The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Stay the course to win one for the Gipper

Washington: At the risk of being erroneously labeled a “Libertarian” (capital “L”) or even a “libertarian” (small “l”), let’s get this out of the way: Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul. Indeed he did officially if not embarrassingly win the recent CPAC presidential preference poll (what “winners” get booed?”). The only thing that could have been worse would have been Sen. John McCain winning: ugh.

If Richard Nixon proved there are second acts in politics (more Americans voted for Richard Milhous Nixon for either president or vice president than any other candidate in history), perennial candidates like McCain, Paul, even Al Gore, eventually join Harold Stassen as political jokes.

If Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn is the United States Senate’s “Dr. No,” Rep. Paul has been doing his residency as “Dr. No” in “the other body” for some time now: God Bless both of them for doing so.

But even Paul, who ran unsuccessfully as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, now needs the Republican Party as a vehicle to achieve whatever his agenda is these days.

Oh, how we hear so many of what Mark Levin refers to as “the back-benchers” of the Republican Party chanting that George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent too much money, that they long for a candidate like Ronald Reagan, want the nation to return to what the Founding Fathers intended, and wish the Chicago Cubs would win the next World Series.

Yes, as vice president, Bush was, next to Dick Cheney, one of the best we’ve ever had: as POTUS, he left a lot to be desired and as a presidential candidate up for re-election he was a disaster (we staffers called Bush/Quayle 1992 The Titanic Campaign). His most brilliant moment of clarity was when he asked his huddled advisors if he was the only one who thought he could still win. Dittos for former governor and heir apparent George W. Bush: two squeakers do not a mandate make. As Sen. John Kerry supposedly so aptly quipped, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.

Another candidate I worked for, Sen. Bob Dole, could have said the same while losing to Clinton: Dole does not quite join the Harold Stassen Gang, but he was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. While a most decent guy, his campaign could have been the sequel, Return of The Titanic Campaign.

So in a way, the Republican Party has not really had a presidential candidate of Reagan’s equal since he ran: the party has also not had as well run a presidential campaign as Reagan had in both 1980 and 1984. Republicans looking for a repeat of this perfect storm are delusional: there will never be another Ronald Reagan as God broke the mold.

Whether the Republican Party is going to be made up of “Tea Party” participants, “Reagan Republicans,” RINO Republicans, or Sino Republicans makes no difference: it will take all of that and then some just to remain competitive with the inept but always dangerous majority Democrats.

You betcha that Sarah Palin was wise to sit out CPAC: She didn’t have to bear the shame of losing the straw poll to Paul by having been there in person and she remains a desirable mystery to many within the conservative movement. But in my view, Palin, having endured one presidential campaign as the party’s vice presidential candidate, is not only the one to beat, she has in many ways, earned the right to be the heir apparent to the 2012 nomination.

May I also suggest that a perfect Republican power duo in 2012 would be Sarah Palin for President and Michele Bachmann for vice president (Bachmann did attend CPAC as well as Tea Party gatherings). Oafs like Keith Olbermann, Eugene Robinson and Robert MMM will deem them “Dumb and Dumber” at the risk of offending all women, the Democrats most fear Palin anyway, and they are both easy on the eyes.

And just forget about the good doctor, bad politician, Ron Paul: just say “no.”

Nicholas Thimmesch II is a long-time media and communications consultant to numerous campaigns, government representatives and public policy organizations, serving in the Reagan White House as a staff writer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Knoell/100000734463712 Christian Knoell

    I like this article. The only thing is I truly do not believe that the democrats are afraid of Sarah Palin. I think it would be a wet dream for them is she ran as president. If it was announced today that she was running I dont think Obama would even have to worry about campaigning. Many people I have talked to, and from the many news shows I have watched or books I have read, seem to agree that once McCain chose Palin as VP, he sealed his fate

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jay-Morrae/100000797495888 Jay Morrae

      Ronald Reagan wanted a newly energized GOP, with a firm footing on the Constitution – not one controled by those who are no better than the fascists of “political correctness” and divide the party by excluding those who might not stand toe-to-toe with them on every social agenda, whom they call “Republicans In Name Only” [RINOs]

      We will never “win one for the Gipper” with the same leadership that gave us the failed campaigns of Geo HW Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain. We will never “win one for the Gipper” if we allow the party to be run by those with a social conservative agenda first and foremost, who claim to be “Reagan Republicans,” but have re-written Reagan’s presidential biography to suit them. (Why must they take tactical lessons from the liberal elite of the ACLU.)

      The Reagan I supported and sent my first-ever political contribution to, when he ran for governor of California in 1966, and I was a 16-year-old lawn mower in southern Ohio, was bound by a solid adherrance to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, who never saw our federal gov’t legislating on social issues. It was not their realm. Social issues, they wisely saw, were to be the responsibility of the several states, the local communities and THE INDIVIDUAL!

      Reagan, first and foremost was for limited gov’t, for limited taxation, for limited spending and for a strong national defense. Those were things “We, the People” could not do for ourselves.

      Yes, he was, like I am and most Americans would be, opposed to the irresponsibility of abortion, but knew, during his time in office, the times were not such to successfully reform the entire social legislation that crept into Washington from the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s.

      If we can, like Ronald Reagan dreamed of, build the party plaform firmly upon the philosophy of the Founding Fathers … amend the Constitution not to define marriage, but to bar the federal gov’t from social legislation and repeal such acts of Congress where it has overstepped its bounds since the 1910s … return those rights and responsibilities to the states, local gov’ts and the individual … we would see the Republic Ben Franklin and his contemporaries gave us restored to us and saved!

      kruzinjim@gmail.com

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kian-Mead/100000454748695 Kian Mead

        What cognitive dissidence, arguing for individual freedoms, then saying that abortion is not an individual choice.

        Please, freedom means freedom for everyone (gays, ethnic minorities and transsexuals), rather than freedom for who you deem it is acceptable for.

        After all, Reagan was the one to incorporate the religious right into the republicans (for electability) , even though he was dismissive or even hostile to their agenda.