One Republican—we’ll call him “Candidate A”—has among the highest support levels for President George W. Bush’s conservative agenda in the Senate. He championed the president’s 2001 tax cut, which many Republicans believe is the litmus test of today’s GOP. After initially voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, he became an early and outspoken critic of the Iraq policy, a view now endorsed not just by the American public and Democrats but by Republicans as well.
Republican “Candidate B” has the inverse position. He opposed Bush’s big tax cuts, one of only two Republicans in the Senate to do so (the other being Lincoln Chafee). And on Iraq he is one of the main advocates of the “surge,” a plan to “win” the war with a modest influx of troops, though even many military experts say the idea won’t work.
You would think that Candidate A would be a strong favorite for the nomination and Candidate B destined for political oblivion. But no. Candidate A, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, is seen as damaged goods, with little chance to be nominated. Candidate B, Arizona Sen. John McCain, is now the front runner.
…
The most stunning thing about the Republican campaign so far is the vacuum on the right. While McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (a moderate Republican until five minutes ago) battle over the centrists in the party, the conservative base that actually determines the nomination remains forlorn. Giuliani supports gay rights and abortion, and a third of Republicans disqualify Romney solely because he’s a Mormon. This opening is why former Virginia governor James Gilmore is getting in the race and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee—”Oprah”-ready after losing 110 pounds—can’t be ruled out.But governors, who normally make the strongest presidential candidates, seem a little irrelevant this time around. They aren’t likely to sound as credible as senators on the nuances of Pakistani politics or the readiness of the Third Infantry Division. There’s more conventional wisdom that’s in danger of cracking, too. Pooh-bahs in both parties have convinced the candidates that they have to raise $100 million this year to be competitive. This is nonsense in the Internet age, peddled by consultants who need that booty for their own pockets. In congressional elections, money is a cause—it leads directly to success. In presidential politics, money is an effect—it follows quickly the momentum that’s generated in the rough and tumble of the “free media” campaign.
Chuck Hagel might not run. But if he does, Candidate A would be formidable. It’s the issues, stupid.
I think Alter is over-estimating the willingness of the Republican base – and perhaps more importantly the Republican bloggers/media figures – to not rule out a candidate on the grounds of disagreement with Bush. Hagel faces the same obstacles Dennis Kucinich faces on the Democratic side – being right on the issues doesn’t make one a viable candidate for the base to consider. Worse for Hagel, he has to overcome candidates who are representing a full range of constituencies in the Republican Party. McCain has the Beltway insiders (and possibly the Bush dynasty) support locked down. Brownback, Huckabee, and Gingrich will be battling for religious right support. Tancredo and Hunter will fight for nativist support. Romney, Giuliani, and Pataki will struggle for all of these constituencies and the gaps that fall between them. Gilmore and everyone else will fight over the label of who is the ideologically purest Republican.
Hagel’s path is not clear and I’d bet that the Republican nominee will not be decided in a blind taste test as Alter hopes.
Technorati Tags: 2008 Election, Chuck Hagel, Jonathan Alter
Something to say?
