Candidate Credentials: A Dilemma In 2008?
By Paul M. Weyrich (03/09/05)
I was in a meeting a short time ago at which the topic was the 2008 elections. The remarkable 2004 elections were so recent, the discussion seemed premature. Yet in this non-stop political world of ours, there no longer is breathing room between elections. The discussion pointed to the fact that conservatives have no obvious choice for the GOP nomination in 2008.
The last time that happened was in 1988. The reason George Herbert Walker Bush got the nomination as easily as he did was because conservatives were in every camp. Pat Robertson initially scared some of the pols by doing well in Michigan and Iowa. Because Bob Dole’s pollster told him he was going to win the New Hampshire primary and he didn’t he is still bitter about it to this day. Lots of conservatives were in his camp, too. Many were in Jack Kemp’s camp. Although not as well known as a conservative, Pete DuPont had his share. Bush was the most moderate of all those candidates. But he had been a loyal soldier to Ronald Reagan and he presented himself as a third term for the beloved President. So with conservatives split so many ways, Bush was easily able to navigate the terrain.
If all of the prominent conservatives (especially those with grassroots followings) would have gotten behind a single candidate might Bush have been denied the nomination in 1988? It was entirely possible. Bush never got an absolute majority vote until the very late South Dakota primary and by then many candidates had dropped from the race.
The fear among conservative leaders is that if we all don’t get behind a single candidate, a Rudy Giuliani, someone quite unacceptable to us would manage to get the nomination the same way Bush got it, by taking a plurality of the vote while everyone else splits the balance.
It will be very difficult to get conservatives behind a single candidate precisely because there is no obvious choice. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas intends to run. He has a solid record but it is difficult to run while serving in the Senate. It is said that Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania wants to run. But first he must win another Senate term in 2006 against Bob Casey, Jr., the son of the revered moderate two-term Governor of Pennsylvania who was refused time at the Democrat party’s 1996 convention solely because he was pro-life. Already Santorum is running behind in several polls. And there is Majority Leader Bill Frist. Frist intends to leave the Senate after 2006, so of the three, everything being equal, he would probably have the best chance as he would not be tied down by Senate votes and obligations. Frist would have the best chance that is, provided the 109th Congress is looked upon favorably because of Frist’s leadership on issues such as judges, missile defense and the Law of the Sea Treaty.
There are some Governors. George Pataki of New York may well call it quits after three terms. If Pataki does run again, he may well be defeated and if he were, so would end his Presidential ambitions. Pataki is another New Yorker who comes out on the wrong side of the important Values Voters on key social issues, such as gay marriage.
Governor Bill Owens of Colorado looked like the golden boy of conservative politics before: a) the Democrats swept the State gaining a Senate seat and a House seat, and winning control of both houses of the State Legislature; b) Owens sought to repeal the very tax limitations he praised only a couple of years ago; and c) marital problems caused a separation and a host of unseemly rumors.
There is Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. He distinguished himself by opposing gay marriage but who favors so called civil unions, which are unpopular with his own people, let alone Values Voters in the country.
Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, although not well known, seems to have dealt with a Democratic State Senate without selling out his principles. If he were re-elected in 2006 he just might be a dark horse.
And then there is Newt Gingrich. Newt has a new book out and is spending time in Iowa and New Hampshire. Newt had the vision which enabled the GOP to take control of the House for the first time in 40 years. As Speaker he had problems and eventually was done in by members of his own party. Newt is charismatic and can hold an audience. Like Henry Kissinger, he is better when out of office then when holding office. It remains to be seen if he runs.
The Governor of California, Arnold they call him, remains highly popular but it would take a Constitutional Amendment to qualify him to run for the Presidency. So he will be out of play.
No doubt there are other Senators and Governors and even ex office holders who will be out there. Some conservatives will want to be “Mr. Big Shot” for a candidate who has few of our number. There will be conservatives who attach themselves to the Giuliani camp, for example. That will hurt us. If there is moral equivalency among the several Senators and maybe a Governor or two and no one emerges as a real star, then the chances are great that conservatives will split five ways from Sunday and that will hurt the country.
The question now confronting the movement is whether we actively intervene and try to make someone THE conservative candidate. That approach has its advantages, as its downsides. It is the movement which helped make Newt Gingrich. We put him on the cover of every magazine. We had him keynote every convention. We helped to bring him a national following which he shrewdly used in ascending the leadership ladder of the GOP in the House.
The 2008 conservative choice is a subject which, while three years away, deserves immediate attention. I wonder if this movement has matured enough to do it right this time?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Paul M. Weyrich
