Rendezvous with Destiny
Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America by Craig Shirley, is a new book that was published in October. Shirley is also the author of Reagan’s Revolution, which covered Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign. Rendezvous with Destiny begins in August of 1976, after the Republican National Convention. Although I haven’t read the book, I was intrigued by a post by Robert Stacy McCain who calls it Best. Reagan. Book. Evah! I want to share some of the reviews and a portion of an interview with Shirley, because it is obvious that Reagan offers encouragement in this, our winter of discontent.
Jason Emerson at The American Spectator in Their Finest Hour:
The landslide outcome of the 1980 presidential election now seems a foregone conclusion. With double-digit inflation and interest rates, high taxes, a loss of international prestige, and the indignity of American hostages in Iran, President Jimmy Carter’s loss to former California governor Ronald Reagan seems inevitable. The electoral blowout of 489-49 and the popular victory by almost 9 million votes seems as unsurprising in retrospect as Franklin Roosevelt’s fourth term. But as Craig Shirley shows in his new book, Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America, Reagan’s path to the White House — from the Republican primaries to the general election — was anything but a smooth journey, and nearly ended in failure.
In truth, Reagan’s 1980 victory began with his 1976 sliver-thin loss to then president Gerald R. Ford in the Republican primaries. Reagan’s convention speech that year galvanized the Republican Party — and made many wonder if they had chosen the wrong candidate. Reagan spent the four years from 1976 to 1980 speaking and writing about conservative causes and ideals, and campaigning for GOP candidates across the country. He entered the 1980 Republican primary as the clear front-runner, but by no means the only candidate. It became a race not just for the leading of America, but for the soul of the Republican Party. It was a contest between men of vastly different political ideologies: liberal Republicans such as John Anderson, moderate, country club Republicans like George H. W. Bush, and conservatives such as Ronald Reagan.
National Review lists several bullet points under their heading: Reagan’s road to the White House; here’s one:
In these unhappy days of the Obama Era, here is a bracing reminder for conservatives of what one man with patriotic vision can accomplish.
Reagan’s road to the White House:
How Reagan prevailed even when the liberal media made first George H. W. Bush and then John Anderson their preferred Republican nominee
James Pinkerton of FOX News in Reagan Still Points the Way for Republicans:
The “hot news” from Shirley’s book is that he settles the issue of where “debategate” came from. That was the tempest-in-a-teapot chain of events, not revealed until 1983, through which the Reagan campaign got its hands on a copy of the briefing books used by President Jimmy Carter as he prepared to meet his Republican challenger. That wayward debate book was never seen by Reagan, but then-Republican Congressman David Stockman, who played Carter during the debate prep, did make use of it. Such things happen all the time in politics, but when a Republican is the beneficiary, well, it’s time for a Congressional investigation. And that’s exactly what happened. No criminality was demonstrated, nobody was convicted or even indicted. But for a while, back in ’83, “debategate” was quite the Beltway kerfluffle. Now, 26 years later, for all practical purposes, Shirley confirms what many had long suspected: The debate-book filcher was one Paul Corbin, a veteran Democratic operative and Kennedy family loyalist, who turned on Carter after the Georgian defeated Teddy Kennedy in the ’80 Democratic presidential primaries.
Emily Goodin interviews Craig Shirley for The Hill in A rendezvous with Reagan:
Q: Was there anything you learned in your research for the book that surprised you?
Yes. How much the Republican Party establishment despised Ronald Reagan and really set out to destroy his candidacy….Q: What can we as readers learn from a pre-Internet campaign in this age of social media?
It was a whole different world back then….there are certain things that never change, and that is a commitment to the Constitution, a commitment to individual freedom and personal privacy, and that the individual is more important….Q: There’s been a lot of talk about infighting in the Republican Party. What’s your take on the 2010 elections?
The conservatives will win the fight.
Pinkerton concludes:
Having documented what happened in that watershed year, Shirley reminds us: We did it before–combining conservatives, libertarians, and independents, all inside a big Republican tent–and we can do it again.
__________
H/T: The American Spectator, Wikipedia, The Other McCain, National Review, FOX News, The Hill.
[1]
THAT IS ONE GREAT PIC!
[2]
“Q: Was there anything you learned in your research for the book that surprised you?
Yes. How much the Republican Party establishment despised Ronald Reagan and really set out to destroy his candidacy….”
PALIN POWER!!!!
[3]
That was the biggest line in the post, to me too, Eph…
GHWB: something-d-o-o economics?
[4]
yahoo-
I must admit the threads at BJG have been outstanding lately.
[5]
There are definitely some parallels. That phrase hit me as well as the one about the liberal media’s preferred nominees!
[6]
Onward the army marches.
[7]
We are a rockin’ crew, no doubt.
[8]
thx, Eph Rove, we do have some awesome posters and commenters (and lurkers!
)
and we’re gonna need ‘em ALL in 2010…trust me
[9]
and p.s., God yes that is an amazing photo!
Sarah Palin should remind herself EVERY NIGHT that Ronald Reagan was assailed from every quarter…relentlessly…until and after he became President!
If Carter had been re-elected the USSR would still be in full swing! Instead, Obama is trying to turn US into the Soviet Union!
[10]
“THAT IS ONE GREAT PIC!”
Of course Eph – it’s the Michigan delegation. Michigan was the home of Reagan Democrats. The Gipper carried the state twice.
[11]
Imagine how different our nation’s history have been if the bottom name on the signs belonged to someone else.
[12]
Glad you like the photo. I thought it was kind of great myself!
You might want to remember that the 1980 campaign slogan was:
Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?
Make America Great Again
[13]
bc, I think Bush was about the only choice he had. I think Ford had said he would be Veep if Reagan agreed to a co-presidency. No way that would have happened.
[14]
Bush’s VP spot was the concession to bring on the liberal wing of the R party. Also, Anderson ran as 4rd party spoiler, so intent was he on stopping Reagan.
And now, after 3 Bush administrations, the R party is truly wrecked. Only the communists can arouse what is left of us.
[15]
One thing at least is for sure, we won’t have to worry about Jeb running and screwing up the R party even more.
Remember his “listening tour” or whatever it was with Jindal? lol….
[16]
You know, the one where Jeb said we have to embrace amnesty and forget Reagan.
Yeah, now Jeb is working with Dems on amnesty legislation. Pretty much a complete copy of the 2007 bill that was such a lie and went down to a deserved defeat.
Obama intends to bring the issue up in 2010 to divide the R party before the elections, and he knows he will get Rs voting for amnesty, especially in the Senate, unlike on health care and cap/trade…..
[17]
Amnesty had huge opposition–over 70%. It’s hard to believe the Dems would touch that next year.
[18]
The listening tour got off to a bad start at a pizza place in the DC suburbs. JEB, Mitt and Cantor handled that one and JEB went off on how the GOP must move away from Reagan. That killed the listening tour.
[19]
Well, they are going to, because it can pass, and get them votes at the polls. And they will have bipartisan cover from the likes of the usual RINOs.
[20]
Greta is showing the Matthews clip. In my opinion, her show has become the best of FNC prime time.
[21]
Amnesty is the only thing that can save the Dem’s sorry butts.
[22]
With 17% unemployment – not going to happen.
[23]
20 – Sad isn’t it.
[24]
I’d forgotten about that listening tour. I guess it only made one stop!
bc, I like Greta as well. They should keep her off of the tabloid news.
[25]
17 – Why not go for broke.
[26]
24 – So much better since she stopped focusing on that crap.
[27]
bc3b – what is the buzz with GM?
[28]
Whitey in the ATL came close tonight in the run off… lost by ~1300 votes
[29]
gn -
Henderson’s resignation coincided with yet another dismal sales month for GM. The industry was down 24%. GM was down 32%. Chrysler was down 38% and Ford down 20%. Only Hyundai/Kia and Subaru were up. Toyota was off 24%.
Chrysler has an excuse – crappy product and crappy quality. GM doesn’t. GM suffers from very poor marketing. Mark LeNave, GM’s former head of sales and marketing, recently went to Allstate. He is worse than useless.
Perhaps Whitacre believes he has enough knowledge of the industry. Perhaps the fact that the sale of both Saturn and Saab fell through hurt Henderson. Perhaps Henderson represented too much of the “Old GM.” There have been numerous GM resignations, most of which have been forced.
[30]
“Whitey in the ATL came close tonight in the run off… lost by ~1300 votes.”
Probably white racists voted for her.
[31]
bc3b – thanks for the update
[32]
Virtually no one (except Mullely) who attended the Congressional hearings are still in place at the “Detroit Three.” Dick Wagoner and Fritz Henderson are gone from GM. Nardelli and Press are gone from Chrysler.
[33]
Ralph Peters pretty much thinks the WP speech sucked –
“Obama’s right about one thing, though: The Afghans “will ultimately be responsible for their own country.” So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn’t begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?
Does the 2012 election ring a bell?
What messages did our president’s bait-and-switch speech just send?
To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I’ve written off.
To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.
To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.
To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.
To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).
This isn’t just stupid: It’s immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.”
And its true. All of it.
[34]
After seeing the reviews of the speech a couple of things come to mind.
Obama is a great speaker when the speech means nothing. When it’s rally his base and talk generally on issues.
When it is full of content and he has to say something on issues he sucks.
Why?
Because he just does not know the issues.
Because he doesn’t believe what he is saying.
Because he is not as confident on the issues.
Because he has a very weak cabinet and people surrounding him and none of them are united on an issue.
Because he is stupid.
Because he is trying to hide his socialistic agenda.
Because he cannot use terms that he wants to because he will becalled on them.
Because he is trying to sugar coat everything instead of having balls to be commander in chief.
[35]
Ralph Peters, dr dog, and MI Con are all exactly right.
The Afghan mission is doomed to failure and will result in funerals, not victory.
“General” Obama should be impeached.
[36]
Doomed for failure – I don’t know I’d go that far plenty said that about Iraq, but not feeling the president is clearly behind you has got to be tough for anyone trying to pull off such a tough mission, especially when the fracken enemy now knows it as well. McCrystal says he thinks he can make due with this minimum number, is he’s being honest, is he playing politics for obama’s sake, or does he privately the number will float up past 40k as attention dies down? I tend to think more along the lines of the first and the last rather then the middle.
No matter what it’s going to get rough come spring.
[37]
Rush, for what it’s worth, believes the Armed Forces general officer corp has become “chickified.” He does not apply this term to the troops, the junior or field grade officers.
I don’t know. It’s probably true for General Jones and General Casey, maybe Admiral Mullen. Probably not true for Petreaus or McCrystal. I am sure it started before Obama, but it is worse now.
It is just too political to move from the battlefield to the Pentagon or the Administration. Too bad, the troops deserve better.