GOP faces major shift in '08 vote

[Neil D]

Ah, we have 3 years to go with the Bush administration, but already pundants are looking ahead....

By Dick Polman

Inquirer Political Analyst

Back when President Bush was riding high - before the public turned sour on Iraq, before conservatives got mad about his lavish federal spending and his Harriet Miers nomination - it was widely assumed that the 2008 Republican presidential candidates would vie amongst themselves for the right to proudly carry their leader's torch.

But that's not happening.

The Republican hopefuls - as many as a dozen men who already are jockeying for advantage - don't want to be perceived as insiders and heirs to the Bush political establishment. On the contrary, most of them are trying to advertise their independence, to distance themselves from Bush on key issues, to appear as rebels fed up with the wicked ways of Washington.

A small sampling:

Sen. John McCain of Arizona is tweaking Bush for his budget-busting spending binge.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a hero to grassroots conservatives, is threatening to oppose the Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska assails Bush on Iraq, contending that the White House is "disconnected from reality."

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee scoffs at Bush's suggestion that perhaps the Pentagon should be the lead agency handling natural disasters.

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, contends that the current GOP establishment, mired in scandals, has betrayed the small-government reform agenda that congressional conservatives brought to Washington 10 years ago.

Rep. Thomas G. Tancredo of Colorado charges that Bush is soft on illegal immigration and hasn't done enough to secure our borders against terrorists.

Outsider election

"Right now, it looks like 2008 will be an 'outsider' election," said Jack Pitney, a former national party official and GOP campaign aide, "because in 2005, average Republicans don't associate insiders with success. This has been a very bumpy year, and it may get even bumpier. People looking for a candidate might feel compelled to look beyond the party establishment."

That's not traditional Republican behavior. The GOP tends to encourage and reward presidential candidates with establishment pedigrees who have paid their dues. That rule applies to every nominee since Richard Nixon in 1968.

Ronald Reagan was arguably an outsider in 1980 (he had not served in Washington), but he had run for president in 1976 and was a titular leader of the party. In 2000, Bush had never run for president, but his establishment family ties gave him insider status.

But the woes plaguing Bush - including the scandals involving indicted powerhouse Tom DeLay and well-wired lobbyist Jack Abramoff (a GOP conservative activist when he first came to town), as well as the legal cloud hovering over Bush strategist Karl Rove - are playing havoc with the traditional GOP respect for hierarchy.

'Return to our ideals'

Matthew Continetti, a conservative analyst who is writing a book about the Republican Party, said Friday: "The scandals we're facing are the consequences of being in power so long. Establishments attract ne'er-do-wells. The question we face is, do we want to continue along the same road? During the 2008 primaries, there will be reform candidates making the argument that 'we need to return to our ideals.' "

As for Bush, "you'll see people distancing themselves from him even more. This President is becoming weaker by the day."

Here's the distancing process in action: Top Republicans in four states - West Virginia, North Dakota, Florida and Michigan - have spurned the administration's attempts to sign them up as challengers to four Democratic senators up for reelection in 2006. And this year, in the reliably red state of Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore has conspicuously neglected to enlist Bush's help on the stump.

Republican unrest also is evident in Georgia, which is girding for an establishment-vs.-outsider clash in 2006. The establishment figure is Ralph Reed, the former Bush strategist and ex-religious-right leader who worked with indicted lobbyist Abramoff on lucrative casino-gambling ventures. The outsider is State Sen. Casey Cagle, who is trying to paint Reed as a tainted insider. They will compete in the GOP primary for lieutenant governor, a bellwether race that could help the presidential candidates assess the depth of grassroots opposition to the Bush establishment.

At the moment, however, it is conservative fallout from the Miers nomination that has roiled the waters for 2008. Many conservatives voted for Bush last November expecting he would move the high court sharply to the right. But Miers' blank slate has prompted widespread outrage - and it's noteworthy that Brownback, who is openly courting social and religious conservatives as he maps an '08 bid, declared Thursday that he might oppose Miers even if Bush personally asked him for a yes vote.

Bill Pascoe, a conservative strategist in Chicago, said Friday: "Many conservatives believe that President Bush gave up leadership of the movement last Monday morning, with the Miers nomination. They're disappointed that [by failing to pick a prominent jurist] he shied away from a fight that would have united Republicans and divided Democrats... .

"We wanted a conservative with a track record. We've heard that 'trust me' line many times before. What all this means, for 2008, is that [we] will be more determined to look for a presidential candidate with a conservative track record, somebody with the ability to deliver proven conservative governance."

But which outsider can attract the conservatives, who tend to vote heavily in GOP primaries? Flaws abound.

For instance, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani looked good after Hurricane Katrina, because his leadership in disaster management is proven. But some party strategists believe his "pre-Sept. 11 record" will sour the GOP faithful: a messy divorce and liberal stances on gay rights and abortion.

Similarly, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has balanced the state budget without a tax hike, but he has contradicted himself while trying to woo religious conservatives (he recently told a South Carolina audience that he has opposed gay civil unions "from day one" - without mentioning that he backs a state constitutional amendment that would permit civil unions).

Maybe Sen. George Allen of Virginia, a former governor, has the right track record, but conservatives hostile to Miers are watching him carefully. Thus far, he has merely given himself enough rhetorical wiggle room to vote yes or no.

Which brings us to McCain. Among all the prospective candidates, he has arguably benefited the most during Bush's string of woes. He has an insider resume but an outsider profile. He has stuck with Bush on Iraq (and on Miers, too) but has been hammering away at the administration for its Democratic-style spending. And he has embarrassed the party establishment by chairing Senate hearings that exposed Abramoff's ethically dubious behavior.

Pitney, the former GOP official, said: "Republicans increasingly want somebody who is not tainted by the scandals, someone who is established as an ethical reformer. A lot of Republicans may disagree with McCain on some issues, but they do want to keep winning.

"And since McCain supports Bush on the war, Bush knows that he owes the guy, so he's not likely to stand in his way."

It's truly a sign of the changing Republican landscape that the antiestablishment rebel of the 2000 campaign is on track to be a leading party luminary in 2008.

[Dr. Shane]

President Bush is more moderate than conservative - always has been. The Conservatives don't like it.

If the Democrats can get their act together they can win in 2008. However they have to change for just being nay-sayers to actually having solutions for problems. The Republicans stand to lose in the 2006 elections unless something changes. That is because their base is not energized unlike the Democrat base. That means many Republicans are likely to sit out the midterm elections much like Democrats did in 1994. We could see the Democrats take both houses of Congress. But again, they need to get their act together and have a message of solutions. Anti-Bush/Anti-Republican jargen is not likely to be enough. I would say that victory is the Democrats to lose. The Republicans' best hope is that the Democrats follow the radical path of Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry.

[bevin]

I agree entirely, Shane

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

I have had a sense that things might come apart for the Republicans eventually ever since Bush picked for a veep a man whom everyone knows is not going to run for president in 2008. If his veep were a viable presidential candidate, things would be much different. But as things are, the 2008 Republican nomination is going to be wide open to "outsiders." If too conservative a candidate is chosen, and if Hillary Clinton succeeds in her present efforts to repackage herself as a moderate, then the Dems will undoubtedly be giving us the Clintonista era Part II. One is loathe to contemplate what sort of "First Gentleman" Bill Clinton will be.