Sunday, April 04, 2021

Phillips Philes PHLASHBACK: Ronald Reagan's Pre-Presidential California Staff Remembered


Lyn Nofziger: An Appreciation By Nicholas Thimmesch

Source: https://spectator.org/47213_lyn-nofziger-appreciation/

March 29, 2006, 4:07 AM

Lyn Nofziger, who passed away from cancer Monday at his longtime home in the Washington suburb of Falls Church, Virginia, was the epitome of the cliche, “Salt of the earth.” Rumpled, cantankerous, outspoken, and yet sublime, Nofziger was a witness with a front row seat to both Reagan Revolutions, the first one that took place in the 1960s and ’70s on Lyn’s native soil, California, and the second one that took place on the national and then international stage in the 1980s.

It was Nofziger who fielded reporters’ frantic questions about a gravely wounded Reagan after John Hinckley nearly took his life shortly after becoming president. It was Nofziger who knew enough about Reagan’s Rock of Gibraltar, Nancy, to never cross her. And it was Nofziger who, in his latter years, never shied away from challenging a conservative movement that had lost its Reagan values to return to those rock bed principles.

Late last year, Nofziger took President Bush to task in his highly amusing “Musings” blog: “I am one of thousands of Americans who is on what used to be called the president’s Christmas card list. As a result, a card from George and Laura arrived in my mail today. Needles to say, I was pleased and honored. After opening it, I was and am, needless to say, also disappointed. The card was not a Christmas card; it was a holiday card.”

A confounded Nofziger continued: “Inside there was no mention of Christmas. Instead, it says, ‘With best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness in 2005.’

“What a shame,” Nofziger mused, “that, apparently for political reasons, a president who professes to be a strong Christian turns his back on the celebration of his Savior’s birth because he doesn’t wish to offend anyone — except maybe his fellow Christians.”

Right up to the end, when Lyn was dying of the very disease that had consumed his 38-year-old daughter, he was willing, despite his condition, to tell me the story of that revolution and how it has been derailed. Lyn Nofziger, the professional spokesman, right to the very end.

NOFZIGER CAME TO REAGAN as so many have, by circumstance and happenstance, but like many who followed one of our nation’s greatest leaders, he was not just a conservative, he was a “Reagan conservative.”

As a national political reporter for Copley News Service in the 1960s, Nofziger was even then a rare commodity: a Republican reporter. When owner Jim Copley approached and finally convinced Nofziger after failed attempts to get him on board the Reagan mule train, Nofziger thought the former actor turned political activist would lose California’s Republican gubernatorial primary in 1966 and be done with it: he was wrong. Reagan went on to win the nomination and then the governorship. Whether Nofziger knew it or not then, he was going to become a Reaganite for life and be a critical part of one of the most successful political careers in American politics.

Nofziger stayed with Reagan, through the “Kitchen Cabinet” days, through the Citizens for the Republic days, through the landslide presidential victory in 1980 and the resulting administration. Nofziger, unlike so many Republicans of late, stayed with Reagan beyond his death in 2004 by staying true to the conservative principles that made both Reagan and America great in the 1980s.

Reagan’s affection for Lyn Nofziger might best be found in his use of the name “Lynwood” for him. Nofziger told interviewers Stephen Knott and Russell Riley in their brilliant 2003 interview for the Miller Center for Public Affairs — which I highly recommend Reaganites and Lynites read — it was just something Reagan did:

“You’ve mentioned the fact that he always called you Lynwood. What was that? Did you ever attempt to straighten him out on that front?” asked Knott and Riley.

Nofziger replied: “No, he called me Lynwood. He did it time after time after time. My name is Franklyn, which I hate, and I’ve never gone by it. I know that when someone calls me Franklin, that they don’t know me. I don’t know. I guess it was kind of a term of affection.”

Nofziger also spoke to the notion that there was a “veil” that surrounded Ronald Reagan:

“There was, I always felt — less as I got used to it — but I always felt that no matter how cordial he was, how congenial he was, and how well you got along, there was always something there between him and you. I couldn’t put a finger on it, but you just never felt that you got really next to him. I would talk to other people who felt the same way, and Nancy never said this to me, but I’m told Nancy said the same thing.”

Many accounts of Nancy Reagan’s — some even attributed, perhaps falsely, to Nofziger — overbearing protectiveness of her husband portray a woman who viewed people around Reagan as either helping or hurting him. But it was an often misunderstood Nancy Reagan who afforded Nofziger what was perhaps his best moment before the press, when she passed along to him Reagan’s quip after the Hinckley shooting, “Honey, I forgot to duck.” Nofziger’s conveyance of that anecdote to the media helped bring humor and hope to a shocked American public: it was why he was perhaps the finest spokesman a political figure could ever want to have.

ALSO TO BE FOUND AMONG Lyn Nofziger’s “Musings” was something that related to another one of my greatest admirations for Lyn: his common sense sensibility, even if it was contraire to the current conventional conservatism. As I mentioned, Lyn’s daughter died a painful death from cancer, one in which she found little relief from mainstream medicine’s traditional medication. In a Washington Post in the late 1990s, Nofziger wrote about something that did work:

When our daughter was undergoing chemotherapy for lymph cancer, she was sick and vomiting constantly as a result of her treatments. No legal drugs, including Marinol, helped her.

We finally turned to marijuana. With it, she kept her food down, was comfortable and even gained weight. Those who say Marinol and other drugs are satisfactory substitutes for marijuana may be right in some cases but certainly not in all cases. If doctors can prescribe morphine and other addictive medicines, it makes no sense to deny marijuana to sick and dying patients when it can be provided on a carefully controlled, prescription basis.

Nofziger, who valiantly agreed to participate in a 2002 Capitol Hill news conference in support of Congressman Barney Frank’s “State’s Rights to Medical Marijuana Act” legislation, took to task a “compassionate conservative” Bush over the issue:

“Next week I will participate in a news conference that calls for an end to federal persecution of persons using or supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where law permits it.”

Addressing the president, who as a candidate, seemingly supported states’ rights when it came to medical marijuana, Nofziger wrote:

“It seems to me that the very definition of compassionate conservatism should convince President Bush to support legislation that would allow states to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In fact, if the president understands the meaning of those two words (‘compassionate conservative’) not to support Frank is to reject the philosophy for which he says he stands and on which he ran for president.”

Lyn Nofziger: a conservative, a true conservative, a Reagan conservative to the very end.

Lyn was a stand up guy in a town full of men who sit down when they urinate: he will be sorely missed.


Michael Deaver, Reagan’s master image-maker, dies at 69 By Douglass K. Daniel

Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/michael-deaver-reagans-master-image-maker-dies-at-69/

August 19, 2007


WASHINGTON — Michael Deaver, a close adviser to Ronald Reagan who directed the president’s picturesque and symbolic public appearances, died Saturday. He was 69.

Mr. Deaver, who had pancreatic cancer, died at his home in Bethesda, Md., according to a statement from the Deaver family that was issued by Edelman, the public-relations firm he served as vice chairman.

Mr. Deaver was celebrated and scorned as an expert at media manipulation for focusing on how the president looked as much as what the president said. Reagan’s chief choreographer for public events, Mr. Deaver protected the commander in chief’s image and enhanced it with a flair for choosing just the right settings, poses and camera angles.

“I’ve always said the only thing I did is light him well,” Mr. Deaver told the Los Angeles Times in 2001. “My job was filling up the space around the head. I didn’t make Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan made me.”

Mr. Deaver’s image suffered a setback in 1987. He was convicted on three of five counts of perjury stemming from statements to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury investigating his lobbying activities with administration officials.

He blamed alcoholism for lapses in memory and judgment. He was sentenced to three years’ probation and fined $100,000 as well as ordered to perform 1,500 hours of public service.

When the subject of a pardon surfaced in Reagan’s final days in office in 1989, the president noted that Mr. Deaver had indicated he would not accept one, according to Reagan’s diary.

Mr. Deaver’s family said in the statement Saturday that he fought his cancer “with the courage, grace and good spirit that he carried throughout his life. … In the end, he stood as the model of a man who not only loved life, but lived life right, one day at a time.”

Former first lady Nancy Reagan said in a statement that Mr. Deaver “was the closest of friends to both Ronnie and me in many ways, and he was like a son to Ronnie.” She added, “We met great challenges together. … I will miss Mike terribly.”

Mr. Deaver brought a public-relations background and a long association with Reagan to his work as White House deputy chief of staff from 1981-85. He and top Reagan advisers Edwin Meese and James Baker were known as “the troika” that, in effect, managed the presidency.

Mr. Deaver, however, was concerned more with Reagan’s image than his policies. He also was responsible for the president’s schedule and security, and he served as a liaison for family matters.

To exert as much control as possible, Mr. Deaver steered the president away from reporters when he could, instead arranging Reagan in poses and settings that conveyed visually the message of the moment. Presidential news conferences were a rarity, which suited an actor-turned-politician who was at his best when using a script.

Meese said Mr. Deaver “had great imagination, great innovation.”

A spokesman for President Bush, Gordon Johndroe, said Mr. Deaver “knew the importance in our democracy of communicating with the American people, and he will be missed.”

Mr. Deaver was born April 11, 1938, in Bakersfield, Calif., the son of a Shell Oil distributor. He played piano in bars while studying political science at San Jose State College. He received his bachelor’s degree in 1960.

He worked for IBM and served in the Air Force. An interest in politics later led him to the Santa Clara County Republican Party. Hired as its executive director, he soon was organizing political campaigns for GOP candidates.

Mr. Deaver’s work on behalf of the Reagans began when he joined the gubernatorial staff in Sacramento after Reagan’s election in 1966. He became a detail-oriented aide focused on helping the governor run a smooth day-to-day schedule.

Mr. Deaver formed a company after Reagan left the state capital — the former governor and presidential aspirant was his chief client — and then joined Reagan in Washington after his 1980 election.

Among the president’s advisers, Mr. Deaver was the closest to Nancy Reagan. But their relationship suffered after his 1987 convictions and criticism that he was “cashing in” on his ties to the White House. “Somewhere along the line in Washington, Mike Deaver went off track and caught a bad case of Potomac fever,” she wrote.

Time eventually repaired their friendship, and Mr. Deaver spoke with the former first lady nearly every week for years.

He wrote four books touching on his White House years and his relationship with the Reagans.

Survivors include his wife, Carolyn, whom he met while they were staffers for the Reagan administration in Sacramento. They had two children, Amanda Deaver, of Washington, and Blair Deaver of Bend, Ore.


Martin Anderson: Reagan Adviser and Man for Many Seasons By Lou Cannon

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/06/martin_anderson_reagan_adviser_and_man_for_many_seasons_125148.html

January 06, 2015

Martin Anderson, an economist and adviser to three presidents who helped explain economic policy to Ronald Reagan and Reagan to the world, died last week at his home in Portola Valley, Calif., after an influential career. He was 78.

As a special assistant to President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1971, Anderson is credited with drawing up the proposal that led to the end of military conscription in the United States. He also brought into government economist Alan Greenspan, who, like Anderson, was an adherent of iconoclastic free-market philosopher Ayn Rand.

Anderson left the Nixon administration to become a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a prominent conservative think tank at Stanford University. He took periodic leaves to help Reagan in his 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns and served as White House director of policy development in the first year of the Reagan presidency. Anderson wrote about Reagan’s first term in a 1988 book, “Revolution: The Reagan Legacy.”

Together with his wife and fellow economist Annelise Graebner Anderson and Kiron K. Skinner, Martin Anderson made an important historical contribution in editing collections of Reagan’s writings and voluminous correspondence with ordinary Americans: “Reagan, In His Own Hand” (2001) and “Reagan: A Life in Letters” (2003). These books demonstrated Reagan’s pithy insights and sense of country better than any political argument ever did.

The Andersons in 2009 wrote “Reagan’s Secret War: The Untold Story of His Fight to Save the World from Nuclear Disaster,” which focused on Reagan’s efforts to develop a missile shield to protect the nation from nuclear attack and ultimately to abolish nuclear weapons.

Martin Anderson was present at the incident that led to Reagan’s epiphany on missile defense. The two men toured the headquarters of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) at Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado on July 31, 1979. Reagan was shown how radar could track an incoming missile but not stop it. “We have spent all that money and have all that equipment, and there is nothing we can do to prevent a nuclear missile from hitting us,” Reagan said on their flight home to Los Angeles, Anderson recounted in “Revolution.”

Although the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that Reagan proposed as president was derided by many scientists as unworkable, it helped bring the Soviets to the bargaining table, where Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987 that became the template for future arms agreements between the United States and Russia.

Anderson continued to the end of his days to advocate U.S. missile defense, now focused on intercepting nuclear warheads launched by terrorists or a rogue nation.

During the Reagan presidency, Anderson served as an effective go-between for Reagan and Paul Volcker, the blunt-spoken chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, was distrusted by many Republicans and had been bureaucratically denied a White House pass. He wrote Anderson in complaint. Anderson took the letter to Reagan, who saw to it that Volcker got his pass.

More important, Reagan and Volcker became allies in the Fed chairman’s efforts to curb runaway inflation. The policy worked, leading to a record 90 consecutive months of economic growth after a brief but deep recession.

During the 1980 presidential campaign, which I covered for The Washington Post, Anderson played a constructive role. Reagan had loads of economic advice in this campaign, but it went off in different directions. Greenspan and Anderson helped Reagan formulate a coherent policy from conflicting advice given by traditional and supply-side economists. Reagan shortened it into a punchy narration: “Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

I had many dealings with Anderson during the campaign, when he was in the White House and when I was writing my biographies of Reagan, and much respected him for his insights and honesty. When he had complaints about something I had written, he typically registered them with courtly good humor. More than once, he helped me understand an economic issue with which I was struggling. He was alert for verbal missteps by Reagan, of which there were several in both the 1976 and 1980 campaigns. In 1980 Anderson came up with an inventive explanation to a New York Times reporter who had pointed out various Reagan errors. The problem, Anderson explained blithely, was that Reagan used hundreds of examples in his speeches. “Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, things checked out, but sometimes the source was wrong,” Anderson said.

Overall, Anderson was more adept at policy advice than political in-fighting. After internal disputes in 1982, he left the Reagan administration, where he had been a success as policy development director, and returned to Hoover, where in 1998 he was named the Keith and Jan Hurlbut senior fellow. In my view the White House never did find an adequate replacement for Anderson as domestic policy chief.

Anderson continued an active life after leaving the administration. One of his projects was a book, “Imposters in the Temple,” drawing from his early experience as a 28-year-old tenured professor of finance at Columbia University to explore what he saw as left-leaning instruction in higher education.

He was a member of the President’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control from 1987 to 1992, beginning under Reagan and continuing into the presidency of George H.W. Bush. He was also for five years a trustee of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.

Citing his service, Nancy Reagan issued a statement lauding him and his wife, which concluded: “Loyal men like Martin Anderson come along very rarely in one’s life, and I will miss him terribly.”

For all the good he did as a presidential adviser, it was as writer and editor that Anderson most made his mark.

The Hoover Institution Press will next month publish Anderson’s final book, co-authored with Annelise Anderson, “Ronald Reagan: Decisions of Greatness.” I’ll be at the front of the line to read it.

Funeral services are pending at Alta Mesa Funeral Home in Palo Alto.

Lou Cannon worked 26 years for The Washington Post and is the author of “President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime.”


Peter Hannaford -- Reagan Aide and Fast Friend By Craig Shirley

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/11/peter_hannaford--reagan_aide_and_fast_friend.html#!

September 11, 2015


It is a truism of American politics—and American life—that like-minded individuals tend to find one another. It wasn’t an accident that George Washington attracted smart and fearless men such as Alexander Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette because George Washington was smart and fearless. Franklin Roosevelt attracted politically passionate and civic-minded individuals because he was one himself. John Kennedy was drawn to intellectually curious individuals, and in turn drew them to himself, where they became part of Camelot.

So it’s no surprise that Ronald Reagan brought many good men and women, including speechwriters, to him before and during his presidency because he himself was a man of superior character who also happened to be a good writer. That description also fits long-time Reagan aide Peter Hannaford, who passed away several days ago at the age of 82.

Peter died after he finished doing what he loved to do, which was sign books and give a talk about a new book he’d just edited, “Washington Merry-Go-Round: The Drew Pearson Diaries, 1960-1969.” Over the course of his life, he wrote six books on Ronald and Nancy Reagan. But he did more, much more, than that.

Going back to the early 1970’s, Peter became an invaluable aide and confidant to both Nancy and Ronald Reagan, a rare status he occupied with only a few others, including Michael Deaver and Edwin Meese. After Reagan’s governorship ended, Peter and Mike Deaver went into business together, forming a public relations firm, “Deaver and Hannaford,” that used the two syllable-three syllable cadence Peter often used in his writings. 

They had many clients, but first among equals was always Ronald Reagan, whose speaking schedule, syndicated column and radio commentaries they handled, making money for themselves and for the Reagans.

It was these columns and radio commentaries, heard by millions from early 1975 to late 1979, which formed the basis of Reagan’s successful 1980 presidential campaign. But Peter did more. He returned early from an African vacation to join the campaign in February of 1980 following the ouster of Deaver and other key aides—John Sears, Charlie Black, and Jim Lake—by Reagan himself. After that, Peter gave both Reagans much-needed peace of mind by staying by Reagan’s side until his historic win in November 1980.

Peter and Reagan drafted the historic acceptance speech at Detroit in 1980, a speech which called for a “community of shared values,” and openly reached out to Democrats to join that coalition. Four months later, they did just that, and by the millions, thereby becoming an integral part of the Reagan Revolution. 

Deaver followed Reagan to Washington where he became deputy White House chief of staff. Peter stayed on the outside, remaining a valued friend and confidant to the Reagans.

Late in life, he settled in the Northern California coastal city of Eureka, where he kept writing and became active in a local congregation, the Christ Episcopal Church, which will host a memorial service on Saturday.

“His death was an incredible shock,” church Pastor Susan Armstrong told the Eureka newspaper. She said his faith had become important to him in recent years, and that only last year he went through the formal process of confirmation. “He was constantly sending me newspaper articles about young people in the church and how we could attract young people to the church.” 

His widow Irene expressed the hope that a full congregation would be present on Saturday, and I am confident her wishes will be honored. Peter met Irene on a blind date in high school more than 60 years ago. They were married six months later and have two sons. Peter also leaves behind a world of friends and admirers, and I include myself in both categories. He helped me with my own Reagan books, always generous with his time and meticulous in his recounting of facts. The old phrase, “a gentleman and a scholar,” often came to mind when I thought of him. 

Peter Hannaford, RIP.

Craig Shirley is the author of two best-selling books about Ronald Reagan, including “Rendezvous With Destiny” and “Reagan’s Revolution.” He is also the author of the best-selling “December 1941; 31 Days That Changed America and Saved the World” and is the president of Shirley & Banister. He is now writing several more books about Reagan, including “Last Act.” He has lectured at the Reagan Library, is the Visiting Reagan Scholar at Eureka College, and is a member of the Board of Governors of the Reagan Ranch.


Paul Laxalt, Reagan’s ‘First Friend’ in U.S. Senate, Dies at 96 By Laurence Arnold

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/paul-laxalt-reagan-s-first-friend-in-u-s-senate-dies-at-96

August 6, 2018


Paul Laxalt, the Republican U.S. senator from Nevada who was President Ronald Reagan’s closest friend and confidante in Congress, has died. He was 96.

Laxalt died Monday at a Virginia health care facility, according to the Associated Press, citing The Ferraro Group, a public relations firm. No cause of death was given.

A senator from 1975 to 1987, Laxalt served as campaign chairman of all three Reagan presidential bids -- unsuccessful in 1976, victorious in 1980 and 1984 -- and enjoyed unusual access to the Reagan White House. With the approval of Majority Leader Howard Baker of Tennessee, Laxalt attended top-level meetings even though he held no post in the Republican Senate leadership. He became known as the “First Friend.”

“I had the privilege of serving in a role that caused me to have one foot in the Senate and one foot in the White House,” Laxalt said at a 2000 hearing on legislation that awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to Reagan and his wife, Nancy. “I served, in a sense, as the president’s eyes and ears on Capitol Hill, while also serving as a link to the White House for my colleagues in Congress.”

Reagan, who died in 2004, met Laxalt while both were supporting Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964. They grew closer during their time as governors of neighboring states, Nevada and California.

“Ronald Reagan valued his counsel, in part because they were both genial conservatives who shared a gift for attracting Democratic and independent voters, as Laxalt had done in campaigns for governor and senator in his home state,” Reagan biographer Lou Cannon wrote in “Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.”

Point Man

Laxalt, as Reagan’s point man on political matters involving the Interior Department, played a central role in the selection of James Watt as interior secretary, according to Cannon.

After Watt mocked affirmative action in a 1983 speech --“I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent,” he said, describing the makeup of a commission reviewing Interior’s coal-leasing program -- it was Laxalt who advised Watt “to resign gratefully,” which he did, Cannon wrote.

Paul Dominique Laxalt was born Aug. 2, 1922, in Reno, Nevada, and raised in Carson City, the first of six children of immigrants from the Basque region of southern France. His mother, the former Therese Alpetche, ran the French Hotel in Carson City; his father, Dominique, raised sheep.

Laxalt attended public school in Carson City and then, for three years, Santa Clara University in California. Following his service as a U.S. Army medic during World War II, he completed his undergraduate degree and earned his law degree at the University of Denver in 1949.

Election Bids

He was district attorney of Ormsby County from 1950 to 1954 and city attorney for Carson City from 1951 to 1954, according to his congressional biography. He ran successfully for lieutenant governor in 1962, serving in that role from 1963 to 1967 during the second term of Governor Grant Sawyer, a Democrat.

In 1964, while lieutenant governor, he ran for U.S. Senate against the Democratic incumbent, Howard Cannon, and lost by fewer than 100 votes. He then challenged Sawyer for governor in 1966, and won.

Laxalt took office at the start of 1967, just as Reagan was taking over in California. The two Republican governors worked together on a bi-state agreement that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to oversee development at Lake Tahoe, the resort area that straddles their border.

Also as governor, Laxalt helped Howard Hughes, the billionaire aviator, filmmaker and recluse, obtain the gaming license that enabled him to purchase several Las Vegas casino hotels.

“He was a savior of Las Vegas at a time when it was very close to going into bankruptcy,” Laxalt told Nevada magazine.

Laxalt left office in 1971 after declining to seek a second term as governor. With his family, he helped build and run a casino hotel, the Ormsby House, in Carson City. His role there led to one of the biggest disputes of his career.

Casino Dispute

The Sacramento Bee and two sister newspapers reported in 1983 that the Internal Revenue Service had suspected that money was “skimmed” from the casino’s profits to avoid payment of taxes. Laxalt sued the publisher, McClatchy Newspapers, for libel. In 1987, as the case was nearing trial, the two sides settled. Without retracting its initial story, McClatchy agreed to a statement saying, “Extensive discovery taken in this libel action has not shown that there was a skim at the Ormsby House.”

In 1974, Laxalt won election to the U.S. Senate, defeating Democrat Harry Reid -- who would succeed him in the Senate 12 years later and rise to leader of Senate Democrats.

When Reagan began his challenge to President Gerald Ford in 1975, Laxalt was his only Senate supporter.

“As a U.S. senator and former governor, Laxalt was the only member of the entourage to approach Reagan as an equal,” Cannon wrote. While other top campaign aides addressed Reagan as “governor,” Laxalt called him “Ron.”

In 1987, as Republicans began jockeying to succeed Reagan, Laxalt made a brief run for the nomination. He never relished the nuts and bolts of campaigning -- or governing, for that matter -- and he called his presidential bid “the four most miserable months of my life.”

He had six children with his first wife, the former Jackalyn Ross. That marriage ended in divorce. He married the former Carol Wilson in 1976.


Remembering a Great Strategist: John Sears By Craig Shirley

Source: https://www.newsmax.com/craigshirley/schweiker-reagan-ford/2020/03/30/id/960542/

March 30, 2020


The venerable Republican consultant and conservative activist Charlie Black once said, "Ronald Reagan would not have become president had he not hired John Sears in 1976 —and fired John Sears in 1980."

There was great wisdom in this observation.

The Ronald Reagan campaign of 1976 came within an eyelash of defeating the incumbent Gerald Ford for the Republican Party nomination. It was, in essence, a rag tag operation manned by junior varsity operatives and a handful of conservative activists. Nobody in the GOP establishment thought much of Reagan at that time, dismissing him as the "George Wallace of the Republican Party."

The only establishment consultant in 1975 who thought Reagan had what it took to be president was John Patrick Sears. Sears, though a Nixon man, had escaped the Watergate brush.

As of 1976, all of the remaining talent of the GOP — and there wasn’t much — were supporting the moderate Gerald Ford. He was the accidental president by way of Richard Nixon’s resignation. The Watergate scandal took out Nixon and cleared out a whole crop of GOP consultants as a result.

Sears, having joined Team Reagan as campaign manager, gave the Californian immediate credibility with the East Coast political reporters who were drinking buddies and social friends of Sears’. Politics and political geography in 1976 was astonishingly different from today.

While the 1976 campaign was often bumbling and mismanaged, it also had flashes of brilliance, as in the North Carolina and Texas primaries, which Reagan won despite being heavily outspent by the Ford campaign. The choice of Senator Richard Schweiker was also brilliant.

A recent obituary in The New York Times said that Sears’ advice to Reagan to pick respected Senator Dick Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his running mate, prior to the August convention, was "dubious" and "presumptuous."

The Washington Post’s obituary of Sears also got the story wrong, erroneously saying the Schweiker stratagem and the effort to get Ford to name his running mate before the delegates voted "backfired."

This is the problem when liberals record conservative history and don’t bother to talk to the people who were there. First, they have built in biases, and second, they are flying through a cloud of ignorance.

Neither reporter bothered to speak to the people who actually were there working on the 1976 or 1980 campaigns with Sears.

The astute choice of Schweiker as engineered by Sears was in fact two fold; prying loose some delegates was only one potential outcome. The other was to keep Reagan’s hopes alive until the August GOP convention.

In early July of 1976, Sears learned that CBS was working on a story; the network was going to pronounce Ford as the nominee, weeks ahead of the convention. This announcement was coming after an arduous counting of almost 4,500 GOP delegates, including some 200 uncommitted delegates. "The CBS Evening News," as manned by the estimable Walter Cronkite, was a broadcasting juggernaut.

If "Uncle Walter" said something, you could bank on it.

And Reagan’s campaign would have been dead in July of 1976.

The choice of Schweiker was really about buying time for Reagan. When CBS learned that Reagan had made the audacious, revolutionary and creative choice of Schweiker — before the conventionthey killed the story. Picking Schweiker bought three precious weeks for the Reagan campaign.

Had Reagan’s campaign been proclaimed dead in the water, long before the convention, he would not have had the opportunity to carry the fight to Kansas City in a dramatic vote, which Reagan lost by the narrow margin of 1,180 to 1,069 or to give his extemporaneous speech: the speech which changed the GOP, leading delegates to question their choice of Ford and paving the way for Reagan to run and win in 1980.

The New York Times obituary also completely missed the importance Sears played in the now famous Nashua debate of 1980. Sears, along with Reagan’s New Hampshire chairman, Jerry Carmen, were the architects of the scene where George H. W. Bush froze, while Reagan responded forcefully. Sears once told me, bluntly, "Our job was to show that Bush was not capable of being president."

Charlie Black said, "We knew Bush would choke . . . " Carmen kept sticking it to Bush in the press any chance he got and pressuring Bush to agree to debate with Reagan.

The debate was supposed to be a one-on-one between Reagan and Bush but at the last moment, Sears decided that, under the guise of "fairness," the other candidates including Senators Bob Dole and Howard Baker along with other aspirants should be included. Bush balked but Reagan welcomed them. The moderator, Nashua Telegraph editor Jon Breen, also objected. But to avoid violating campaign rules at the time, the Reagan campaign ponied up the $2,000 to pay for the staging of the debate.

When Breen said the other candidates could not participate, and told the technician to turn off the Gipper’s microphone, Reagan stormed, "I paid for this microphone Mr. Green!!!!" setting him up to win the New Hampshire primary; propelled him to the 1980 nomination, the 1980 general election, and into the history books. The Post simply gave short shrift to the Nashua debate.

All this and more was due to John Sears. Reagan fired Sears on the day of the New Hampshire primary but John was always philosophical about it. He told me he’d accumulated too many enemies and was no longer an asset to Reagan. Sears was never suited to be a campaign manager. The 1976 and 1980 campaigns were sometimes poorly run because it simply wasn’t Sears’ strength. His strength was strategy, not managing people or money.

We got to become friends in later years as I wrote my books on the 1976 and 1980 campaigns and what surprised me about John was how shy he actually was. He enjoyed a drink, a good game of cards and politics, as befitting any good political operative, but there was also a side to him that craved privacy.

And there was never really good chemistry between him and Reagan although Sears and Nancy Reagan got along well. For a time.

Reagan once complained, "John doesn’t look you in the eye, he looks you in the tie."

But after his brilliance of the 1968 Nixon campaign and his sometimes cleverness of the 1976 and 1980 Reagan campaigns, John never worked in national politics again.

He once told me, "it’s nicer on the sidelines."

He also had a wry sense of humor. When the matter of picking a running mate for Reagan came up in 1976, someone floated the idea of picking Jim Rhodes, the odious and curmudgeonly and shady governor of Ohio. Rhodes could have potentially delivered enough delegates to Reagan to win the nomination, but Sears rejected the idea quipping, "You’ve got to have some responsibility in this business."

There are a number of men over the many years who aided Reagan at critical times when he needed it most: Paul Laxalt, Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger, George Bush, Ken Khachigian, Jim Baker, Mike Deaver, Marty Anderson, Frank Donatelli, Ed Rollins, Fred Ryan, Bob Heckman, Ralph Galliano, Roger Stone, Jim Lake, Stu Spencer, Peter Hannaford, Dick Wirthlin and many others including his White House speechwriters. Each had his own season with Reagan. All were trusted Reaganites and all were trusted by Reagan.

John Sears — as much as any of these aforementioned men — helped Reagan change the world.

RIP John Sears.

Craig Shirley is a Ronald Reagan biographer and presidential historian. His books include, “Reagan’s Revolution, The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started it All,” “Rendezvous with Destiny, Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America,” "Reagan Rising: The Decisive Years," and “ Last Act: The Final Years and Emerging Legacy of Ronald Reagan." He is also the author of the New York Times bestseller, “December, 1941” and his new 2019 book, “Mary Ball Washington,” a definitive biography of George Washington’s mother. Shirley lectures frequently at the Reagan Library and the Reagan Ranch. He has been named the First Reagan Scholar at Eureka College, Ronald Reagan’s alma mater and will teach a class this fall at the University of Virginia on Reagan. He appears regularly on Newsmax TV, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. For more of his reports, Go Here Now.


Top Reagan aide Jim Lake, who grew up in Bakersfield, dies at 82 By Robert Price

Source: https://www.kget.com/news/local-news/top-reagan-aide-jim-lake-who-grew-up-in-bakersfield-dies-at-82/

Jun 3, 2020



CALLAO, Va. (KGET) — They were sometimes jokingly called the Bakersfield Mafia — three men, all bred in Bakersfield, who rose to prominence in the 1960s and ‘70s as key members of Team Ronald Reagan: Michael Deaver, Lyn Nofziger and Jim Lake.

The third of those three, Reagan campaign press secretary Jim Lake, passed away May 29 at his home in Callao, Virginia. He was 82 and suffered from complications of Alzheimer’s.

Reagan’s star was a good one to cling to.

Nofzinger was Reagan’s press secretary when Reagan was elected governor in 1966. Deaver served as Gov. Reagan’s chief of staff. Lake was press secretary for Reagan’s political campaigns. And when Reagan was elected to the White House in 1980, all three men, in some fashion or form, went with him, and all three became nationally prominent.

Lake also worked for Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.

Lake’s son James C. Lake of Alexandria, Virginia, got involved in politics with his father and his twin brother Michael B. Lake.

“We’d see them together all the time, either on the campaign trail” or elsewhere, said James C. Lake, a communications consultant. “My brother and I both worked during the (election season) ad campaign. We were on the campaign jet, so we flew everywhere they went. And so we got to see (Reagan), be with him all the time … (as) his campaign went on.

“In the (1976 primary) Ford campaign, we both worked advance so we always saw my dad travel with (Reagan). We talked to my dad while the president was speaking, got to see him, interact with Reagan. My brother and I interacted with Reagan and Mrs. Reagan — we saw them a lot. They knew who we were because they were great friends with my father, but also because we were twins. We kind of stood out.”

It might seem strange or coincidental that three Bakersfield men came to share the stage, to differing extents, with the most powerful man on earth, and arguably the most popular.

Mojave journalist Bill Deaver, Michael Deaver’s brother, had an explanation.

“They all had to be in the right place at the right time with the right kinds of personalities and interests. And that’s what happened” he said.

Jim Lake might have been a Beltway guy but he never forgot where he came from, his son said. Lake was always a Bakersfield Driller with a taste for Dewar’s ice cream that he still occasionally enjoyed with his granddaughter, Megan who still lives in Bakersfield.

“Dewar’s was one of his favorites,” said his son Jim. “It still is whenever we go there. He used to like Sinaloa — it’s closed now — but that Mexican food was his favorite — and Mexicali …  He always loved the Wool Growers. That’s where he first introduced us to sliced pickled tongue. I thought it was going to be horrible but it was fantastic.”

So another chapter in the story of Bakersfield’s deep connection to Ronald Reagan comes to an end.

According to Lake’s obituary published in the Washington Post, when Reagan successfully sought the nomination for president in 1980, Lake served as communications director and campaign press secretary until the eve of the New Hampshire primary, when he and other top aides were dismissed because of campaign disagreements with other long-standing Reagan aides. He and others were later reinstated, according to the Post obituary.

During Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign, Lake again served as communications director and campaign press secretary,  according to the Post obituary. In the 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns, Lake advised George H.W. Bush on press and media communications, and served as deputy campaign manager in his ’92 bid for re-election. Lake was a top GOP official at four Republican conventions, according to the Post obituary.

James Howard Lake was born Aug. 16, 1937, in Fresno, and attended Bakersfield High school and Bakersfield College. He received his B.A. degree from the University of California at Los Angeles. After working in the grocery and family businesses, Lake entered California politics in 1966, helping two-time Olympic Decathlon Champion Bob Mathias defeat an incumbent to be elected to the U.S. Congress, according to the Post obituary. 

Between presidential campaigns and thereafter, Lake advised agricultural and corporate clients on government relations and strategic corporate communications. 

In the early 1980s, he was instrumental at Heron Burchette Ruckert & Rothwell in establishing the practice of law firms accepting non-lawyers as key members of the firm, according to the Post obituary.

He was also a frequent political commentator on CNN and Fox News.

In 1997, Lake married his second wife, Cynthia S. Hudson, and they resided together in Alexandria and Callao, Va. Survivors include his wife; twin sons, James C. Lake (Rhonda) of Alexandria, and Michael B. Lake (Chelsea) of McLean, Va.; a brother, Monte B. Lake (Susan) of Callao, Va.; eight grandchildren; six great grandchildren; many nieces; nephews; grandnephews, and a grandniece.

He was preceded in death by his sister, Joan Madison, son, Garrett D. Lake and niece, Catherine M. Lake. Celebrations of life will be held at later dates. The Lake and Hudson families request that in lieu of flowers, anyone wishing to honor Lake do so by making a donation to the MINDlink Foundation (mindlinkfoundation.org/donate). The foundation was established in Catie Lake’s honor to support the pioneering cerebellum research of Dr. Jeremy Schmahmann’s Laboratory or Neuroanatomy and Cerebellar Neurobiology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Saturday, March 20, 2021

Heritage Explains: The Election Process if H.R. 1 Passes

Source: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains-if-hr-1-passes

Feb 28, 2021

H.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states.

Heritage Foundation President, Kay C. James, said in a recent article the right to vote is one of the most sacred rights that we as citizens can exercise. Hardly anyone—Democrats, Republicans and independents—trusts the process anymore, and legitimate concerns exist about the fairness and accuracy of our elections. We saw all of this on display in the 2020 election. If the proposed bill H.R. 1 becomes law, it is certain this would become the new normal in America. This week, we break down H.R. 1 and how it would undermine our election integrity forever.

Tim Doescher: From The Heritage Foundation, I'm Tim Doescher and this is Heritage Explains. Have you heard of H.R. 1 or the For the People Act? The Democrats say this is going to make elections more free, and more fair, and increase democracy for all. And since they now have control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, it's closer than ever to passing. So what does H.R. 1 propose? If you search online for a definition or watch videos of politicians touting H.R. 1, you read and hear general phrases like it will improve access, promote integrity, ensure security, empower citizens, and strengthen oversight, but these are outcomes they hope to achieve. We still need to know how they intend to achieve them. Here's one of the lead sponsors of the bill in the House, John Sarbanes. He's a Democrat from Maryland.

John Sarbanes: If we could get the reforms that are embodied in H.R. 1 into law, it would be absolutely transformational. It would be the most robust, kind of breathtaking set of reforms that we've seen in two generations. And it would, in a way with a kind of quantum leap, it would push our democracy towards a place where Americans could feel faith again and restore their trust in how we operate.

>>> The Facts About H.R. 1: The “For the People Act of 2021”

Doescher: Okay. Nice language. He sounds like a genuine guy, but still no substance. I guess we're just going to have to read this bill the old fashioned way. And when we do, we quickly learn the left believes that in order to have all those wonderful things they said, H.R. 1 would have to federalize the election process and impose unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states. Imagine that, the same body of Congress that has less than a 25% approval rating will have a major hand in the administration of free and fair elections in Bismark, North Dakota and beyond.

Hans von Spakovsky: What this bill does is take the worst aspects of what happened in 2020 and try to cement them into federal law all over the country. The key to stopping H.R. 1 is going to be in the US Senate. And that I think is going to be dependent on the filibuster, unless a couple of Democratic senators realize that this is just a bad bill.

Doescher: This week, Hans von Spakovsky joins us. He runs The Heritage Foundation Election Law Reform Initiative. He's a leading voice on H.R. 1 and a frequent guest of Heritage Explains. This week, he tells us why H.R. 1 is not at all what the left would have you believe. In fact, he argues that if passed, it would be devastating to our election process forever. More after this.

Doescher: Hans, the stated purpose of the bill H.R. 1 is the following, I'm going to, I'm going to read from it, "To expand American's access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy and for other purposes." Now, to me, this all sounds good, but I know who's proposing it. So, obviously the devil's in the details. Explain just a little bit more how or if this bill will do these good sounding things.

von Spakovsky: No, it'll do the exact opposite. A better description of it is that this bill would be a federal takeover and nationalization of the running and administration of elections, basically taking it away from the states. It would change election rules to make it easier to cheat and easier to manipulate election results. And on the ethics and campaign finance rule changes, it's designed to restrict and chill speech, political speech and political activity. So it it's just a, in fact, I'll tell you, Timothy, this is one of the worst bills I've ever seen in my years in Washington.

Doescher: Well, just go a little deeper into that. Why is it a big deal to take the power away from the states to manage the elections? And I know we've covered it a little bit, but I just want to cover that again, because that's a huge part of this.

von Spakovsky: Well, look, there's a reason the framers of the Constitution gave the authority to the states to run elections. And the reason for that was they didn't want the people who are in control in Washington, say one political party, which is apparently the case right now, changing the rules nationally to ensure that they remain in office. By breaking the power up as to how elections are conducted among the 50 states, they were trying to prevent that from happening. And it means, with the national government running elections, that they can put in bad rules, such as one of the provisions in the bill that outlaws all state voter ID laws.

Doescher: And we're kind of just trailing along with this, we all witnessed the outcome of the 2020 election. There's a lot of information flying around about that in general, but I want to clear some things up, put some things to bed, and maybe affirm some of the things. Can you just give us a quick overview of what actually happened in the 2020 election that would cause a bill like H.R. 1 to have legitimacy?

von Spakovsky: Well, I actually don't think what happened last year gives it legitimacy, because in fact, what this bill does is take the worst aspects of what happened in 2020 and try to cement them into federal law all over the country. As you know, we had a huge increase in absentee ballots. And one of the things that folks unfortunately on the left side of the political aisle tried to do was to get rid of the security protocols governing absentee ballots. And to give you just, again, another quick example of this is look, unfortunately, absentee ballots are the ballots most likely to get stolen and altered, because they're the only kind of ballots that are voted outside of the supervision of election officials and outside the observation of poll watchers.

von Spakovsky: So last year, folks on the left filed lawsuits, trying to use COVID-19 as an excuse to say states that require a witness signature for an absentee ballot should not be able to enforce that witness signature requirement. Look, that is a basic security protocol is to make sure there's someone who witnesses that it's really the voter who signed the ballot and filled it out, not somebody else. They were successful in some cases, unsuccessful in others, but guess what? H.R. 1 has a provision in it that said that no state can require a witness signature on an absentee ballot.

Doescher: You recently said in a great article, "For democracy to survive and thrive, it's crucial that every legitimate vote be counted and not diluted by election fraud and other problems. It's time for states to implement these reforms to shore up the people's trust in our elections." Now we saw a couple of days ago, Governor DeSantis in Florida, he's pushing to ban universal mail-in voting and ballot harvesting. Talk a little bit more about states' ability to push back a little bit, but then also talk about the fact that if H.R. 1 is passed, it's all for nothing.

von Spakovsky: Yeah, DeSantis is actually trying to put through a good package of election reforms. For example, banning vote harvesting. For folks who don't know what that means, I actually call that vote trafficking. In states that allow that like California, they allow anybody to show up at your front door and say, "Hey, I'll deliver your absentee ballot for you back to election officials." Well, of course the problem with that is that it puts your ballot into the hands of people who have a stake in the outcome of the election, campaign staffers, candidates, party, activists, political consultants, all of who, once they get your ballot, could change it, alter it, not deliver it.

>>> How To Restore Faith in Our Federal Elections

von Spakovsky: It's just not a good idea. And so, in Florida, they're being smart, they want to ban vote harvesting. Well, guess what? If H.R. 1 passes any state law like that will be voided and thrown out, because H.R. 1 requires states to allow vote harvesting. It's as if Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who are pushing this through Congress, they want to make it easy for people's ballots to be stolen and for fraud to occur. That's the only reason to put in a rule like that.

Doescher: Is there any chance that you think that this could pass? Is there a chance that it could be bi-partisan, Republicans coming along? I'm not exactly sure the lay of the land there, but maybe you have an insight to that.

von Spakovsky: No, H.R. 1, I would hope maybe some members of the Democratic party would rethink it, realize it's not a good idea. But the same bill, virtually the same bill was introduced in 2019 and it passed on a party line vote. So it looks like that's going to happen again. The key to stopping H.R. 1 is going to be in the US Senate, and that I think is going to be dependent on the filibuster unless a couple of Democratic senators realize that this is just a bad bill. It's one that really will damage everybody, because, boy, you think people aren't confident and distrust what happened to the last election? If these roles go in place, they're going to be distrusting the results in all elections going forward.

Doescher: The facts about H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, I'm going to link to this. Hans, you and the shop put this together. It is a comprehensive overview of H.R. 1. And I wanted to just give you an opportunity to kind of, not just talk about H.R. 1, but you can also get into your piece in which you said how we can respond to it. We want to be proactive about going about fighting this. So everything that's bad about H.R. 1, we have a solution to push back for that. And we've mentioned a few of them, but just go through that just a little bit more and contrast the two.

von Spakovsky: This is not a partisan thing. It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or an Independent, you should want fair and secure elections. And that means, yeah, we want access, we want everybody who's eligible able to vote, but you have to balance access with security. So our list of best practices, it's very long, but it's everything from the proper cleanup of voter registration roles in the state to make sure that they are accurate. An easy way for states to do that is to make sure their voter registration lists are tied into other state databases like DMV.

von Spakovsky: So that when you go and get a driver's license and you tell them where you live, it matches your records in the voter registration list. Every state needs a voter ID law, but they need a law that applies, not only to in-person voting, but also to absentee ballot. I mean, it's a whole list of things like that. And by the way, they should not allow vote harvesting. That should be banned as just a basic security protocol to not only prevent fraud in absentee allies, but also to prevent coercion and pressure being brought on voters in their homes by people working for the political parties and candidates.

Doescher: So talk a little bit about some of the more left leaning states, talk a little bit about their goals here. Are they working with the federal government to do this, or are they saying, "Hey, we want to have control over our elections. We don't want the federal government, we don't want Washington telling Oregon how to do their election." Oregon has a different system than most of the country has. Their unique. Are they banding together?

von Spakovsky: I haven't heard that they're banding together. I have heard some grumblings from state officials, including secretaries of state in some of the blue state who are, while they might like of the provisions in H.R. 1, they don't like the idea of the federal government simply taking this whole field over and telling them what to do. And that is the bottom line on this. Again, I don't care whether you're a Democrat, or Republican, or an Independent, you should want the people in your state to make the decisions on how elections are conducted in your state and not a bunch of know-it-alls in Washington, DC dictating to you how to run your elections.

von Spakovsky: That's particularly true, because the there's no one-size-fits-all policy. The rules that govern how you go vote that might be convenient in a dense urban area like New York City are not going to be the same rules that are convenient for people who are voting in the vast wide open spaces of Montana or at Wyoming. And it's just not a good idea for Washington, DC to be dictating the rules, especially when they're bad rules like saying you can't apply a voter ID requirement.

>>> A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States

Doescher: It's probably safe to say that for whatever confusion existed in the 2020 election, that that would probably only increase with H.R. 1, correct?

von Spakovsky: Absolutely correct. Yes.

Doescher: Okay. So, that would become a new normal in elections and probably election integrity would never be the same.

von Spakovsky: Yeah, I think that's a very accurate statement as why this is such a scary bail, because it could affect, in a bad way, our elections for the ongoing future.

Doescher: Hans, I want to impart to you, I want to send to you through the microphone energy vibes, because you have been going nonstop since, well, since really the beginning of 2020 on this. You predicted a lot of this was going to happen. Unfortunately, it did. And I want to impart on you energy and good vibes to keep fighting this, Hans, because really it is, it is so important and necessary. And thank you so much for being with us today.

von Spakovsky: Sure. Thanks for having me.

Doescher: Friends, thank you so much for listening to another episode of Heritage Explains. Hit that share button, hit that like button, send us an email at managingeditor@heritage.org. We'd love to hear from you. Also check out the show notes section, I've linked to a lot of relevant information that helped build this episode. So, please check it out. Michelle Cordero's up next week. We'll talk to you then.



H.R. 1 Is a Threat to American Democracy. Period. By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi delivers remarks during a press conference for H.R. 1 on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, March 3, 2021 in Washington, D.C.
Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images


Source: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/hr-1-threat-american-democracy-period

Mar 12th, 2021

Key Takeaways

H.R. 1 would usurp the role of the states, wipe out basic safety protocols, and mandate a set of rules that would severely damage the integrity of elections.

It seems pretty obvious that voters should be required to authenticate both their citizenship and their identity before casting ballots.

It is past time for the states to fix these problems—and it will never be time for Congress to interfere and make these problems even worse than they already are.


There are many vulnerabilities in the American election system. These vulnerabilities need to be fixed. Unfortunately, H.R. 1—the “For the People Act of 2021,” which recently passed in the House without a single Republican vote, and is now before the Senate—is not the way to do it. Indeed, H.R. 1 would make things much worse, usurping the role of the states, wiping out basic safety protocols, and mandating a set of rules that would severely damage the integrity of the election process.

H.R. 1 would mandate same-day and automatic voter registration, and encourage vote trafficking of absentee ballots. It would eviscerate state voter ID laws and limit the ability of states to verify the accuracy of their voter registration lists. This would institutionalize the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election. But H.R. 1 would go even further in increasing the security weaknesses inherent in the current “honor” voter registration and voting system that exists in states across the country.

>>> Election Integrity Is a National Imperative

Anyone who doubts that fraud occurs is living in a dreamland. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s new voter ID law in 2008, it noted that America has a long history of election fraud documented by journalists and historians—and that fraudulent voting could make the difference in a close election. After all, we frequently have close elections.

The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database, which is just a sampling of proven cases of election fraud from across the country, now contains more than 1,300 cases, and we are continually adding to it. The database does not include numerous cases—such as those reported recently in New Hampshire, Texas, and California—where those charged with fraud have not yet been convicted.

If H.R. 1 is not stopped, then Americans may never be able to trust the fairness and credibility of future election outcomes. To assure the integrity of future elections, a far better approach is to prod states, which have primary constitutional responsibility for the administration of elections, to fix the holes in their election laws and rules to ensure both eligible voter access and ballot security. Those are the two essential principles of the election process and, unlike what the Left believes, you cannot have one without the other.

So what should state legislatures be doing right now while they are in sessions all across the country? Here are just a few “best practices” taken from a much more extensive and complete list published by the Heritage Foundation.

It seems pretty obvious that voters should be required to authenticate both their citizenship and their identity before casting ballots. Only lawful citizens can vote in federal elections. States should, therefore, require proof of citizenship to register to vote, as well as verify the citizenship of registered voters with the records of the Department of Homeland Security, including the E-Verify system.

States should require voters to present a government-issued photo ID to vote in-person or by absentee ballot—something already implemented by a handful of states such as Alabama, Kansas, and Wisconsin. Claims that this requirement constitutes voter suppression are simply frivolous; virtually every person of voting age already has such IDs, and those who do not can easily get them. Every state with an ID requirement issues a free ID to anyone who doesn’t already have one. Despite the empty howls of “repression,” states that have implemented ID requirements have seen turnout go up, not down.

Absentee ballots are ripe vehicles for fraud because they are the only ballots that are voted outside the supervision of election officials and outside the observation of poll watchers. This leaves the ballots susceptible to being stolen, forged, and altered. Those voting absentee may also be subject to coercion and pressure in their homes—something that can’t happen in a polling place. Absentee ballots should be reserved for individuals who are too disabled to vote in person or who will be out of town on Election Day and all early-voting days.

Similarly, states should ban vote-trafficking by third parties; H.R. 1 would require states to allow vote trafficking. It defies common sense to think it is a good idea to allow candidates, campaign staffers, party activists, and political operatives to obtain possession of, and deliver, absentee ballots in elections in which they have a stake in the outcome.

Just take a look at what happened in the North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District election in 2018—an election “corrupted by fraud, improprieties, and irregularities so pervasive,” the state Board of Elections overturned the results of the congressional race (and two local contests) and ordered new elections.” The problems arose because third parties were allowed to handle absentee ballots.

Voter registration lists are in notoriously bad shape all across the country, filled with registered voters who are noncitizens, have died or moved away, are ineligible because of a felony conviction, or are illegally registered at commercial instead of residential addresses. “Critical Condition,” a 2020 report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation, found over 144,000 instances of potential fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections. It included individuals who illegally cast two votes in the same election because they were registered more than once in the same state or registered in two different states, as well as individuals credited by state election officials with voting after they were deceased.

>>> New Cases in Election Fraud Database Show Vulnerabilities in System

To prevent this from happening states much design their computerized statewide voter registration lists to be interoperable, so that they can communicate seamlessly with each other, frequently exchanging and comparing information in their databases. For example, when an individual changes the residence address on his or her driver’s license, that information should be sent to state election officials so that the voter registration address of the individual is also changed to his or her new Department of Motor Vehicles residence address. States need to compare their lists with other states to find individuals who are dual registered. They should also access federal databases, such as the death index maintained by the Social Security Administration.

We should never see again what we saw last year—legally-designated election observers being shut out of the process in places like Detroit and Philadelphia. Observers must be allowed to have full access to every step of the election process, because transparency is essential to a fair and secure system, as well as maintaining public confidence. States need to strengthen their laws to punish election officials who prevent observers from fulfilling their vital function.

Finally, state legislatures must ensure that they have legal standing to prevent unauthorized state officials, such as governors or secretaries of state, from changing or ignoring state election laws—another thing we saw far too often in 2020. And private funding of election officials by organizations and individuals like Mark Zuckerberg must be banned. Such funding creates a conflict of interest and creates unequal opportunities to vote, potentially influencing the outcome of elections.

Americans want to ensure that all eligible citizens have access to the voting process. But there must guarantees that those votes are not diluted or stolen by election fraud and other problems. It is past time for the states to fix these problems—and it will never be time for Congress to interfere and make these problems even worse than they already are.

This piece originally appeared in The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/feature/hr-1-threat-american-democracy-period-179804




H.R. 1/For the People Act Imperils Free and Fair Elections. Here Are the Worst 8 Parts By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Source: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/hr-1for-the-people-act-imperils-free-and-fair-elections-here-are-the

I could walk into any polling place on Election Day, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming I really am John Smith, cast a ballot, and walk out.
lakshmiprasad S / Getty Images


Mar 16th, 2021

Key Takeaways

It will interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters.

Not only could states not apply any ID requirement to absentee ballots, they could not enforce any witness signature or notarization requirement.

It would force states to allow online registration, opening up the voter registration system to massive fraud by hackers and cybercriminals.


H.R. 1, the deceptively entitled "For the People Act," has arrived in the U.S. Senate after a party-line vote in the House of Representatives. It is without doubt the most dangerous and irresponsible election bill I have ever seen.

If it becomes law, it will interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, to ensure the accuracy and validity of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, and to participate and speak freely in the political arena.

H.R. 1 is an 800-page monstrosity that would usurp the role of the states. It would not only eliminate basic safety protocols, but mandate new, reckless rules and procedures. Here are the eight worst provisions of this ill-considered bill:

>>> The Election Process if H.R. 1 Passes

1. It would eviscerate state voter ID laws that require a voter to authenticate his identity. Indeed, it would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are. When combined with the mandate that states implement same-day voter registration, it means I could walk into any polling place on Election Day, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming I really am John Smith, cast a ballot, and walk out. Not only would election officials have no way of preventing that or verifying that I am not really John Smith, I could repeat this in as many polling places as I can get to.

2. It would make absentee ballots even more insecure than they already are. Not only could states not apply any ID requirement to absentee ballots, they could not enforce any witness signature or notarization requirement. States that wisely ban candidates, campaign staffers, party activists and political operatives from handling or delivering absentee ballots would see that ban voided. H.R. 1 would require states to give access to absentee ballots to third-party strangers who may have a stake in the outcome of the election. All states also have to create permanent absentee ballot lists for anyone who wants to vote entirely by mail in all elections and mail absentee ballot request forms to all registered voters, a real problem given how inaccurate state voter registration rolls are.

3. It would worsen the problem of inaccurate registration rolls, which are full of people who have died, moved away, are ineligible felons or noncitizens, or are registered more than once. H.R. 1 severely restricts the ability of states to take the basic steps necessary to maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls, such as comparing their lists with those of other states or using the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address System to find individuals who have moved.

4. It would take away your ability to decide whether you want to register to vote. Instead, it requires states to automatically register individuals who interact with state agencies such as DMV and welfare offices, as well as numerous federal agencies. This will not only lead to multiple registrations of individuals in the same and multiple states, but the registration of aliens and other ineligible individuals.

5. It would force states to allow online registration, opening up the voter registration system to massive fraud by hackers and cybercriminals. Worse, it severely restricts the ability of state officials to reject a voter registration application even when it is rejected because the official believes the individual is ineligible to vote.

6. It imposes onerous new regulatory restrictions on political speech and activity, including online and policy-related speech, by candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations. The disclosure provisions that apply to membership organizations like the NRA, Citizens for Life, and other organizations that Americans of all political stripes join to multiply their voices on important issues will subject donors to intimidation and harassment. It is the modern equivalent of the donor-disclosure requirements that state governments tried to impose on civil rights organizations in the 1950s – requirements the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

>>> The Risks of Mail-In Voting

7. It would authorize the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations when they apply for tax-exempt status. This would enable the political party in control of the White House (and thus the IRS) to use the IRS to go after anyone criticizing them or their policies.

8. It would set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. This would force taxpayers to subsidize the political campaigns of individuals they may vehemently disagree with and wouldn’t vote for in a million years.

Senators who supports H.R. 1 should realize that they are essentially in favor of throwing the validity and credibility of future elections in doubt and taking away the authority of the voters of their states to make their own decisions on how their elections should be run.

How much more anti-democratic can you get?

This piece originally appeared in Fox News



Surprise: Some courts ARE looking at the 2020 election By Mike Huckabee

Source: https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=1405861F-83F4-4CFC-BBF7-7D42B71DDA5D

March 23, 2021

Don't believe the media narrative that court challenges to the 2020 election are over and that we need to “move along; there’s nothing to see here.” Yes, most courts dismissed their cases without even looking at evidence, but some rulings have been made and there are still cases to be adjudicated. John Solomon has been keeping up with the activity.

In fact, now that Joe Biden is comfortably situated in the White House and Trump has dropped his own legal challenges, courts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia are starting to rule that the way widespread absentee balloting was handled in these states violated state laws.

For example, this month, the State Court of Claims in Michigan ruled that the secretary of state, Democrat Jocelyn Benson, violated state law with her instructions on signature verification for absentee ballots. A month before Election Day, she had told election clerks to "presume" that all signatures on absentee ballots were valid and reject only those with “multiple significant and obvious” inconsistencies. She was challenged in court by Republicans and one election clerk, as the state legislature had not provided this guidance.

Judge Christopher M. Murray ruled March 9 that Benson did not have the authority to establish such standards by herself, that it needed to be a formal process. In other words, you don’t just “presume.” He found her in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

It does seem that under her extremely lax standards, any forged signature that was even somewhat close would have easily gotten through. If the legislature wants that low a standard, it will have to formalize a rule to that effect.

Also, in Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court ruled in December that state and local officials should not have given blanket permission for voters to declare themselves homebound for the 2020 election and skip ID requirements. One of the challenges was in Dane County, the highly populated area around the city of Madison. The justices ruled that county officials as well as Gov. Tony Evers, who had issued an “emergency order” earlier in the year, did not have authority to do this.

As Solomon reported, “The court filings indicated nearly 200,000 voters declared themselves permanently confined in the state’s spring primary, a marked rise over prior years, and even more did so in the general election. Biden won Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes.”

And, yes, Virginia, there’s a law against accepting ballots without postmarks that arrive after Election Day. In Virginia, Frederick County Judge William W. Eldridge IV so ruled in a consent decree in a case brought by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which represented election board member Thomas Reed. J. Christian Adams, who is general counsel and president of the foundation, called this decision “a big win for the Rule of Law.”

Adams said, “This consent decree gives Mr. Reed everything he requested --- a permanent ban on accepting ballots without postmarks after Election Day, and is a loss for the Virginia bureaucrats who said ballots could come in without these protections.”

Additional legal challenges remain –- Solomon calls them “significant disputes” –- and Georgia and Arizona have audits and investigations of the voting machine logs pending. Of course, Solomon includes a statement, by now obligatory, about having no evidence of widespread fraud that impacted the outcome of the election, but we do know for sure that laws WERE broken, and that the outcome certainly COULD have been impacted.

Phill Kline of the Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project told Solomon that they’re “pursuing litigation” over whether hundreds of millions of dollars donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to the Center for Tech and Civic Life –- recall our reports on this –- and routed to local election officials in key battleground states might have unlawfully influenced the election. In fact, they’re expanding their litigation, which includes Wisconsin, land of the unsupervised dropboxes paid for by CTCL.

None of this litigation is going to pry President Biden out of the White House, but Solomon presents it as “the battle over how elections will be governed” in the future. Of course, House Democrats’ HR 1, which would legalize the actions that state judges have just ruled unlawful, would render it all (to use a favorite Supreme Court phrase) “moot.”

In another election update by Solomon, he has just obtained internal emails from election officials in Fulton County, Georgia, that are “heightening the mystery” surrounding the eyebrow-raising late-night counting at State Farm Arena.

At 10:22 p.m. on election night, county spokesperson Regina Waller emailed county officials and the State Farm Arena spokesman that “The workers in the Absentee Ballot Processing area will get started at 8 am tomorrow,” which would imply that they had stopped work for the night. But we know from the video of the arena that some kept working after the observers had left. When asked about this (presumably by Solomon), she said she was responding to an emailed question about when “all” workers would return. But she did not respond to a follow-up request to see that email.

There are other unclear and/or inconsistent emails as well from that night, and sworn affidavits that say everyone was told to leave but that a small group remained behind, as Solomon details.

Finally, in some odd post-election news, Sidney Powell has come up with a novel way to try to fend off Dominion Voting Systems, which has sued her for a trillion trillion dollars. That’s a number you normally see only in Democrat spending bills.

Actually, it’s for $1.3 billion, which is much too small to be a Democrat spending bill but a hefty chunk of change nonetheless. In a 54-page motion to dismiss, her attorneys turn the tables on Dominion, which in their suit have characterized her theories as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” If Powell’s claims were so incredibly wild and outlandish, her attorneys argue, then it must also be true that “reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.” And if reasonable people would not believe what Powell was saying, then Dominion is not harmed.

The motion makes other points as well. “In her motion to dismiss,” writes LAW & CRIME, “Powell does not argue that the statements are true. She claims they are not actionable because they are protected statements of political opinion.”

Powell also doesn’t say she lied. That would be cause for her disbarment, which is what the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit are after.

It’s an interesting argument, although to make it she has to impugn her own claims as over-the-top crazy. Are they crazy? Whether “reasonable people” believe them or not, only an expert examination of the machines will tell us for sure. If Dominion wants to show how off-base she is, that would be an excellent way, unless, of course, there's some reason they don't want to.