Skip to comments.When is the last time a GOP "establishment" guy ever lost the nomination?
Posted on 06/15/2011 7:35:03 AM PDT by no gnu taxes
I can't think of it. I mean McCain wasn't even the front runner last election for most of the race, and at this time in 2007, he was in serious trouble. But he was definitely the establishment guy and he ended up winning.
Is there any way we don't end up with a nominee Romney? I can only say that it's better than nominee McCain.
My guess is Ronald Reagan..
The last time the GOP establishment candidate lost the nomination was 1980. The country club Republicans are still holding that grudge.
It’s a bit dicey calling Bush the younger the establishment candidate when he beat McCain (another establishment candidate).
It’s going to come down to a battle for the R party between traditional/moderate/RINO faction and the Tea Party conservative faction. If we don’t win, I fully expect to see a 3rd party split, which will be the end of the R party.
McCain was so far down he had to carry his own suitcase to the NH debates, yet magically he became the Chosen One. RINOS are always about the “issue of the day”, i.e. they got behind McCain because they though his military record could win on Terrorism.
Never mind conservative values, a “reach-across-the-aisle” history or compromise, weakness on social issues, etc. To hell with that, I’m voting for a true blue Conservative this time around, no matter who the RNC nominates.
“Is there any way we don’t end up with a nominee Romney?”
Live boy/dead girl.
“I can only say that it’s better than nominee McCain.”
Nominally but yes. I despise John McCain with every cell in my body. Could never vote for him even if the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan was the running mate; Oh wait, she was/s.
I don’t hate Mitt Romney, I just don’t trust him. Would he be better for the nation than 4 years of Obama with no re-election to worry about? Maybe, but our nation needs better than that. It is no longer acceptable to simply be “better than the other guy,” we need a conservative and I am not sure that Romney fills the bill.
Not really dicey at all, with two in the running the establishment couldn’t lose.
The Establishment has screwed it up too bad this time. They won’t be able to foist their usual Dole/McCain type off on us.
I'd say 1980 (Reagan over Bush). Additionally, when was the last time a GOP POTUS primary was held after the Tea Party Nation Movement was formed?
This, combined with Ma0bama in office, is the Game Changer. The environment is target rich. It took a Carter to get a Reagan. 2012=1980. Game on!
The problem is that the American Republican population votes and not Free Republic voters only. If Free Republic voters were the only ones who could vote, we would have a perfect World. We really need to work that out some way. We are the top 10 percent conservatives probably in the World.
I’d have to say Reagan as well. Dole was the low point in my lifetime, I think.
In 2008, the tri-headed monster was called "Rudy McRomney" for a reason.
Dole could have been a good President. It was a shame her husband ran instead.
That’s a good point. There is usually more than one establishment candidate.
Bachman = establishment but for vp
cain= zero chance of winning
Pawlenty = nobody cares
Huntsman = VERY establishment
ronpaul = comic relief and clueless
anyone else is just dead in the water.
No it isn’t.
Mitt may be the designated place holder for the establishment at the moment, but I think that they’d be just as happy with Rooty, T-Paw or several others whom they could set up to take a dive for Obozo.
>> Dole could have been a good President. It was a shame her husband ran instead.<<
You’re kidding, right? She’s much worse than he. One of the worst senators and ran the absolute worst senatorial campaign ever from NC.
A little revisionist history going on here.
Many people forget that George W. Bush was not the early establishment choice, he was too tongue tied and too conservative. In 2000, his main opponents were Steve Forbes and John McCain, and it wasn’t until Bush won South Carolina (until then, not considered a major Primary) that it seemed inevitable that he would be the nominee.
Ronald Reagan almost defeated Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976, setting himself as the candidate most likely to win the nomination in 1980. He was the establishment choice in 1980.
The NON-establishment guy Paladino crushed the GOP hand-picked debutante “Little ricky” Lazio
Then the NY GOP (or D’Lite’) political organization took over control and made sure he lost to Cuomo
I would respectively disagree. Bush was The GOP choice going back to early 1999. McCain was an upstart. McCain's win in in NH was an orgasm for the MSM. Bush won a tough battle in SC, and then lost in MI. Frankly, Bush had a network set up over the US as a whole which made his candidacy a foregone conclusion, but the MSM was giddy over McCain's early success. After MI, Bush pretty much took over.
Everybody should read Phyllis Schlafley’s “A Choice Not an Echo.” This same thing has been going on since 1940. The elites wanted Willkie over Taft, Dewey over Taft, Dewey over Taft, Eisenhower over Taft, Nixon over Goldwater, Goldwater succeeded in 1964, Nixon over Reagan (although Reagan was a late-comer), Ford over Reagan, Reagan succeeded in 1980, there wasn’t really a real conservative choice in ‘88, Dole over Buchanan, Bush was more conservative than McCain though barely and succeeded in 2000, McCain over Romney/not much choice.
George Shultz was the architect of Bush’s groundwork. The organization of people on the ground for Bush was truly amazing, but if you listened to the pundits, Bush was destined to fall to Forbes or McCain because he didn’t speak well and was “unelectable” in the general election because he was so conservative.
The problem is using the term “establishment”. What do you mean by that? I don’t think you will find almost any candidate getting double digit votes that isn’t supported by someone in the “establishment”.
George W. Bush was the overwhelming pick of the GOP governors and the state party functionaries. There was some resistance to him on the Hill, but he overcame that early because the party pros didn't have another horse to back. McCain was even less popular with them than with movement conservatives. He's always been a loose cannon and the professionals knew that better than anyone. Before NH Bush was widely regarded as inevitable (which he very nearly was).
There was a brief moment when a few wishful-thinking leftoids in the media thought McCain might catch him. That moment lasted from the time the polls closed in NH to the time they closed in SC. In reality, McCain never had a prayer. The establishment was with W and conservatives considered him the less imperfect of two very flawed candidates.
In 1980 it may have been Reagan's turn, but he was hardly the establishment choice. The party professionals were desperate to field anybody but Reagan. They went through a RINO Who's Who in their effort to stop him, finally settling on Bush, Sr. They didn't succeed, but it wasn't for want of trying. Reagan was so unpopular in a certain segment of the party that Congressman John Anderson mounted an independent campaign against him that netted something like 6 per cent of the vote.
The Republican apparatus is progressive and Reagan wasn't. The pros reconciled themselves to him with great reluctance, and some of them never did. Regan was the antithesis of an establishment candidate.
Youve got to be kidding. Bachman is TEA party
After the Oklahoma City bombing, people from the local area began to pour gifts of food, clothing, household goods, even some cars upon the families of the victims.
Elisabeth’s Red Cross ran an add urging people to stop sending things directly to the families, and give to the Red Cross, which would then handle distribution. They then sold everything and put the money in their general fund.
When this came to light, Oklahomans were naturally incensed, Elisabeth was defiant, and Bob Dole refused to comment. When Bob later ran for president, people in the plains states made sure this was not forgotten.
When’s the last time this country was headed for default? Never.
Things have changed in the last 3 years.
With the Tea-Party still gaining strength, the old models don’t apply anymore.
It is no guarantee that the Establishment GOP will steamroll the grassroots today like they have in the past.
Perhaps there are degrees of “establishment”. A person whose family has been in the business of politics on the Federal Level for generations would be the most “establishment”. This could apply to the mover-and-shaker families of either political party.
Look at him laugh with the fellow behind him.
“You LOVE Romney”
I love no politician. Frankly you’ve been stalking me with these lies for weeks now and I am getting pretty sick of it. Post a link to me saying how much I love Romeny or STFU!
Maybe, but he had already fought a tooth and nail battle with Ford to prove himself a viable candidate and after his Convention speech that year, it seemed almost inevitable he was going to be the next GOP nominee.
no she established her tea party caucus to CLAIM the title of leader of the tea party.
Bachman is a typical politician taking the position to get herself elected.
(remember she supported jimmy carter)
Hardly. He may have been the front-runner to win (since he almost beat Ford in '76 and many regretted he didn't after the fact) but Reagan was never the establishment's choice. They didn't trust him and thought he was too aggressive, too divisive and too conservative. Bush I ultimately was the establishment choice which was why he won the Iowa primary. You forget the Nashua, NH 'I am paying for this microphone Mr. Green' moment
Fast Times At Nashua High (an awesome rendition of this classic story)
Long the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Reagan suffered a stunning upset in Iowa at the hands of George H. W. Bush on January 21. Worse for Reagan, his campaigns internal polling showed the former California governor falling 21 points behind Bush in New Hampshire. If Reagan lost to Bush in New Hampshire, his campaign would be over. Forever. There was no tomorrow. This was it for the Gipper.
you raise a good point if not a tangent.
NEVER donate to the red cross. They do not give direct support.
They have their red cross vests for photo ops and after every disaster they beg for money to go to their general fund.
In 1976 over half the voters in America supported Jimmy Carter. You really want to hold someone to what happened over 30 years ago?
Conservatives heard his convention speech and saw an excruciating missed opportunity. Progressives saw a dodged bullet. They weren't thinking that Reagan would be their guy the next time around. They were thinking they'd buried him for good. They had fought the tooth and nail battle to which you refer and assumed that their victory was both decisive and final. On both sides of the great divide the thinking was that Reagan's time had passed.
You have forgotten that the early front-runner in 1980 wasn't Reagan but Gerald Ford, who was the Establishment's first choice. It only got to be Reagan's turn because Ford stepped aside. Even then Bob Dole had a good claim to be the next in line as Ford's running mate.
Reagan didn't have an Establishment wind at his back at any time in the 1980 election cycle. He wasn't quite the insurgent he was in 1976 because there was no incumbent GOP President in the race, but he was still running against those who traditionally control the party who have given us Hoover, Landon, Wilke, Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush and McCain, progressives all.
There was nothing inevitable about Reagan. His presidency resulted from a series of improbable events that nobody anticipated as the 1980 cycle got underway (let alone in ‘76). For once the Establishment was frustrated and conservatives caught lightening in a bottle. It's rare, but it happened once and it can happen again.
Damn straight. Good post.
Before Reagan, there was Goldwater. The establishment candidate was Nelson Rockefeller.
You might recall that in national polls leading up to the Primaries, Reagan was vastly ahead of all other candidates.
And, vastly ahead isn't even close to a description of the reality of that campaign as shown in post #38. And the reason it was so close? ... IMHO, because the 'Establishment' didn't want Reagan.
There may have been someone, somewhere foolish enough to think Reagan was inevitable as 1979 became 1980. John Sears may have been overconfident. But Reagan always faced a hard uphill climb against a hostile Party apparatus and it was only by the grace of God that things turned out as they did.
I remember sitting with my Mom, watching TV on inauguration day with the split screen showing Reagan being sworn in while the Iranian hostages were being released, and thinking that I had to remember how that felt, being so overwhelmed with pride and happiness and not let myself forget.
BTW, where did the Reagan = Establishment folks go?
True that! I really admire(d) her in the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.