Gov/Politic: Why GOP lacks another Reagan today by AC

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25115

How to Keep Reagan Out of Office by Ann Coulter
Posted: 02/20/2008

Inasmuch as the current presidential election has come down to a choice among hemlock, self-immolation or the traditional gun in the mouth, now is the time for patriotic Americans to review what went wrong and to start planning for 2012.

How did we end up with the mainstream media picking the Republican candidate for president?

It isn't the early primaries, it isn't that we allow Democrats to vote in many of our primaries, and it isn't that the voters are stupid. All of that was true or partially true in 1980 -- and we still got Ronald Reagan.

We didn't get Ronald Reagan this year not just because there's never going to be another Reagan. We will never again get another Reagan because Reagan wouldn't run for office under the current campaign-finance regime.

Three months ago, I was sitting with a half-dozen smart, successful conservatives whose names you know, all griping about this year's cast of presidential candidates. I asked them, one by one: Why don't you run for office?

Of course, none of them would. They are happy, well-adjusted individuals.

Reagan, too, had a happy life and, having had no trouble getting girls in high school, had no burning desire for power. So when the great California businessman Holmes Tuttle and two other principled conservatives approached Reagan about running for office, Reagan said no.

But Tuttle kept after Reagan, asking him not to reject the idea out of hand. He formed "Friends of Reagan" to raise money in case Reagan changed his mind.

He asked Reagan to give his famous "Rendezvous With History" speech at a $1,000-a-plate Republican fundraiser in Los Angeles and then bought airtime for the speech to be broadcast on TV days before the 1964 presidential election.

The epochal broadcast didn't change the election results, but it changed history. That single broadcast brought in nearly $1 million to the Republican Party -- not to mention millions of votes for Goldwater.

After the astonishing response to Reagan's speech and Tuttle's continued entreaties, Reagan finally relented and ran for governor. In 1966, with the help, financial and otherwise, of a handful of self-made conservative businessmen, Reagan walloped incumbent Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, winning 57 percent of the vote in a state with two Democrats for every Republican.

The rest is history -- among the brightest spots in all of world history.

None of that could happen today. (The following analysis uses federal campaign-finance laws rather than California campaign-finance laws because the laws are basically the same, and I am not going to hire a campaign-finance lawyer in order to write this column.)

If Tuttle found Ronald Reagan today, he couldn't form "Friends of Reagan" to raise money for a possible run -- at least not without hiring a battery of campaign-finance lawyers and guaranteeing himself a lawsuit by government bureaucrats. He'd also have to abandon his friendship with Reagan to avoid the perception of "coordination."

Tuttle couldn't hold a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Reagan -- at least in today's dollars. That would be a $6,496.94-a-plate dinner (using the consumer price index) or a $19,883.51-a-plate dinner (using the relative share of GDP). The limit on individual contributions to a candidate is $2,300.

Reagan's "Rendezvous With History" speech would never have been broadcast on TV -- unless Tuttle owned the TV station. Independent groups are prohibited from broadcasting electioneering ads 60 days before an election.

A handful of conservative businessmen would not be allowed to make large contributions to Reagan's campaign -- they would be restricted to donating only $2,300 per person.

Under today's laws, Tuttle would have had to go to Reagan and say: "We would like you to run for governor. You are limited to raising money $300 at a time (roughly the current limits in 1965 dollars), so you will have to do nothing but hold fundraisers every day of your life for the next five years in order to run in the 1970 gubernatorial election, since clearly there isn't enough time to raise money for the 1966 election."

Also, Tuttle would have to tell Reagan: "We are not allowed to coordinate with you, so you're on your own. But wait -- it gets worse! After five years of attending rubber chicken dinners every single day in order to raise money in tiny increments, you will probably lose the election anyway because campaign-finance laws make it virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent.

"Oh, and one more thing: Did you ever kiss a girl in high school? Not even once? If not, then this plan might appeal to you!"

Obviously, Reagan would have returned to his original answer: No thanks.

Reagan loved giving speeches and taking questions from voters. The one part of campaigning Reagan loathed was raising money. Thanks to our campaign-finance laws, fundraising is the single most important job of a political candidate today.

This is why you will cast your eyes about the nation in vain for another Reagan sitting in any governor's mansion or U.S. Senate seat. Pro-lifers like to ask, "How many Einsteins have we lost to abortion?" I ask: How many Reagans have we lost to campaign-finance reform?

The campaign-finance laws basically restrict choice political jobs, like senator and governor -- and thus president -- to:

(1) Men who were fatties in high school and consequently are willing to submit to the hell of running for office to compensate for their unhappy adolescences -- like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich. (Somewhere in this great land of ours, even as we speak, the next Bill Clinton is waddling back to the cafeteria service line asking for seconds.)

(2) Billionaires and near-billionaires -- like Jon Corzine, Steve Forbes, Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney -- who can fund their own campaigns (these aren't necessarily sociopaths, but it certainly limits the pool of candidates).

(3) Celebrities and name-brand candidates -- like Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Bush, Giuliani and Hillary Clinton (which explains the nation's apparent adoration for Bushes and Clintons -- they've got name recognition, a valuable commodity amidst totalitarian restrictions on free speech).

(4) Mainstream media-anointed candidates, like John McCain and B. Hussein Obama.

What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)

By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.

It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.

You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.
 
Last edited:
That's a very fine article.

Why don't you run for office?

Of course, none of them would. They are happy, well-adjusted individuals.

Indeed. In order to genuinely run for that office, a person would need more ambition than I would like.

Ambition to do what? RR's ambition was to roll back the effects of a period of decay and retreat. He had some success in this.

We are altogether too familiar with the ambitions of the Clintons.

So we have choices of people with great ambitions for the country, or people with primarily personal ambitions who tell us they feel our pain, or want to repair our souls. If we are so narcissistic that we hand the office to whoever makes us feel better about ourselves, we deserve the president we get.

While McCain-Feingold is an outrage, I can't blame it exclusively for the problem of no great candidates.
 
another crock of crap by Ann

Ann's entire premise is finance reform in politics is what is stopping the good guys from running. What a crop of crap. She wants everyone to believe things were so much better when a few individuals and corporations could stack the deck with thier funds to buy the presidency.

Maybe a few of the conservatives will buy into her line: only the rich are running. If McCain is a poor boy with hardly a dime in the bank I must be a prisoner in the poorhouse.

Using Ann's philosophy Exxon should be allowed to spend as much as they wanted to on a campaign for their chosen candidate. As the largest profit maker in the world would Exxon's choice for president be better for America? I doubt it! And Exxon would be unbeatable as an entity with billions available to throw into a campaign for their candidate.
 
Ann's entire premise is finance reform in politics is what is stopping the good guys from running. What a crop of crap. She wants everyone to believe things were so much better when a few individuals and corporations could stack the deck with thier funds to buy the presidency.

She wants you to believe that things were better when people were more free to express their political opinions with contributions. This is a recognised form of free speech.

Maybe a few of the conservatives will buy into her line: only the rich are running. If McCain is a poor boy with hardly a dime in the bank I must be a prisoner in the poorhouse.

That misses one of her points: restrict popular people of modest means from the financial support of those who would support them, and you make self-supporting candidates, the very well off, more likely.
 
your still free to speak you support and start an identified

support group for a candidate. The biggest change in the reforms if the requirement to disclose who is giving their dollars to whom.

zukiphile posted
That misses one of her points: restrict popular people of modest means from the financial support of those who would support them, and you make self-supporting candidates, the very well off, more likely.

Zukiphile please tell us who was an actual candidate that was stopped from running under the campaign laws. Lets not play the BS game with some potential candidate from the Ozarks who declared himself a candidate and cold not raise the basic cost of filing for candidacy. What is modest means when it comes to these want to be candidates?

Politics is a big dollar game and no-one with out financial support is going to get considered as a real candidate. Who was the last president elected from a campaign without any funds to promote them. It altruistic to believe everyone has the same opportunity to become president. Unless you have either a few spare million or some way to raise a few million your not even getting to the starting line.

Kicky Friedman, Mike Gravel and the rest of the list you can examine at http://www.politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm or http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm or the rest of the pack listed at http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm. Is a pretty good indicator of who filed to be president. All these got there 15 minutes of fame by completing the process. Most of them ran out of cash right after that process. And most of them had a greater chance of willing the lottery than getting elected.
 
zukiphile posted
That misses one of her points: restrict popular people of modest means from the financial support of those who would support them, and you make self-supporting candidates, the very well off, more likely.
Zukiphile please tell us who was an actual candidate that was stopped from running under the campaign laws. Lets not play the BS game with some potential candidate from the Ozarks who declared himself a candidate and cold not raise the basic cost of filing for candidacy. What is modest means when it comes to these want to be candidates?

Neither she nor I have suggested that campaign laws prevent a candidate from running. (Of course, if they don't run, they aren't candidates.) What current laws do prevent is the kinds of cooperation and contribution that pushed RR into politics.

Rockefeller won the senate seat in West Virginia with approximately $15 million of his own money. Romney was similarly able to self fund, but he was worth approximately a half billion dollars.
 
Last edited:
did your read Ann's article

"Neither she nor I have suggested that campaign laws prevent a candidate from running. (Of course, if they don't run, they aren't candidates.) What current laws do prevent is the kinds of cooperation and contribution that pushed RR into politics" zukiphile

I can not believe you could read the article by AC and conclude she is not suggesting the campaign laws are preventing candidates from running. Preventing in terms of the ability for a candidates to get a sugar daddy to fund the entire campaign. The cooperation RR had was he had access to a lot of contributors who had unlimited abilities to buy him a campaign. Remove the campaign funds from RR and you would have never seen him in office. Even Ann concludes Reagan would not have one without his contributors.

applesanity I would not have a problem if we knew how was fronting the money. It those secret dollars than worry me.
 
Coulter has done her usual amount of fact checking, namely none. Newt "fattie" Gingrich started an affair with one of his teachers while he was a senior in High School, eventually marrying her
 
toybox - You 'speak' as if you believe the American public is a bunch of mental misfits who will believe everything they hear. You also seem to think that with enough money, anyone can buy the presidency.

I disagree with both these premises. If I have misread your remarks and you do not espouse these premises, please elucidate your position on why you think that the government should use (abuse) its power to prevent Americans (like the owners of Exxon, Halliburton or Joe's pawn shop) from financially backing the candidates they support.
 
Back
Top