have almost always won? If so, who are the outsider Democratic nominees?
James P. replies:
I don’t think anyone was at the “head of the line” for the Democrats in 1960. Stevenson had been crushed twice, largely because he was too liberal, and the Democratic establishment knew that another liberal could not beat Nixon. Humphrey was not at the “head of the line”; he had failed to get the Vice Presidential nomination in 1956 just as Kennedy had. Humphrey had only been a Senator for four more years than JFK, and hadn’t even held any major Senate offices. Thus he had no more claim on the nomination than JFK had. Johnson was a strong contender, but being a southerner, he was never considered at the “head of the line.”
Kefauver might have been “at the front of the line” after 1956, but he voluntarily bowed out in 1959, his spot was not wrestled from him.
Agree that it is a side issue, but it is fun to discuss. =)
It seems clear that Romney is the “insider” for the GOP now, and I’ll be surprised if an “outsider” (Tea Party) candidate beats him.
LA writes:
I saw Sean Hannity interview Romney last night. I hadn’t watched Romney in three years, since the close of the 2008 nomination battle.
Romney with his calmness, maturity and other good qualities might be the best bet to beat Obama. I do not support him for the nomination, for reasons I’ve given before, but I would vote for him in the election, given his pledge to repeal Obamacare, as I would vote for any GOP nominee pledged to repeal Obamacare.
James P. writes:
To reply to your question, if we define “insider” in your terms, as the initial consensus pick, then Democratic outsiders were McGovern (superseding Muskie), Dukakis (superseding Hart), Clinton (superseding Tsongas), Kerry (superseding Dean), Obama (superseding Clinton). Also Carter (not sure there was really a consensus front runner in 1976 but I’ll give it to you). [LA replies: I disagree on Dukakis and Hart. Hart, the defeated outsider of ‘84 who had become the favored insider of ‘88, wasn’t superseded; he destroyed his candidacy with an adulterous affair. Also, it sounds very weird to speak of Kerry as an outsider and Dean as an insider. Dean with an unconventional internet based campaign gained a lot of support from youth and began to be touted as the inevitable nominee, before any votes had been cast. Then he spent the month of December 2003 making one incredibly self-damaging statement after another. I wrote about this a lot at the time. It was as if he knew that he really was not prepared to be president, that he was running for the fun of it, and he was panicked by the thought that he might actually be the nominee. So he set about more or less deliberately sabotaging himself. Then Kerry, who had been very far behind, or at least had been behind in money, defeated Dean in Iowa, and Dean had his self-destructive moment before the cameras, and that was that. Yet, I must admit that you are keeping to my definitions. Dean, the aggressive oddball, had become the consensus pick, thus the “insider,” and Kerry, the liberal estabishment dullard who looked like a president, was the “outsider” (by my definition) who defeated him.]
Here in May 1959 we see Time describe JFK as the “acknowledged front runner” for the Democratic nomination, so I can’t call him an outsider. [LA replies: That contradicts what I’ve read and understood on this. But we must follow the evidence where it leads.]
The Republican outsiders were Goldwater (superseding Rockefeller) and Eisenhower (superseding Taft).
So yes, outsider Democrats seem to win more than outsider Republicans. This is because the struggle for control of the Inner Party is more intense than the struggle for control of the Outer Party, heh heh heh.
LA writes:
Here are some VFR entries from December 2003 about Dean. If you read some of the material, you will see why it’s hard for me to think of Dean as an “insider,” unless the inside is the inside of an insane asylum. But wait, haven’t I been saying since 2000 that the Democrats had gone insane? So I guess the he was the insider after all, and the more calm and establishment-looking Kerry was the outsider.
Dean’s weirdness a frightening portent for America
Thoughts on Dean
Dean’s Christmas-free Christmas message
Washington Post scores against Dean
Dean keeps getting crazier
The last includes this comment by me:
Here’s something I posted at Lucianne tonight about Dean:
Reply 64—Posted by: Larry, 12/31/2003 1:28:13 AM
I continue to be completely amazed by Dean. As soon as he was crowned the all-but-inevitable nominee, one would have asssumed that he would start behaving more “statesmanlike.” Instead, day after day, he’s going out of his way to show what an immature, ignorant, undisciplined, out-of-control loon he is.
The Dean situation is like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. On one hand, Dean seems unstoppable for the nomination (not because he’s so great, but because there’s apparently no other candidate who might be able to stop him). On the other hand, it’s inconceivable that a major political party, even one as way-out as the Dems, is going to nominate an actual nutcase for president. So one of two apparently impossible things is going to happen. Either Dean gets stopped, or the Democratic party nominates a nutcase.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 31, 2003 1:23 AM
James P. writes:
You wrote,
Hart, the defeated outsider of ‘84 who had become the favored insider of ‘88, wasn’t superseded; he destroyed his candidacy with an adulterous affair.
Doesn’t really matter why Hart was superseded; he was the “insider” until he self-destructed. [LA replies: You’re tough.]
Dean, the aggressive oddball, had become the consensus pick, thus the “insider,” and Kerry, the liberal estabishment dullard who looked like a president, was the “outsider” (by my definition) who defeated him.
Something I just came across:
The Front-Runner Falls:The Failure of Howard Dean
Abstract
From 1980 until 2000, two indicators successfully predicted presidential nominees in advance of the contest: the front-runner in the latest poll of party identifiers and the leader in fundraising in the previous year. In 2004, both indicators predicted Howard Dean to win the Democratic nomination and both were incorrect. In accounting for the failure of these predictions, this article shows that Dean was an untypically weak front-runner compared to his predecessors. His relative weaknesses included a lower level of support, a narrower lead and less name recognition. In competing against his opponents, Dean was vulnerable to the importance primary voters attached to ability to win the election and their lateness in deciding for whom to vote. These features of the contest disadvantaged Dean and enabled John Kerry to ride a bandwagon to a quick victory.
LA replies:
That’s an extremely bland, technical analysis which ignores what was most particular about Dean, namely, that he was crazy.
James P. writes:
The rage, hate, and insanity that characterized the Dean enthusiasts will emerge full-force against the candidate who takes on Obama, and will be doubled if he wins. The Republican candidate will have to have a very strong character to withstand that hate and to govern effectively. Does Romney want to win badly enough to go down in history as “the man who defeated the First Black President”? If he wins, will Romney spend his entire time trying to appease liberal rage by governing as a liberal and stamping the GOP label on high taxes, amnesty, carbon regulation, more largesse for blacks, etc.?
I am not convinced Romney has the guts to fight as hard as he needs to fight to beat Obama. Romney was soft as honey in 2008, and let McCain walk all over him. And if we assume he has the guts to fight for what he believes in once elected, what reason do we have to think his convictions are conservative?
LA replies:
It’s pretty much established that Romney’s convictions aren’t conservative. He even admitted a couple of years ago that when he ran as a social conservative in 2008 that wasn’t his real self. However, he has pledged to repeal Obamacare. That’s the decisive point for me, transcending all other issues in this election. The only way to repeal Obamacare is to have a president who will repeal it. There is no way around that.
But you raise a larger issue of what will happen to any GOP nominee who runs against, and possibly defeats, the first nonwhite U.S. president. Would any of them have the fortitude to withstand the hate you are talking about?
Scott C. writes:
I read with interest your discussion on the potential Republican nominations. One name left off the list, who has yet to announce but has expressed interest, is Texas Governor Rick Perry.
This is a man who served in the state legislature, then as Agricultural Commissioner, then as Lt. Governor (which really is the most powerful office in the state, because it presides over the legislature), then as Governor (elected to more consecutive terms than any other in state history). He has more experience than any of the other potential candidates, and is the longest serving governor in the nation.
During his tenure, Texas has produced more jobs than any other state (70% of the jobs created in the entire country over the last ten years, in fact). He’s vetoed a state income tax, passed tort reform, is strong on border security, and is pro-10th amendment. If he decides to run, he will be a formidable candidate.
And I don’t think he would care one wit about being the first candidate to defeat a black President. Obama is incompetent, and everyone knows it. Perry is competent. If he announces, it will cause a seismic shift in the landscape of Republican pretenders. None of them can hold a candle to him, certainly not the sitting President.
LA replies:
Well, if the successful governor of a big state who has been in office for over ten years is not a suitable candidate for president, who is? How long is he planning to remain governor, after all?
Scott C. writes:
Perry keeps saying that he thinks he can do more good at the state level, but I think he’s aiming for higher office for the good of the states and the betterment of the nation.
That said, I also think he’s waiting to be drafted. I mean, these announced candidates, Romney, Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, even the presumed Palin, are milquetoast. Gingrich is toast.
Perry is biding his time. There’s no need to announce at this early date. He’s waiting for the most opportune time to announce. And if he does, it will have a devastating effect on the rest of the field.
Palin is popular, but unelectable. Perry is the ace in the hole.
LA replies:
Even assuming that Perry has all that going for him, he would still need to get himself out there and be more visible and known to the country. He needs to give speeches, appear on TV shows etc. He must become the person who is seen as the “answer” before he can be “drafted.”
However, the “draft” seems to be a perennial dream. Can you think of a single person who was ever nominated as a result of being “drafted” by the consensus of his party, not as a result of his seeking the nomination?
The only person who was ever elected president of the United States while doing literally nothing to make it happen was George Washington. He was the universal, automatic choice of the whole country. It’s the Washingtonian dream that lives on in Americans’ hearts in the form of the “draft.” But the contentious realities of the nomination process, based on the system of state primaries, militate against that dream ever being realized.
The only way for the dream to become achievable is to dump the primary system and go back to the smoke-filled room. Which, by the way, I favor. Though given today’s healthful habits it would be the smoke-filled room without the smoke. Perhaps it could have a Designated Smoker.
Nile McCoy writes:
Eisenhower was a draft candidate.
From Wikipedia:
Not long after his return in 1952, a “Draft Eisenhower” movement in the Republican party persuaded him to declare his candidacy in the 1952 presidential election to counter the candidacy of non-interventionist Senator Robert Taft.
The Draft Eisenhower movement was the first successful political draft of the 20th century to take a private citizen to the Oval Office. It was a widespread American grassroots political movement that eventually persuaded Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for President. The movement culminated in the 1952 presidential election in which Eisenhower won the Republican nomination and defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson to become the 34th President of the United States.
LA replies:
Interesting. However, in 1952, state primaries barely existed, so it was still possible for the delegates at a nominating convention, or a decisive number of them, to act as a single body on the basis of consensus and nominate the man they thought was best. Today, by contrast, all the convention votes for the first ballot (except for the ones set aside for office-holders) are determined by popular state primaries. To be nominated on the first ballot, a person MUST have won the requisite votes by running as a candidate in primaries and winning. Therefore the nomination by draft on the first ballot of a person who has not run and won as a candidate in primaries is an absolute impossibility.
As for a drafted candidate winning on a second or third ballot, that is highly unlikely, because either the candidate who has won the requisite number of convention delegates in the primaries will take the nomination on the first ballot, or, if no candidate has won the requisite number of delegates, the office-holder delegates, who remain free to vote for whom they want, will come under strong pressure to vote for the person who has the most delegates and push him over the top on the first ballot so as to avoid a contentious multi-ballot convention. This is what happened with the Democrats in 2008 when the office-holder delegates announced they would vote for Obama, and that clinched Obama’s nomination. I don’t think there has been a multi-ballot convention since the early 20th century.
Scott C. writes:
Perhaps “drafted” was an improper word. I do not think Perry will run if he is not called upon. I do think he is seriously considering running for the nomination, but he is being patient. There is plenty of time for him to make a decision.
Besides, Perry refuses to announce until the current legislative session is over. Texas only allows its legislature to meet for 120 days once every two years, unless the Governor calls a special session, which Perry just did to extend the meeting to deal with pressing issues, and perhaps to give himself more time to see how the current field of candidates shakes out.
He certainly isn’t going run by the consensus of the GOP, or the “establishment” if you will, because he is staunchly pro-states’ rights and is definitely anti-Washington. If he does announce, it will cause a fire storm in the media, because Perry is everything the left imagined Bush to be but wasn’t. That alone will endear him to the American people.
James N. writes:
I need to take a look at him. I’ve been prejudiced against Texas governors, but it’s a good story.
You betcha.
JC writes from Houston:
As a native Texan and conservative, let me say that one should be cautious when it comes to Perry. He is distrusted by a number of conservatives. In 2001 he signed the first in state tuition for illegal aliens bill in the country. He was a big backer of the detested “Trans-Texas Corridor” until public outcry stopped it in its tracks (for now that is). In 2007 he attempted to mandate vaccinations of all entering sixth grade girls with the anti HPV (human pappiloma virus) Gardasil. That attempt was blocked by the Texas legislature, not to mention angry parents. He proposed and signed a sizable increase in the business franchise tax. He opposed an Arizona type SB1070 illegal immigration bill, saying that it wasn’t the right direction for Texas, which is now overrun with illegals. His words were:
“Some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe.”
I personally don’t really trust him. I think he’s a finger in the wind type who knows just what to say.
James R. writes:
Rick Perry isn’t so fantastic from a conservative point of view. I suppose he looks better from the outside, and he is better than most Governors. But your Texan readers can list all the policy flaws of Perry, starting with the Trans-Texas Corridor, Gardasil, and the Texas “Hate Crimes Bill.”
As a consequence of the rise of the Tea Party, Perry suddenly discovered a lot of conservative beliefs he hadn’t expressed before. But the appearance of blow-dried superficiality he exudes isn’t faked.
Richard P. writes:
I’m a sixth-generation Texan and have watched Rick Perry in office for over 20 years. He began as a Democratic state legislator in the 1980’s of the fiscally conservative DNC type, but became a Republican in the late 1980’s before eventually running for Agriculture Commissioner.
He has done more than a few things to upset Texas conservatives over the years. The Trans-Texas Corridor project was probably at the top of the list for most of us. His handling of the HPV vaccine issue angered a lot of parents. He’s also been lukewarm on immigration (though far better than Mr. Bush was as Governor).
Having said that, he is far better conservative credentials than anyone else in the race so far. Perry’s record on crime, the budget, abortion, gay marriage, and many other issues are rock solid. He is also telegenic, a great speaker, and a bulldog of a campaigner. He can beat Obama, and he will not hogtie himself or his staff in the way John McCain did. And he would not give a whit about the media or liberal establishments reaction to deteating the first black president. He literally mocked the PETA types who raised a stink over his coyote incident. Most modern politicians would have tried to weasel out of that. He took it as a badge of honor.
I believe Perry is planning to run, but he wants at least to appear reluctant. I think he also wants to get into the race as late as possible. I fully expect him to enter the race toward the end of summer. Texans think life ends in May and begins again in September, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he made an announcement just after Labor Day.
LA replies:
I don’t mean to pry, but what do Texans do during their four months of non-existence each year?
Richard P. replies:
We mostly sit near the closest air conditioner vent with a cold drink, and curse a lot when we have to go outdoors. My young son loves sports and parks so I’ll likely be cursing a lot soon.
Of course I’m exaggerating somewhat. My wife is Canadian and says summers in Dallas are like winters in Toronto in how people avoid going out much. You even see farmers installing banks of lights on their tractors so they can plow and plant at night.
But the autumns here are glorious. They more than make up for the summers.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 03, 2011 08:23 AM | Send
|