Page 1 of 15
ACU in Action
March 26, 2006
BY JONATHAN RICK
ACU Quoted (8)
1. A G.O.P. Split on Immigration Vexes a Senator
By Rachel L. Swarns New York Times March 26, 2006 [John] Cornyn is a former state attorney general and a fiscal conservative, a Texan who wears cowboy boots with his pinstripes and prides himself on his 100 percent approval rating from the American Conservative Union.
2. Harbinger in Ohio?
By George F. Will Washington Post March 26, 2006 [Rep. Sherrod] Brown [D-OH], whose career voting record is, according to the American Conservative Union, more liberal than another Cleveland area congressman, Dennis Kucinich, makes scant concession to conservatism, cultural or economic.
3. The Blunder of 1968
By William A. Rusher American Spectator April 2006 National Review and the American Conservative Union were both internally divided on the question [whether to support Reagan or Nixon], and equivocated.
4. Bush “Gaffe” on Iraq Threatens Party Unity
By Alex Massie Scotsman.com March 26, 2006 “I‟ve been astounded by Bush in his relationship with Republicans in Congress,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. “In my lifetime, there has been no Republican president who has spent as much effort electing people of his own party to the Congress, or less time talking to them after they got there.”
5. Burns Tells GOP He Won't back Down
By Jim Gransbery Billings Gazette (Billings, MT) March 26, 2006 Marking the occasion [a Lincoln/Reagan Day Dinner last night], a guest speaker was a former Reagan associate, David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. In an interview before the program, Keene said, “Republicans forget what got them elected.”
6. Bush Costly, Even for Conservatives
By John Nichols Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) March 21, 2006
Page 2 of 15
American Conservative Union President David Keene, who as a GOP wunderkind back in the late 1960s lost a close race for the state Senate and then hightailed it off to Washington where he became a key adviser to Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and Bob Dole, told the crowd [at last week‟s Future Wisconsin conference] that Republicans are in danger of losing control of Congress this year.
7. Passionate Debates on Intellectual Property, Fair Use and Telecommunications Reform Make for Lively Day Two at CEA‟s Entertainment Technology Policy Summit
Unsigned Business Wire March 20, 2006 Moderated by David Leibowitz, managing partner, CH Potomac, panelists [in last week‟s Consumer Electronics Association‟s Entertainment Technology Policy Summit] included Mark Cuban, chairman and president, HDNet; Jeff Lawrence, director of content policy, Intel; Preston Padden, executive vice president, government relations, Walt Disney Company; Stacie Rumenap, deputy director, American Conservative Union and Michael Williams, executive vice president, Law Department, Sony Electronics Inc.
8. Boehner Likely to Be Receptive To Free Market Arguments on Telecom Bill
Unsigned White House Bulletin March 20, 2006 The American Conservative Union is drafting a letter to [House Majority Leader John] Boehner [R-OH], critical of the Barton legislation, which says among other things, “Do Republicans want to leave the legacy as the ones who began the regulation and eventual demise of the Internet?”
Page 3 of 15
Passionate Debates on Intellectual Property, Fair Use and Telecommunications Reform Make for Lively Day Two at CEA‟s Entertainment Technology Policy Summit Unsigned Business Wire March 20, 2006 Animated and enthusiastic debates over intellectual property protection, fair use rights and new digital content distribution networks highlighted day two of the Consumer Electronics Association‟s (CEA®) Entertainment Technology Policy Summit. The inaugural event ran March 15-16, 2006, at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. CEA President and CEO Gary Shapiro opened the second day of the Summit with a focus on the challenges and opportunities presented by the historic intersection of digital content, communications networks and consumer electronics devices. “Today, we will continue to explore the public policy and technology challenges that arise as consumers embrace new ways in which digital content is being delivered to devices as they begin to realize the dream of anytime, anywhere access to video, music, photos, information and more,” said Shapiro. Shapiro challenged content companies to embrace the new digital world. “Content creators must join technology innovators in creating new business models to leverage technology to keep up with consumer habits or risk obsolescence,” he warned. The Policymaker‟s Dilemma, moderated by CEA‟s Vice President of Government Affairs Michael Petricone, featured U.S. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) along with U.S. Congressmen Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Chris Cannon (R-UT). The panel explored lawmakers‟ struggle to balance the fair use rights of consumers and the intellectual property rights of copyright holders, while allowing technology to continue to drive innovation. “It‟s critically important that while we‟re protecting intellectual property, that we are sure that we don‟t impose mandates that impede the development of consumer electronics products,” said Congressman Boucher. Technology innovators and content owners came together Thursday morning for The Entertainment Reinvention session. Moderated by Rob Pegoraro, consumer technology editor of The Washington Post, panelists included Hank Barry, partner, Hummer Winblad Venture Partners; Ted Cohen, senior vice president, digital development and distribution, EMI Music; Henry Juszkiewicz, chairman and CEO, Gibson Guitar Corp.; Blake Krikorian, CEO, Sling Media; Mike Malcom, CEO, Kaleidescape; Shelly Palmer, chairman, Advanced Media Committee, The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences; and John Williams, president, MusicGiants. Panelists discussed the opportunities as well as the challenges facing the entertainment industry as new technologies disrupt current business models. Panelists in the Finding Common Ground session engaged in a sometimes heated and consistently engaging dialogue on intellectual property and fair use. Moderated by David Leibowitz, managing partner, CH Potomac, panelists included Mark Cuban, chairman and president, HDNet; Jeff Lawrence, director of content policy, Intel; Preston Padden, executive vice president, government relations, Walt Disney Company; Stacie Rumenap, deputy director, American Conservative Union and Michael Williams, executive vice president, Law Department, Sony Electronics Inc. Cuban and Padden went toe-totoe as they debated the need for digital rights management schemes. Cuban dismissed concerns about rampant theft of copyrighted content saying that ripping and encoding movies is too time and bandwidth consuming for most consumers. Rumenap argued that the content community should stop pursuing additional legislative protections following their victory in the Supreme Court‟s Grokster decision. Congressman Chip Pickering (R-MS) delivered an engaging and insightful luncheon keynote on day two, outlining the critical issues under debate as Congress begins reform of telecommunications law. During his speech he also thanked the technology industry for its dedication and generosity to the Gulf Coast region in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Entertainment Technology Policy Summit concluded with a spirited debate on intellectual property and net neutrality featuring the Honorable Dan Glickman, president and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); Leslie Harris, executive director, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT); David Israelite, president and CEO, National Music Publishers Association (NMPA); Gigi Sohn, president and co-founder, Public Knowledge; Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney, fair use and intellectual property, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and CEA‟s Gary Shapiro. Moderator Gary Arlen of Arlen Communications tried to maintain some semblance of order as the panel elicited laughter and applause from the audience throughout the discussion. Shapiro, von Loh-
Page 4 of 15
mann, Harris and Sohn engaged in a passionate back-and-forth with Israelite as they challenged his contention that intellectual property deserves the same protections as real property. Shapiro noted that the content community constantly seeks legislative and regulatory protections while technology companies simply want the freedom to innovate. von Lohmann and Glickman were particularly engaged with Glickman calling von Lohmann “a divider.” von Lohmann, in turn, accused the content community of launching a frontal attack on consumers. “No one wakes up and says, „Hey, I want to do less with my music today,” he said. “And that‟s what DRM does - allows you to do less and less with content.” Despite their differences, both Shapiro and Glickman agreed in predicting that more deals between the content and hardware industries would be reached in the coming year. For more information on the Entertainment Technology Policy Summit, including written transcripts, photos and pod casts of the event, visit www.CE.org.
Page 5 of 15
Bush Costly, Even for Conservatives By John Nichols Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) March 21, 2006 Republicans who gathered in Wauwatosa last week for the annual Future Wisconsin conference got an unexpected dose of reality from a former Badger State politico who has made it big in national conservative circles. American Conservative Union President David Keene, who as a GOP wunderkind back in the late 1960s lost a close race for the state Senate and then hightailed it off to Washington where he became a key adviser to Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and Bob Dole, told the crowd that Republicans are in danger of losing control of Congress this year. After reviewing recent polling data, Keene said, “There is no area in which the people think the Republicans are better able to handle the problems than are the Democrats.” The conservative leader acknowledged that the GOP’s problems are not just with Democrats and independents. He explained that many previously loyal Republican voters are realizing that congressional Republicans are spendthrifts. While grass-roots conservatives believe that “limited government is better than an all-powerful government,” Keene said, Republicans are in charge of a “Congress that has forgotten that.” Keene makes a good point. But he does not take it far enough. Sincere conservatives are also beginning to recognize that the Bush administration‟s foreign policies have failed miserably—at great cost not merely to the national treasury but to the thousands of families that have lost loved ones in the misguided war in Iraq. William F. Buckley Jr., the father of modern conservatism, put it best when he wrote recently, “One can‟t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.” This failure weighs heavily not just on conservatives or liberals but on all Americans, as does the burgeoning national debt and the structural and trade deficits that have ballooned during the course of the Bush presidency and tenure of the current Congress. In Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave Redick has taken in the messages of both Keene and Buckley and forged a message that is grounded in traditional conservative values, rather than blind loyalty to Bush and his congressional apologists. Redick‟s a genuine fiscal conservative, but he‟s also an old-fashioned foreign policy conservative, who says: “The Bush team of neocons‟ took advantage of the atmosphere of crisis generated by 9/11 to create the War on Terror‟ as a general-purpose, and forever, project to implement their plan to use force to gain control of oil and politics worldwide. The result has been an immoral, illegal and counterproductive crusade.” th Very much in line with the “Old Right” conservatives of the mid-20 century, particularly former Ohio Sens. Robert Taft and George Bender, who challenged the international adventures of Democrats and Republicans, Redick condemns the Bush administration and members of Congress from both parties—including the senator he is challenging, Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, for embracing policies designed for “building an empire worldwide.” He wants to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq quickly, but he also wants the United States to draw back from military engagements in other countries, as well. As his literature suggests, Redick “believes in strong defense, but not costly and useless wars that can be avoided with no harm to us.” Progressives who might sympathize with Redick‟s line on the war will surely be ill at ease with his very conservative stance on federal spending and his rather more libertarian take on education, health care and a host of other issues. But honest observers of the current discourse, no matter what their politics, ought to be intrigued by Redick‟s political courage and Old Right ideological consistency. Unlike the faux conservatism of George Bush and so many congressional Republicans, Redick‟s conservatism is reality based, as opposed to delusional. Perhaps that‟s why Eric Margolis, a conservative columnist who is internationally respected for his savvy commentary on foreign affairs and military issues, wrote recently, “One positive sign (for Republicans) is in Wisconsin, where candidate David Redick is running for Senate. Redick‟s platform is pure traditional Republican at its best: small government, lower spending, strong defense but no imperial adventures. Watch his campaign. I will.”
Page 6 of 15
* Redick‟s campaign does indeed merit watching. Even those who have differences with him on a variety of issues ought to respect the fact that his campaign is about ideas and sincere beliefs, rather than the mere political positioning in which candidates of both parties so frequently engage. John Nichols is associate editor of the Capital Times. E-mail: jnichols@madison.com
Page 7 of 15
A G.O.P. Split on Immigration Vexes a Senator By Rachel L. Swarns New York Times March 26, 2006 HOUSTON — The telephone lines in the unassuming offices of Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, have been sizzling here in recent weeks as anxious Republican voters call to find out precisely where their tough-minded senator stands on illegal immigration. Mr. Cornyn is a former state attorney general and a fiscal conservative, a Texan who wears cowboy boots with his pinstripes and prides himself on his 100 percent approval rating from the American Conservative Union. But as the Senate prepares to wrestle the week of March 27 with the question of legalizing much of the illegal immigrant population, Mr. Cornyn, like many Republicans, finds himself squeezed by warring factions in his own party. [President Bush kept up the pressure in his weekly radio speech on Saturday, a day after protests in three cities by immigrant rights advocates.] Mr. Cornyn has been criticized on conservative talk radio and labeled a “sellout” on some Weblogs for promoting legislation that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain here for five more years. The proposal would also create a temporary worker program that would allow those immigrants and hundreds of thousands of foreigners abroad to work here legally for up to six years. At the same time, business groups have been pressing him to go further by supporting legislation that would put their illegal workers on the road to citizenship. [On Friday, supporters of immigrant rights took to the streets in Phoenix, Los Angeles and Atlanta to urge such action. At least 25,000 also rallied in Los Angeles on Saturday, The Associated Press reported.] The legislative battle has pitted Republican against Republican, with conservatives deriding guest worker programs as an amnesty for lawbreakers and calling for a wall to be built along the border with Mexico, and with business leaders pushing for legalization of the illegal workforce and the admission of thousands of foreign workers. With the Senate expected to start voting on legislation as early as March 28 and Congressional staffers negotiating furiously over the fine print, some lawmakers are struggling to find middle ground. [In his radio talk, Mr. Bush acknowledged the difficulty that lawmakers faced. “This is an emotional debate,” he said. “America does not have to choose between being a welcoming society and being a lawful society. We can be both at the same time.”] But finding that balance has been enormously difficult. When asked how he felt on a recent day when he had shuttled from a telephone interview on Fox News Radio to a luncheon with business executives, Mr. Cornyn said, “In between.” “I have people come to see me who say, „The wall is the answer,‟ “ Mr. Cornyn said as he settled into a leather couch in his office here. “I hear others say we ought to be sympathetic, we ought to just let them stay and call them legal and declare an amnesty. And I don‟t think either of those alternatives are possible or viable. “Sometimes they end up yelling at me,” he said of his conservative constituents. “But my job, and our job in Congress, is to see the whole picture and to come up with a realistic consensus.” Mr. Cornyn acknowledged, however, that it would be difficult to reach given the deep divide within his party. “It‟s the hardest thing,” he said. “I honestly don‟t think we‟ll know the outcome until we get there.” The rift emerged in 2004 when Mr. Bush first urged Congress to create a program that would legalize illegal workers and allow for foreign workers to come here in the future. Both groups would be required to return home after a period of time. The proposal was hailed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, typically a staunch Republican ally and a formidable political force. But it fueled a revolt among some conservatives in the party who demanded tighter border controls to stop the waves of illegal immigration that they view as a threat to American culture, jobs and security. In December, the Republican-controlled House defied Mr. Bush‟s call for a temporary worker program. Instead, the House passed a tough border security bill that would, among other things, make it a federal crime to live in this country illegally, turning the millions of illegal immigrants here into felons, in-
Page 8 of 15
eligible to win any legal status. (Currently, living in this country without authorization is a violation of civil immigration law, not criminal law.) Meanwhile, many business leaders have thrown their weight behind legislation sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would grant permanent residency — and ultimately citizenship — to the 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living in the United States. To qualify, immigrants would have to pay a fine and back taxes, learn English and work here for six more years. Mr. Cornyn has tried to build a middle path: sponsoring legislation that would deal with illegal immigrants and the needs of businesses for foreign workers while trying to avoid being tarred with the amnesty label by requiring both groups to return home after a certain time. Under his plan, people could only apply for permanent residency from their home countries. The Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Mr. Cornyn is a member, is trying to cobble together elements of both pieces of legislation to produce a bill for the vote. Any legislation that passes the Senate will have to be reconciled with the House bill. “Amnesty is off the table,” Mr. Cornyn has said repeatedly. But Republican hard-liners here and on the Judiciary Committee scoff at efforts to distinguish temporary worker plans from Mr. McCain‟s more liberal proposal. Many fear participants in such a program will simply vanish when it is time for them to go home. “You say it‟s not amnesty, but it is,” Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said of temporary worker proposals. “If it looks, acts and smells like amnesty, then in my eyes, it is amnesty.” The issue is so politically explosive, particularly with Congressional elections looming, that some Republicans on the Judiciary Committee avoid discussing it. Senators Mike DeWine of Ohio and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, who have favored immigrant rights in the past, both declined interviews to discuss their positions publicly. Both are up for re-election this year. And Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who supports legalizing illegal immigrants, warned fellow Republicans that they could expect little more than criticism for their labors. “A lot of people, particularly on our side, don‟t want to have a debate about this,” Mr. Graham said. “Even if you debate it, you‟re wrong. Even if you‟re open-minded about compromise, you‟re wrong.” Mr. Cornyn, however, has thrown himself into the fray with enthusiasm. He recently entered into negotiations with Mr. Kennedy in an effort to build some consensus on a temporary worker program. He appears regularly on conservative talk radio and meets with a host of competing constituencies like conservative leaders, business executives and Hispanic lawyers. Members of his staff have also been in regular contact with the White House. “Coming from a red state, one that has a large Hispanic population and one that‟s a border state, makes it easier to bridge those divisions among Republicans and find common ground with some Democrats,” said Mr. Cornyn, who has close ties to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush‟s senior adviser. His efforts were welcomed at a luncheon at the InterContinental Hotel here, where business leaders gave him a standing ovation. But even some of those executives said they were optimistic that his position might shift a bit. That was not the view of a group of about 25 conservative voters protesting recently outside of Mr. Cornyn‟s office. Leslie Wetzel, who organized the protest, dismissed Mr. Cornyn‟s balancing act as more “mixed messages.” “He professes to be a conservative, but like so many other Republicans he‟s not a true conservative,” Mrs. Wetzel said. “They say, „Oh, it‟s not amnesty; it‟s guest worker.‟ Well, I don‟t care what kind of spin you put on it. It‟s rewarding people for breaking the law.” With conservatives turning up the heat, Mr. Cornyn issued a flurry of press releases, emphasizing again that he opposed amnesty. Some Congressional staffers in Washington said they feared he was backing away from a compromise with Mr. Kennedy. But business leaders said they were still hopeful. “There‟s a lot of pressure on him,” said Laura Reiff, a co-chairwoman of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, which represents hotels, restaurants, construction companies and other service industries. “He‟s put in a position now of really having to soul search and figure out where he‟s going to be.”
Page 9 of 15
Boehner Likely to Be Receptive To Free Market Arguments on Telecom Bill Unsigned White House Bulletin March 20, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton has run into some Republican opposition to his effort to craft a bipartisan telecom reform bill, both on and off the Hill. Industry sources indicate Barton is meeting with Committee Members to try and find a compromise that produces successful legislation, but previous positions taken by the new House Majority Leader, John Boehner, signal a preference for a “free market” approach to the Internet. The American Conservative Union is drafting a letter to Boehner, critical of the Barton legislation, which says among other things, “Do Republicans want to leave the legacy as the ones who began the regulation and eventual demise of the Internet?” A House GOP source tells the Bulletin that Boehner likely “will welcome this letter.” Noting that late last week Boehner unveiled a near-term agenda that includes an Internet tax moratorium and the Online Freedom of Speech Act, the GOP source said Boehner has and will continue to resist efforts to tax or regulate the Internet. While supporters and opponents of Barton‟s legislation argue they are both promoting free market solutions, the “net neutrality” provisions in the Barton legislation are coming under fire from a number of conservative quarters for potentially initiating an era of Internet regulation.
Page 10 of 15
Harbinger in Ohio? By George F. Will Washington Post March 26, 2006 CLEVELAND— In the central Ohio town of London, an independent pharmacy was absorbed by a national chain because, says Rep. Sherrod Brown, the pharmacy could not afford the staff needed to decipher for customers the new prescription drug entitlement that Brown voted against because the Bush administration “let the drug companies write it.” Brown, whose district is in the western portion of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton metropolitan area, where nearly one-third of Ohio voters live, voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, against the Bush tax cuts, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and against school choice for 2,700 District of Columbia children. If Democrats are to recapture the Senate this year, Brown probably must defeat Sen. Mike DeWine in the state that secured President Bush‟s reelection when, late on election night, it turned red. Brown, a political lifer, was elected to the state legislature a year after graduating from Yale University. He ran statewide at age 29, becoming secretary of state, and has been elected to the U.S. House seven times. DeWine, after four terms in the House, won a Senate seat in a Republican‟s dream year, 1994. But now fate has dealt him a ghastly hand. Senators seeking a third term have 12 years of Senate votes to justify to voters. DeWine is seeking a third term in an inhospitable environment—the middle of the second term of an incumbent president of his own party. That is when the electorate often experiences “the six-year itch,” the desire to reshuffle the political deck. A recent national generic poll—do voters generally prefer to vote for a Democrat or Republican for Congress? -- found a staggering 16-point advantage for the Democrats. The redistricting done for incumbent-protection after the 2000 Census may have made the House almost impervious to the itch—nationally, at most 35 of 435 House races are currently considered competitive—so voters may vent their restlessness in Senate elections. And “restless” hardly describes Ohio‟s dyspeptic mood regarding its Republicans, who hold all statewide offices. Scandals and tax increases drove Gov. Bob Taft‟s approval rating in one poll to six . He has bounced all the way back to 16. Richard Nixon‟s job approval rating was 24 on the eve of his resignation. Republicans, who revere markets, should fear that the political market is working in some states, that Democrats are adapting to market signals. In Pennsylvania, the Democrats‟ likely Senate candidate, Bob Casey, is pro-life, and has a 10-point lead over Sen. Rick Santorum, who is seeking a third term. Brown, whose career voting record is, according to the American Conservative Union, more liberal than another Cleveland area congressman, Dennis Kucinich, makes scant concession to conservatism, cultural or economic. He opposes bans on same-sex marriage (DeWine also opposed the ban that Ohio voters overwhelmingly passed in 2004), human cloning and partial-birth abortion. But he does favor a line-item veto and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget. That amendment, which would constitutionalize fiscal policy, is a terrible idea but a convenient gesture by Brown, who knows it is going nowhere. Besides, in 1992 his district was one of the nation‟s strongest for Ross Perot, giving him 27 percent. Brown is a harbinger of a momentous, and ominous, aspect of the 2008 presidential election: For the first time in living memory, one of the major parties—Brown‟s—will be essentially hostile to free trade, the foundation of today‟s prosperity. The Democratic Party‟s protectionism operates under the dissimulating label of “fair trade.” A serious student of trade policy, Brown notes that the trade deficit for all of 1992 was $39 billion, but was $724 billion last year and $68 billion just for January 2006. He wants U.S. trade policy to force “stronger labor and environmental standards” in less-developed nations. He says the point is to “bring up their living standards.” Oh, please. The primary point is to reduce the competitive advantages of nations with lower labor costs and lighter environmental regulations—nations that many Ohioans believe have caused their state to lose 222,800 manufacturing jobs in the past 10 years. DeWine, one of only four senators who supported John McCain in 2000, is a moderate conservative with an independent streak—for example, he has repeatedly voted against drilling in the Alaskan refuge. This may be enough to annoy some conservatives without being sufficient to distance him from the state Republican shambles. We shall find out late on election night, when, as usual, the nation will be watching Ohio.
Page 11 of 15
The Blunder of 1968 By William A. Rusher American Spectator April 2006 The landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 appeared, at first, to put an end to the conservative movement‟s dream of becoming a major force in American politics. The Republican Party, it was widely assumed, would revert to control by its long-dominant and relatively liberal Eastern Establishment, now led by New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, and America‟s future would resume being disputed between this version of the GOP and a Democratic Party well to its left. But signs were not long in coming that this vision of the future might be contested. The conservative movement, though bloodied, seemed remarkably unbowed. The Goldwater candidacy had energized many thousands of Americans who had not previously considered participation in the country‟s politics worth their time. In the Republican primaries, and at the convention in San Francisco, they had learned how political wars are conducted in America, and they showed no sign of being tired of the process. In many states the battle for Goldwater had given them control of the party machinery at district, county, and even state levels, and they were in no mood to relinquish it. Most important of all, just two years after the disaster of 1964 an outspokenly conservative and highly attractive newcomer to politics, Ronald Reagan, defeated the re-election bid of incumbent Democratic governor Pat Brown by a million votes in America‟s largest state, and at once replaced Barry Goldwater as conservatism‟s premier national spokesman. Nonetheless, the Republican candidate for president in 1968 seemed likely to be Richard Nixon. As Dwight Eisenhower‟s vice president, Nixon had claimed the nomination in 1960, but was narrowly defeated by John Kennedy. Seeking to re-establish himself, he had run for governor of California in 1962, only to lose to the Democrat, Brown. Snarling to reporters that “You won‟t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” Nixon had then seemed to end his political career, moving to New York and commencing a lucrative practice as a Wall Street lawyer. But the presidential bug is a durable one, and Nixon drew from his 1962 loss to Brown and Goldwater‟s 1964 thrashing by Johnson a lesson he later confided to a friend: “A Republican can‟t win without the conservatives, but he can‟t win with the conservatives alone.” With the encouragement of Goldwater, who in January 1965 openly endorsed him for the 1968 nomination, Nixon resumed his battle for the presidency. His strategy was to be conservative enough to win the support of Republican conservatives, but to seek support from centrists and moderate liberals—in and out of the party—as well. Meanwhile the pressures began to mount on Reagan to run for the nomination in 1968 against Nixon as an unabashed conservative. Reagan thoroughly understood the case for doing so, but was unsure that voters would consider two years in the governorship of California a sufficient presidential qualification for a man who had spent his entire life theretofore in motion pictures. Moreover, unlike New Yorkers, Californians were not used to having their governor automatically regarded as a presidential possibility, and might not welcome the necessary frequent absences from Sacramento that a presidential campaign would require. STILL, THE DOOR seemed worth keeping open. At the Bohemian Grove in the summer of 1967 Barry Goldwater tried to close it, conferring with Reagan and urging him not to run. He seemed to think he had succeeded, eliciting a promise that Reagan would not run “unless Nixon stumbled”; but Reagan confidants disagreed. In any case, in Connecticut that fall, where Reagan was spending several days as a guest and speaker at Yale, the governor met confidentially with F. Clifton White, the master political tactician who had engineered the draft and nomination of Goldwater in 1964. Reagan authorized White to make quiet contact with political leaders in various states around the country, just in case a candidacy began to seem inviting. To cooperate with White (who was based in New York), Tom Reed, the Republican national committeeman for California, moved into an anonymous office at 47 Kearny Street in San Francisco. Together, the two politicos began putting together the framework of a (still hypothetical) Reagan campaign. (The media were sure such an operation was under way, and all but tore Sacramento apart trying to discover its location, but overlooked San Francisco and New York.) All of this was, however, unknown to the great majority of conservative Republican convention delegates who would cheerfully have supported Reagan over Nixon if they had thought he was running. Not surprisingly, therefore, many of them succumbed to the importunities of the Nixon forces. They would,
Page 12 of 15
most of them agreed, at least vote for Nixon on the first ballot. That seemed, very likely, to be all it would take. But the month of March 1968 produced two surprises that radically altered the picture. On March 16 Attorney General Robert Kennedy entered the race for the Democratic nomination, and on March 31 President Johnson announced he would not run for re-election. Reagan, who thought Kennedy would win the nomination and sincerely believed his election would be a disaster, promptly changed his mind about his own course. Hitherto he had been California‟s purely nominal “favorite son.” Now, abandoning that fiction in all but name, he hit the road, openly seeking delegates. And on August 5, as his plane landed in Miami shortly before the convention opened, he officially declared his candidacy for the nomination. This presented conservative delegates, who dominated the convention, with a serious dilemma. Many were bound by earlier commitments to vote for Nixon on the first ballot. And many others were members of delegations bound by the unit rule, under which a pro-Nixon majority could deliver the votes of the pro-Reagan minority to Nixon. Last but far from least, Barry Goldwater (temporarily out of the Senate but still deeply influential among the conservatives there) had worked hard and effectively for Nixon. Most important of all, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina became convinced that Nixon was “conservative enough,” and Thurmond was supporting Nixon with all his might. Thurmond was especially influential in the South, where much of Reagan‟s strength would normally be found. The battle was close, and hard fought. (In fairness it must be added that New York governor Nelson Rockefeller was also in Miami Beach, and regarded himself as a candidate. But he never commanded a serious fraction of the support that was evident for Nixon and Reagan, and played only a minor role in events.) The conservative organizations on hand were as divided in their counsels as the delegates. The Washington tabloid Human Events had endorsed Nixon. The board of directors of Young Americans for Freedom voted 19 to 2 to support Reagan. National Review and the American Conservative Union were both internally divided on the question, and equivocated. Prominent individual conservatives could be found in both camps. White, the mastermind of the Goldwater draft and nomination, was now ensconced in the Deauville Hotel, directing the Reagan operation. But Peter O‟Donnell, the rangy Texan who had served as national chairman of the Draft Goldwater Committee, was sporting a saucer-sized Nixon pin. And so it went. EVENTUALLY IT BECAME CLEAR that a Reagan victory depended on holding Nixon below an absolute majority on the first ballot. On a second, his support would collapse, as all those conservatives who had prematurely agreed to vote for him on the first ballot were liberated to vote for their real preference. At last the battle came down to a tense struggle for the 34-member Florida delegation. It was under a unit rule, and Republican state chairman Bill Murfin had thus far managed to hold it for Nixon. But White had 14 or 15 solid votes in the delegation, plus hints of possible support from several others. At last the tension became too great for Murfin, and he wept briefly. It thereupon turned out that several female members of the delegation couldn‟t bear to see a man cry. The delegation voted narrowly for Nixon, and under the unit rule all 34 of its votes went to him. And there went the hope of keeping Nixon below 50 percent on the first ballot. Even so, as three British reporters covering the convention later noted in a book on the subject, Nixon‟s margin was “almost insultingly small.” But Nixon was now the Republican nominee, and in November, in another close race (Nixon 43.4 percent, Hubert Humphrey 42.7 percent, and George Wallace 13.5 percent), he at last became president of the United States. One should not be too hard on certain of the conservatives who gave the Republican nomination to Nixon in 1968. Those are the ones who, as noted, had committed themselves to support Nixon when Reagan was still deciding whether to run. But Nixon, with the help of Pat Buchanan, whom he had hired as his conservative contact, did an effective job of convincing many more that, however attractive the untried Reagan might be, Nixon was conservative enough. After all, it was even conceivable that Reagan, if nominated, might lose in November—though George Wallace, who persuaded many voters that there wasn‟t “a dime‟s worth of difference” between Nixon and Humphrey, would not have dared to make that argument against Reagan, and would probably have decided against running at all. It is impossible, in any case, not to realize what the Nixon conservatives condemned America to when they made their fateful choice. In 1968 Reagan was only 57, in the prime of his life. There would have been no wage and price controls, no SALT I, no humble pilgrimage to Beijing, no Watergate, no threat of impeachment, no presidential resignation. And certainly the New York Times would not have had
Page 13 of 15
occasion to exult editorially, as it did in February 1972 (referring to Nixon), that “Seldom in Western politics... has a national leader so completely turned his back on a lifetime of beliefs to adopt those of his political opponents.” Moreover, the consequences of supporting Nixon extended far beyond the six years it took him to turn his presidency into a disaster. His imposition of wage and price controls triggered an economic slowdown that continued straight through the Ford and Carter administrations, ultimately resulting in the phenomenon of “stagflation,” which Reagan and Paul Volcker were only able to subdue at the cost of a recession in the early 1980s. His “opening to China,” which has been hailed by liberals ever since as a masterstroke of diplomacy, involved wholly unnecessary concessions to the Communist regime (notably in regard to Taiwan) which caused Bill Buckley, who had joined the press corps accompanying Nixon to Beijing, to mourn that “We have lost—irretrievably—any remaining sense of moral mission in the world.” Seven years later Jimmy Carter completed the transition Nixon had initiated, by “de-recognizing” Taiwan and opening formal diplomatic relations with the Chinese Communists. WITH THE SOVIET UNION, Nixon and Henry Kissinger—apparently convinced that it was unbeatable—diligently sought “dEtente,” whatever that meant, while the Brezhnev regime briskly advanced the cause of Communism all over the globe. Under the SALT I treaty, Nixon agreed to an increase of 40 percent (from 1,000 to 1,408) in Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles; from 44 to 62 in missilelaunching submarines; from 710 to 960 in submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and a threefold Soviet advantage in megatonnage of total missile payload—advantages that were not overcome until Ronald Reagan vastly increased defense spending ten years later. In Vietnam Nixon pursued, and at first seemed to have achieved in the Paris Accords, agreement with the North Vietnamese to settle for the status quo. But his successor Gerald Ford, facing a Democratic Congress that simply refused all further military aid to South Vietnam, helplessly watched as the North repudiated its agreement and overran the South, pushing the Communist-dominated sector of the globe even deeper into Southeast Asia. Such were the consequences of conservatives turning away, at the Republican convention of 1968, from the firmly principled conservatism of Ronald Reagan to the double-jointed opportunism of the candidate who was conservative “enough.” It would be two decades before America could feel that the damage—most of it—had been repaired. The blunder of 1968 wasn‟t the last time that conservative Republicans have failed to recognize their own strength and insist on solid adherence to conservative principles, but it was surely one of the most fateful, and it is essential that it be remembered. For as Santayana observed, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” William A. Rusher, the former publisher of National Review, is a distinguished fellow of the Claremont Institute.
Page 14 of 15
Bush “Gaffe” on Iraq Threatens Party Unity By Alex Massie Scotsman.com March 26, 2006 President George W Bush sent a message to Congressional Republicans last week: get lost. When the President told reporters that the decision to bring the last American troops home from Iraq would “be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq”, he widened the already yawning gap between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill. The President, with an eye on his legacy and the history books, implicitly made it clear that this year‟s mid-term elections are trivial compared with the prize of winning final victory in Iraq. A famous Washington aphorism holds that a politician commits a gaffe when he inadvertently blurts out the truth. By that standard, Bush gaffed last week. He suggested American troops would still be in Iraq in 2009 - a prospect that alarms Republicans already beleaguered by scandal and discontent among the grassroots. Democrats, by contrast, could scarcely credit their good fortune. Senate majority leader Harry Reid quickly pounced on what he termed the President‟s declaration of an “open-ended commitment” in Iraq. The prevailing Democrat view, increasingly shared by some Republicans who take what has been termed a “to hell with them” approach to Iraq‟s struggles, was expressed by California senator Diane Feinstein, who demanded Bush tell the Iraqis to “get their political house in order” so that the American troops could come home sooner rather than later. Democrats believe this message will resonate as they seek to take the 15 seats they need to regain control of the House of Representatives. “The question was: „Will there be zero [troops in Iraq]?‟” said Scott McClellan as the White House scrambled to avoid giving the impression that thousands of American GIs would still be in Iraq in three years‟ time. But Bush‟s admission encouraged Democrats and dismayed Republicans who are only too aware that much of America expects to see most of the troops home by Christmas 2006. Aside from pushing his proposals for immigration reform, Bush has all but abandoned his domestic agenda in recent weeks. Asked how he intended to use his remaining political capital, he replied: “I‟d say I‟m spending that capital on the war.” Congressional Republicans were already distancing themselves from the President; last week Bush reciprocated and the cracks in the Republican Party‟s unity became a lot harder to cover up. “I’ve been astounded by Bush in his relationship with Republicans in Congress,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. “In my lifetime, there has been no Republican president who has spent as much effort electing people of his own party to the Congress, or less time talking to them after they got there.” Republicans on Capitol Hill now routinely refer to the White House as “arrogant”, while the administration feels it has been let down by Congress on matters such as the ever-increasing federal budget and the doomed Dubai Ports World deal that would have seen the Dubai company operate terminals at six American ports but for Congressional opposition. And it is it not just Congressional Republicans who are unhappy. Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham warned that “if the base becomes any more wobbly or dispirited, then the President will not be able to escape the lame duck label. And last time I checked, lame ducks didn‟t have any pockets to hold their political capital.”
Page 15 of 15
Burns Tells GOP He Won't back Down By Jim Gransbery Billings Gazette (Billings, MT) March 26, 2006 U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., gave a podium-pounding speech Saturday night. And regardless of who challenges him in the upcoming elections, he‟s not backing away, especially from within the Republican Party. ”What this election is about is not the „swirl‟—or character assassination. That is not why we are running,” he said. “I am saddened by it because it tears down the body politic.” ”This election is about you and the values you stand for,” Burns said, speaking to about 250 Republicans who needed no converting to his cause and who treated an absent guest, state Sen. Bob Keenan, with stone silence. The “swirl” is the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal that has enmeshed Burns and several other senators and representatives of both parties. Burns had received just less than $150,000 from Abramoff, his associates and clients. The money has been returned. According to the Wall Street Journal, Burns and three other congressmen are under investigation by the Department of Justice. In an interview after his speech at the Lincoln/Reagan Day Dinner, Burns was emphatic. ”I‟ve never been asked about it by the Justice Department,” he said. “I am not going to do rumors. I‟ll do facts. ”I will continue to serve my state and country. I love my state. Broke no law. Did nothing wrong.” Burns is running for his fourth, six-year term in the U.S. Senate. He was first elected in 1988. He insisted that no one “was going to run me out of this race.” At the close of filing for office on Thursday, Burns had nine opponents from three parties wanting to do so. One of the last-minute opponents was state Sen. Bob Keenan, R-Bigfork, who is term-limited in the Montana Senate. A letter from Keenan, who is out of the country on vacation, was read to the gathering between speeches by Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., and Burns. Keenan wrote that he would be a viable candidate for the party in November and noted his service in the Montana Senate, where he dealt with a budget deficit and devised a balanced budget. He characterized his candidacy as a “fresh look” and himself as “someone in touch with the needs of the people.” There was no audible response. The evening was characterized as “Celebrating the Reagan Legacy.” The dining area at the Holiday Inn Grand Montana Trade Center was decorated with memorabilia of President Ronald Reagan and his time in office from 1981-89. A video montage was played. Marking the occasion, a guest speaker was a former Reagan associate, David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. In an interview before the program, Keene said, “Republicans forget what got them elected.” He noted that Reagan had warned that when Republicans become “them” (the government) “we’ve been there too long.” In his eight years as president, Reagan and the GOP represented the people against the government, Keene said. ”Now we are the governing party, and we spend the money,” he said. Keene said the 2008 presidential election will be the first open race in 50 years; there is no anointed successor or a vice president waiting to move up. He acknowledged that President Bush is losing the conservative base of the party, but he said he still believes Republicans can do well against the Democrats. ”The advantage the Republicans have is that the public has not reassessed its rejection of what Democrats stand for,” he said. “The Democrats are still for spending.” Keene said Republicans “had not done as good as promised” when it came to cutting spending or balancing the budget. Last week, Republicans were forced to raise the national debt limit to almost $9 trillion. The current federal debt is about $8.2 trillion. Congress has had to raise the limit four times, by $3 trillion, since President Bush took office in 2001.