В передаче из 1977 организаторы "New Right" Пол Вайрих и Ричард Вигери откровенно рассказывают о тактике использования массовых почтовых рассылок.
VIGUERIE: I`m very excited about the Panama Canal issue for a number of reasons. I feel the Panama Canal issue is a no-lose situation for conservatives. We of course expect to win on the floor of the Senate whenever the vote should be taken, but if by chance we were to lose it it would still be a great opportunity for us to organize this silent majority out there; the silent majority has not had issues to rally around and the conservatives have not had issues to go to the people. Issues that were, so to speak, pre-sold on the evening news, that were talked about on television, front page of the newspaper -- we`ve been lacking those issues, and the left has had their issues. And Jimmy Carter has given us this issue and I sort of have mixed feelings because I wish he wouldn`t give us any issues in one sense, but then I`m afraid he`s going to give us some issues that are going to help organize the conservatives in the next few years. It`s just a fact of life that the liberals are the dominant force in most all forms of mass communication in the country -- radio, television, newspapers, magazines -- except one: direct mail. And lately the conservatives have developed direct mail to be our method of communicating with the American people. So that if the evening news or the front page of the newspapers fail to talk about common situs being an important issue or public financing of Congressional elections, the conservatives have developed a way to communicate, to bypass the monopoly that the left has on the media. So with direct mail we can go directly to our majority out there, explain the problem to them, tell them how bad it is, communicate with their Congressmen and Senators. The Panama Canal issue will be very, very helpful in expanding and helping the conservative movement to grow. We will be able to identify many hundreds of thousands of people that were part of the silent majority but were not involved in conservative politics before; will now be involved in conservative politics, will appear on mailing lists, will come to rallies, they will attend meetings and they will start subscribing to political publications -- they will become part of the conservative political process as a result of the Panama Canal issue, where they were never involved before. So it`ll be a great recruiting vehicle for conservatives, without question. LEHRER: Mr. Weyrich, are you as happy as Mr. Viguerie is over the coming of the Panama Canal treaty? PAUL WEYRICH: Oh, I think it`s a great opportunity for conservatives, particularly to get to the blue-collar vote. You will notice in all the surveys that the blue-collar voter is much more strongly opposed to the giveaway than other groups. LEHRER: Do you see it also as a no-lose deal? WEYRICH: Yes, I don`t see how we can lose. Of course, we`re interested from the standpoint of this country, but politically speaking I would be less than candid with you if I suggested that this isn`t a great opportunity for conservatives to elect people. If a Senator opposes the treaty, fine. If he`s going to be up for election and he`s going to favor ratification of the treaty, I think it`s going to be a major factor in his election. <...> LEHRER: And you`re focusing on particular Senators who are considered wavering or considered undecided or considered key. For instance, Senator Howard Baker, the minority leader -- you-all are really putting the heat on in Tennessee, are you not? WEYRICH: Oh, I think there are two good reasons for Senator Baker voting against the treaty. The first is the fact that he`s up for election in 1978 and the second is that he`s looking at the 1980 Presidential nomination. https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_507-c824b2xw7p
Говард Бейкер из Теннесси без труда переизбрался в 1978, а в 1980 стал лидером сенатского большинства. Но голосование в поддержку договора с Панамой стоила ему номинации в президенты и вице-президенты.
Mr. Baker was Senate minority leader in 1977 when President Jimmy Carter asked him to support the treaties turning over the Panama Canal to Panama. One issue he weighed was the effect on his chances of winning the Republican nomination for president in 1980. Aides such as James Cannon told him that backing the treaties would mean that the Republican Party would never nominate him. Both Mr. Baker and Mr. Cannon told me that the senator snapped, “So be it.” He backed the treaties and got other Republicans to join him. The Senate approved them in 1978. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/opinion/howard-baker-who-put-the-nation-ahead-of-himself.html
Baker aspired big. He didn’t make a secret of that. He hoped that President Gerald Ford would pick him for his running mate in 1976. And Ford might’ve. Baker seemed to have the inside track to land on the ticket. But when he revealed that his wife, Joy, was a recovered alcoholic, the tables turned. Ford instead chose Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas as his running mate. That might have been to Ford’s detriment. Baker was the man of compromise, the conciliator who was admired on both sides of the political landscape. Dole, by contrast, was much more of a conservative firebrand. Ford ultimately lost that election to Georgian Jimmy Carter. Four years later, Baker made a run for the presidency, finishing third in the New Hampshire Republican primary behind Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Although he was polling second among the GOP candidates, it was clear that Reagan would win the nomination, and Baker withdrew from the race fairly early. Baker then campaigned to be Reagan’s running mate. But Reagan chose Bush, instead. As it turned out, the very characteristics that made Baker a household name in American politics were the ones that prevented him from being vice president and, perhaps, president. As is the case in most walks of life, standing on principle can sometimes prove costly in politics. Baker learned the hard way. His middle-of-the-road stance angered some conservatives. Not only had he supported civil rights legislation and the Equal Rights Amendment, but he had supported the treaty ceding the Panama Canal to Panama. That left some right-wing members of the party incensed. So, when it came time for Reagan to choose a running mate, conservative Republicans blocked Baker. http://www.ihoneida.com/2021/01/26/howard-baker-would-be-an-outcast-in-todays-washington/
В 1987 Бейкер согласился занять пост руководителя администрации Рейгана и тем самым отказался от выставления своей кандидатуры на выборах 1988. В качестве руководителя администрации он сыграл центральную роль в назначении Энтони Кеннеди в Верховный суд.
VIGUERIE: I`m very excited about the Panama Canal issue for a number of reasons. I feel the Panama Canal issue is a no-lose situation for conservatives. We of course expect to win on the floor of the Senate whenever the vote should be taken, but if by chance we were to lose it it would still be a great opportunity for us to organize this silent majority out there; the silent majority has not had issues to rally around and the conservatives have not had issues to go to the people. Issues that were, so to speak, pre-sold on the evening news, that were talked about on television, front page of the newspaper -- we`ve been lacking those issues, and the left has had their issues. And Jimmy Carter has given us this issue and I sort of have mixed feelings because I wish he wouldn`t give us any issues in one sense, but then I`m afraid he`s going to give us some issues that are going to help organize the conservatives in the next few years.
It`s just a fact of life that the liberals are the dominant force in most all forms of mass communication in the country -- radio, television, newspapers, magazines -- except one: direct mail. And lately the conservatives have developed direct mail to be our method of communicating with the American people. So that if the evening news or the front page of the newspapers fail to talk about common situs being an important issue or public financing of Congressional elections, the conservatives have developed a way to communicate, to bypass the monopoly that the left has on the media. So with direct mail we can go directly to our majority out there, explain the problem to them, tell them how bad it is, communicate with their Congressmen and Senators.
The Panama Canal issue will be very, very helpful in expanding and helping the conservative movement to grow. We will be able to identify many hundreds of thousands of people that were part of the silent majority but were not involved in conservative politics before; will now be involved in conservative politics, will appear on mailing lists, will come to rallies, they will attend meetings and they will start subscribing to political publications -- they will become part of the conservative political process as a result of the Panama Canal issue, where they were never involved before. So it`ll be a great recruiting vehicle for conservatives, without question.
LEHRER: Mr. Weyrich, are you as happy as Mr. Viguerie is over the coming of the Panama Canal treaty?
PAUL WEYRICH: Oh, I think it`s a great opportunity for conservatives, particularly to get to the blue-collar vote. You will notice in all the surveys that the blue-collar voter is much more strongly opposed to the giveaway than other groups.
LEHRER: Do you see it also as a no-lose deal?
WEYRICH: Yes, I don`t see how we can lose. Of course, we`re interested from the standpoint of this country, but politically speaking I would be less than candid with you if I suggested that this isn`t a great opportunity for conservatives to elect people. If a Senator opposes the treaty, fine. If he`s going to be up for election and he`s going to favor ratification of the treaty, I think it`s going to be a major factor in his election. <...>
LEHRER: And you`re focusing on particular Senators who are considered wavering or considered undecided or considered key. For instance, Senator Howard Baker, the minority leader -- you-all are really putting the heat on in Tennessee, are you not?
WEYRICH: Oh, I think there are two good reasons for Senator Baker voting against the treaty. The first is the fact that he`s up for election in 1978 and the second is that he`s looking at the 1980 Presidential nomination.
https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_507-c824b2xw7p
Reply
Mr. Baker was Senate minority leader in 1977 when President Jimmy Carter asked him to support the treaties turning over the Panama Canal to Panama. One issue he weighed was the effect on his chances of winning the Republican nomination for president in 1980.
Aides such as James Cannon told him that backing the treaties would mean that the Republican Party would never nominate him. Both Mr. Baker and Mr. Cannon told me that the senator snapped, “So be it.” He backed the treaties and got other Republicans to join him. The Senate approved them in 1978.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/opinion/howard-baker-who-put-the-nation-ahead-of-himself.html
Baker aspired big. He didn’t make a secret of that. He hoped that President Gerald Ford would pick him for his running mate in 1976. And Ford might’ve. Baker seemed to have the inside track to land on the ticket. But when he revealed that his wife, Joy, was a recovered alcoholic, the tables turned. Ford instead chose Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas as his running mate.
That might have been to Ford’s detriment. Baker was the man of compromise, the conciliator who was admired on both sides of the political landscape. Dole, by contrast, was much more of a conservative firebrand. Ford ultimately lost that election to Georgian Jimmy Carter.
Four years later, Baker made a run for the presidency, finishing third in the New Hampshire Republican primary behind Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Although he was polling second among the GOP candidates, it was clear that Reagan would win the nomination, and Baker withdrew from the race fairly early.
Baker then campaigned to be Reagan’s running mate. But Reagan chose Bush, instead.
As it turned out, the very characteristics that made Baker a household name in American politics were the ones that prevented him from being vice president and, perhaps, president. As is the case in most walks of life, standing on principle can sometimes prove costly in politics. Baker learned the hard way. His middle-of-the-road stance angered some conservatives. Not only had he supported civil rights legislation and the Equal Rights Amendment, but he had supported the treaty ceding the Panama Canal to Panama. That left some right-wing members of the party incensed. So, when it came time for Reagan to choose a running mate, conservative Republicans blocked Baker.
http://www.ihoneida.com/2021/01/26/howard-baker-would-be-an-outcast-in-todays-washington/
В 1987 Бейкер согласился занять пост руководителя администрации Рейгана и тем самым отказался от выставления своей кандидатуры на выборах 1988. В качестве руководителя администрации он сыграл центральную роль в назначении Энтони Кеннеди в Верховный суд.
Reply
Leave a comment