Did Ronald Reagan Ever Endorse Gerald Ford?

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: RED STATE

URL: http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/07/20/ronald-reagan-ever-endorse-gerald-ford/

As we've discussed the upcoming Ted Cruz speech and interesting subject has come up. Several writers, myself included, have characterized Reagan's speech at the 1976 RNC convention as his eventual endorsement of Gerald Ford. We've used it in the context of saying that we hope Ted Cruz can deliver that kind of speech without the endorsement. This morning in my post on the subject, a comment was made that, in fact, Reagan had never endorsed Gerald Ford. And I summarily dismissed the assertion.

[SNIP]

But the invocation of Reagan scholar Craig Shirley's name caused me to go back later and check it out.

This is the text of Reagan's 1976 speech.

Thank you very much. Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President to be -- the distinguished guests here, and you ladies and gentlemen: I am going to say fellow Republicans here, but also those who are watching from a distance, all of those millions of Democrats and Independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally and which I believe we can give them.

Mr. President, before you arrived tonight, these wonderful people here when we came in gave Nancy and myself a welcome. That, plus this, and plus your kindness and generosity in honoring us by bringing us down here will give us a memory that will live in our hearts forever.

Watching on television these last few nights, and I have seen you also with the warmth that you greeted Nancy, and you also filled my heart with joy when you did that.

May I just say some words. There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much.

Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades.

We have just heard a call to arms based on that platform, and a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party, which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a running of a late, late show of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.

If I could just take a moment; I had an assignment the other day. Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to be opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our Tricentennial.

It sounded like an easy assignment. They suggested I write something about the problems and the issues today. I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other, and I couldn't help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now as it was on that summer day.

Then as I tried to write -- let your own minds turn to that task. You are going to write for people a hundred years from now, who know all about us. We know nothing about them. We don't know what kind of a world they will be living in.

And suddenly I thought to myself if I write of the problems, they will be the domestic problems the President spoke of here tonight; the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy. These are our challenges that we must meet.

And then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have poised and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each other's country and destroy, virtually, the civilized world we live in.

And suddenly it dawned on me, those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge. Whether they have the freedoms that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here.

Will they look back with appreciation and say, "Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom, who kept us now 100 years later free, who kept our world from nuclear destruction"?

And if we failed, they probably won't get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom, and they won't be allowed to talk of that or read of it.

This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.

We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory, Mr. President.

To me, the "we must go forth from here united" constitutes an endorsement. A soft, mushy, half-hearted endorsement, but still an acknowledgement that the GOP is going forth under Gerald Ford's leadership and that winning is all that is important. Upon closer reading, though, I'm not so sure. Reagan devotes his speech in praise of the GOP platform. His only nod to Ford is for his personal kindness. This is the way Craig Shirley describes it:

Four evenings after the convention began, after Rule 16-C went down to narrow defeat (which would have forced Ford to name his running mate before the balloting) and after the Reagan nomination went down to defeat, 1,187 to 1,070 — and with Ford winning the nomination by just 59 delegate votes — Reagan got to finally address the convention. He gave a history-altering address, laying the groundwork for his win in 1980 and his momentous presidency.

The fight was over and Ford’s men knew after watching Reagan’s extemporaneous remarks that they’d just dodged a bullet.

Reagan spoke of the platform as a “banner of bold, unmistakable colors and no pale pastels”; he spoke of “horrible missiles of destruction.” He said of the Soviets, “this is our challenge,” and he spoke of there being “no substitute for victory.” He spoke of many things, about freedom and tyranny and the future. He did not speak of or even endorse the candidacy of Gerald R. Ford for president of the United States.

And, in fact, that is pretty much exactly how Reagan approached the 1976 election.

...David S. Broder, the highly regarded Post columnist, later wrote that the 1976 Republican convention was unique in political history, because it was the only time the delegates heard two acceptance speeches. Reagan later declined all pleas from Ford to speak on his behalf in key states.

Ford won the delegates and his party’s nomination, but he lost the election.

Reagan campaigned for individual candidates but he never acted as a Ford surrogate or campaigned on his behalf.

So, in retrospect, I was over hasty in my dismissing of what has turned out to be a different, and probably more accurate, view of what actually happened in 1976.

 

[txradioguy]

I expect Cruz to speak and act in much the same way Reagan did after the '76 Convention.

[Suppressed]

I believe this is an endorsement/campaigning for Ford:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2q9LjMxPcY

[truth_seeker]

I will be very disappointed if Cruz is not able to do what Reagan did. There is much more upside for him, than downside.

[txradioguy]

I will be very disappointed if Cruz is not able to do what Reagan did. There is much more upside for him, than downside.

What's the upside to endorsing someone who stands for everything you oppose?

[Suppressed]

I will be very disappointed if Cruz is not able to do what Reagan did. There is much more upside for him, than downside.

Reagan was able to contrast Carter and Ford.

Cruz doesn't have that option, with Trump and Clinton both so loathsome.

[truth_seeker]

What's the upside to endorsing someone who stands for everything you oppose?

I will try a different angle. Trump highlighted issues most important to voters: illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism threat, loss of jobs.

More voters picked Trump, for those issues.

If voters felt Cruz "constitutional conservative" speeches and sermons were the most important, more would have picked him, not Trump.

Here were the key turning points in the primaries:

1. Trump called attention to murder in San Francisco of a woman, at the hands of an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city.

2. Poorly vetted muslim immigrant woman murders 14 people in San Bernardino, supposedly screened by FBI.

3. Riots in Chicago, and Cruz suggested Trump was to blame.

Trump fortunes continued to improve to the end. He won.

On those most important issues to the voters, if Cruz stands for something different, I would be surprised.

Trump's simple plain talk, was more popular than Cruz stilted politician speeches.

[txradioguy]

I will try a different angle. Trump highlighted issues most important to voters: illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism threat, loss of jobs.

More voters picked Trump, for those issues.

If voters felt Cruz "constitutional conservative" speeches and sermons were the most important, more would have picked him, not Trump.

Here were the key turning points in the primaries:

1. Trump called attention to murder in San Francisco of a woman, at the hands of an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city.

2. Poorly vetted muslim immigrant woman murders 14 people in San Bernardino, supposedly screened by FBI.

3. Riots in Chicago, and Cruz suggested Trump was to blame.

Trump fortunes continued to improve to the end. He won.

On those most important issues to the voters, if Cruz stands for something different, I would be surprised.

Trump's simple plain talk, was more popular than Cruz stilted politician speeches.

Trump backtracked on every single promisenand claim hes made that lured you into his cult of personality.

Name one affirmative thing Trump has said or done that would inspire or give reason to Constitutional Conservatives like myself to cast a vote for him.

[truth_seeker]

Trump backtracked on every single promisenand claim hes made that lured you into his cult of personality.

Name one affirmative thing Trump has said or done that would inspire or give reason to Constitutional Conservatives like myself to cast a vote for him.

I will say it even more simply for you, then.

Trump's appeal is to ordinary people most concerned about illegal immigration, national security and jobs.

More were moved by those issues, than for your (and Cruz') "constitutional conservatism," even though you don't like that result.

It is really just that simple.

[SirLinksALot]

I will say it even more simply for you, then.

Trump's appeal is to ordinary people most concerned about illegal immigration, national security and jobs.

I would have been comfortable with Trump's stance on illegal immigration had he walked the walk in his own business.

Of course when Trump's background is scrutinized, we see that he's just the same as the cheap labor express crowd.

From hiring foreign workers from Eastern Europe for his Mar a Largo Club ignoring American workers who needed jobs to having his clothing gear made in China, where is his consistency?

So what’s Trump’s excuse? That’s he’s a businessman and that these are the realities on the ground? That, I’m afraid, won’t wash. When Disney behaved like this, there was a loud and sustained outcry from . . . well, no less than Donald Trump himself. In an interview with Breitbart, Trump argued that Disney should be forced to rehire any Americans it had overlooked or replaced.

By Trump’s own logic, the H-2B program that he so heavily used is even more egregious than the H-1Bs system that Disney took advantage of. Why? Well, because unlike H-1Bs — which can in theory be used to recruit skilled workers — H-2Bs are aimed directly at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Jobs?

Well, here is where people who have a conservative streak in most other issues differ.

I assume you believe that like Trump, putting up a huge tariff on Chinese goods and abolishing NAFTA would create jobs in the USA. I don't think it will. For every industry you try to protect by putting up tariff there are others that will suffer as the tariffs on steel to protect our steel industry have shown.

Also, most jobs lost in this country have come as a result of automation. If you want jobs created, the Ted Cruz/Mike Lee solution is the best -- GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY. Make it easier for businesses to thrive. Jobs will be created as a result of that.

More were moved by those issues, than for your (and Cruz') "constitutional conservatism," even though you don't like that result.

It is really just that simple.

We supported Ted Cruz PRECISELY because of the issues. His RECORD tells us that he could have been the BETTER MAN for the job. And yes, it's as simple as that.

[txradioguy]

I will say it even more simply for you, then.

Trump's appeal is to ordinary people most concerned about illegal immigration, national security and jobs.

More were moved by those issues, than for your (and Cruz') "constitutional conservatism," even though you don't like that result.

It is really just that simple.

I will say it more simply to you...Trump has backtracked on immigration... hasn't provided one single idea of proposal that will help the jobs market or the economy....and he keeps calling he military dishonest when he's not wanting to hire us out to the highest bidder.

So what you're saying hes going to do is a fantasy.

[geronl]

I will say it even more simply for you, then.

Trump's appeal is to ordinary people most concerned about illegal immigration, national security and jobs.

More were moved by those issues, than for your (and Cruz') "constitutional conservatism," even though you don't like that result.

It is really just that simple.

Trump likes touchback amnesty, he hires a lot of foreigners over Americans, what is his experience in national security? jobs? lol bankruptcy more like.

Then of course you slam and throw vitriol on Ted Cruz and conservatism like a good liberal. Just can't help it.

why? because you know Trump is no better than Hillary. That is why.

[txradioguy]

Trump likes touchback amnesty, he hires a lot of foreigners over Americans, what is his experience in national security? jobs? lol bankruptcy more like.

Then of course you slam and throw vitriol on Ted Cruz and conservatism like a good liberal. Just can't help it.

why? because you know Trump is no better than Hillary. That is why.

@INVAR  's hypothesis is seemingly more plausible by the hour.

[DB]

Trump's appeal is to ordinary people most concerned about illegal immigration, national security and jobs.

Well that is why Cruz appeals to me. The only way to improve those things is to shrink government back to its constitutional bounds. A different flavor of big government isn't going to solve anything, especially long term. There's a reason why entrepreneurship is dying in this country and it isn't due to a lack of tariffs. It is due to crushing government regulation and taxation. An eight year old can't setup a lemonade stand without a permit, inspections etc... It is insane. Unrestrained, government will eventually consume everything.

[cato potatoe]

I wasn't around for the 70's, but I cannot imagine Reagan endorsing Trump under any circumstance.  The people with good sense have died off and left us with a garbage pile of human debris.

[DB]

I remember Ford as being a basically honorable man. The only honor Trump knows is people kissing his ring.

[kevindavis007]

Explain this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2q9LjMxPcY

[HootOwl]

It was the NY delegation , lead by King and the trump family that started the jeering and booing.  They knew ahead of time he was not going to endorse Trump.  a well rehearsed display.  I could not believe how FOX took the bait, hook,  and sinker.  They hate Cruz far more than they dislike Trump.

[DB]

Explain this:

That wasn't at the Republican convention number one. So no, Reagan did not endorse Ford at the the convention. And I don't believe Ford called Reagan a liar, publicly insulted his wife and suggested that his father killed Kennedy. And Trump today explicitly said he did not want nor would he accept Cruz's endorsement. So whether or not Cruz would have endorsed him later like Reagan later endorsed Ford is moot.

[libertybele]

I will try a different angle. Trump highlighted issues most important to voters: illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism threat, loss of jobs.

More voters picked Trump, for those issues.

If voters felt Cruz "constitutional conservative" speeches and sermons were the most important, more would have picked him, not Trump.

Here were the key turning points in the primaries:

1. Trump called attention to murder in San Francisco of a woman, at the hands of an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city.

2. Poorly vetted muslim immigrant woman murders 14 people in San Bernardino, supposedly screened by FBI.

3. Riots in Chicago, and Cruz suggested Trump was to blame.

Trump fortunes continued to improve to the end. He won.

On those most important issues to the voters, if Cruz stands for something different, I would be surprised.

Trump's simple plain talk, was more popular than Cruz stilted politician speeches.

Trump the baboon v. Cruz the man.  No contest.  Trump's crossover voters voted for him because they knew he would be the easiest for Hillary to beat.  No contest.

[TomSea]

It was the NY delegation , lead by King and the trump family that started the jeering and booing.  They knew ahead of time he was not going to endorse Trump.  a well rehearsed display.  I could not believe how FOX took the bait, hook,  and sinker.  They hate Cruz far more than they dislike Trump.

Proof of this?

[TomSea]

That wasn't at the Republican convention number one. So no, Reagan did not endorse Ford at the the convention. And I don't believe Ford called Reagan a liar, publicly insulted his wife and suggested that his father killed Kennedy. And Trump today explicitly said he did not want nor would he accept Cruz's endorsement. So whether or not Cruz would have endorsed him later like Reagan later endorsed Ford is moot.

Cruz's campaign accused Rubio of saying something bad about the word of God, the Bible, what Cruz accused Rubio of was an admitted lie; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/22/cruz-official-apologizes-over-rubio-video-alleging-bible-diss.html

So, no, Cruz has ran a dirty campaign the whole way, from the dealings with Carson in Iowa to the Carolinas. Cruz ran just as dingy of a campaign.

Cruz campaigned with Trump, why would he do this?

Also, all Trump said was the National Enquirer was running a story asserting Cruz's dad knew "crazy Lee Harvey Oswald", he didn't accuse Rafael Cruz of participating in the assassination of JFK.

[skeeter]

I will say it even more simply for you, then.

Trump's appeal is to ordinary people most concerned about illegal immigration, national security and jobs.

More were moved by those issues, than for your (and Cruz') "constitutional conservatism," even though you don't like that result.

It is really just that simple.

I sympathize. Illegal immigration was one of my top issues as well.

Its just that I strongly suspect this is all a moneymaking scam for Trump, he has no intention of winning much less doing anything about the issues you mentioned, and you and those like you have been punked.

Sure its only a theory but there's one helluva lot of evidence to support it.

[TomSea]

Cruz campaigned with Trump,

Cruz only has platitudes to speak, doesn't even compare to a Governor like Rick Perry, TC has no great accomplishments, just sitting in committee rooms blowing hot air.

Cruz campaign was a real dirty one.

[TomSea]

People liked Reagan including those who worked with him. Cruz is no Reagan and the comparison is offensive.

Reagan was a govenor, Cruz is a senator.