Two days ago, in blogging about the abortion records of the serious GOP Presidential prospects (McCain, Giuliani, Romney), I provoked a great deal of anger by writing off the other current contenders (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, Gilmore, Thompson, Duncan Hunter) as “lesser” candidates who stand no realistic chance of winning primaries or grabbing the nomination. No matter how much you may admire these people, their candidacies are irrelevant – more a bid for attention, or a preparation for future races, than a realistic bid for power.
Those who believe that any of the little-known wannabes could conceivably pull a huge upset and carry the 2008 convention in Minneapolis need to face one crucial question:
When, in the last 60 years of Presidential politics, did any obscure underdog manage to defy the odds and win the nomination of the Republican Party?
Yes, Democrats have had a few off-brand, odd-ball contenders who came out of nowhere to beat bigger names – including Carter in ’76, Clinton in ‘92 and, arguably, Dukakis in ’88. But even Democrats hand nominations reliably to front-runners like Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore and, most likely, Hillary.
In the GOP, however, front-runners don’t just usually win; they always win.
The last time a genuine underdog grabbed the Republican nomination was 68 years ago, when a celebrity lawyer with no political experience named Wendell Wilkie managed to stampede a divided convention.
Consider the GOP nominees since 1960, when Richard Nixon (the sitting Vice President and virtually unopposed) became the candidate. Four years later it was Goldwater, celebrity conservative and bestselling author who had emerged as the leading candidate two years ahead of time. Then Nixon again (’68) and once again (’72) and then the incumbent President (Ford) in ’76. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, former governor of the nation’s largest state and beloved movie star, finally won the nomination on his third try. In ’84, Reagan again and four years later his sitting VP, George H.W. Bush. In 1992 the GOP chose Bush again (laughing off a destructive challenge by Pat Buchanan) and in ’96 it was Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (on his third try for the nomination). In 2000, Texas Governor (and Presidential off spring) George W. Bush became the prohibitive favorite more than two years before the election, and he won uncontested re-nomination four years later.
Where, in this huge chunk of GOP history, do we see a single example of a Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo or Jim Gilmore emerging from anonymity to contend seriously for the Presidency?
In 2000, a number of fringe candidates (the irrepressible Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Orrin Hatch, Steve Forbes) conducted campaigns long enough to appear in debates but provided little distraction from the serious business of choosing between Bush and McCain.
In 2008, it’s less likely than ever that some underdog could emerge from the pack to shake up the dynamics of the race. At least in the past, a minor candidate could concentrate all his attention on Iowa or New Hampshire, develop momentum through a surprisingly strong showing, raise big money as a result, and then manage to compete in the later, big state primaries. This time, however, the entire process has been front-loaded: California will follow immediately after New Hampshire so there’s no chance whatever to gather enough funds to make a last-minute run at a huge state with multiple (and wildly expensive) media markets.
Contrary to the beliefs of conspiracy-minded paranoids, the dominance of the M-G-R (McCain-Guiliani-Romney) Triad isn’t the result of fateful decisions made by some corporate or media elite. It’s simply a question of name-recognition and the ability to raise money.
McCain ran a strong race six years ago, trading heavily on his war-hero status, and has never really stopped running since that time. Giuliani became a national hero after 9/11, as “America’s Mayor” and the Time magazine Man of the Year. Romney remains less well-known than his rivals, but as a spectacularly successful titan-of-turnaround in the business world, he can raise big money from his fellow tycoons (and, of course, from his fellow members of the LDS church).
To a surprising extent, each of today’s big three could count as an “outsider,” and none of them represent the current GOP Establishment. The President and his associates have run the Republican Party since 2006, and no die-hard Bushies would willingly pick McCain, Rudy, or Romney. Ironically, the three potential candidates closest to the Bush family --- Jeb Bush, Condaleezza Rice and Dick Cheney – all declined to make the race. Whoever wins the Republican nomination next year, the party will see a significant changing of the guard.
In this context, let me say just a few words about some of the comments posted to my blog when I previously wrote about the Presidential race. A reader who identifies himself as “George W. Bush” declared:
“All the Establishment candidates that the multinationals, large interest groups, and the media, Medved included, decide are suitable for us, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, are nothing but empty suits. You can only find conservatives in what Medved calls the ‘lesser’ candidates. But then again I can see why conservatives would be at odds with Talk Radio, we the people are not paid schmucks for the Republican Party, Medved is…. The conservatives need to take the party back or start a new one in its place. Or are you going to listen to the propaganda that Medved spews….”
In a similar vein, “Thoreau” asked:
“Who is Medved kidding?...Instead of mocking this second tier of candidates how about having them on your show. Plus who decided that Romney is my front runner, who decided that GWBush was my front runner in ‘99, it seems to me that Big Media including townhall.com and Fox are pushing Rudy and Mitt upon us and I ask at who’s behest?”
I’m not sure Thoreau has actually paid much attention to “Big Media,” but if he had he might have noticed that the most influential organs of communication haven’t been pushing Rudy and Mitt (alas!), but they have been promoting Barack and Hillary, and doing so relentlessly. Anyone want to compare the amount of positive coverage devoted to the Junior Senator from Illinois to the amount of attention lavished on all Republicans combined?
The notion that I work as “a paid schmuck for the Republican Party” strikes me as particularly amusing. You’re free to believe that I’m a “schmuck” (the original German meaning actually denotes “jewelry,” to tell the truth) but I can assure you that I’m not paid for it. The last time I received any remuneration for political work was in 1972 – when I was still a Democratic speechwriter and consultant. (I changed my registration during the Reagan campaign of 1980). My enthusiastic commitment to the Republican Party has cost me money (in contributions, and lavish commitments of time) not paid me money.
Moreover, only a delusional loser could credit the idea that “Big Media” somehow follows an organized agenda – that I get memos or directives or talking points from corporate bosses who dictate my opinions. Herewith, a startling disclosure that should help reveal the true nature of Talk Radio: I can solemnly affirm that I have never –repeat, never—discussed the 2008 Presidential campaign with my syndicators, or bosses, or the General Managers of our 200 stations, or any other corporate officials who might seek to influence my opinions. In ten years of broadcasting, I have never been instructed to “go easy” on a certain candidate, or promote a particular contender.
Those who believe that some secret cabal dominates all of Talk Radio should consider this: my show airs in major markets on many of the same stations that carry a broadcaster who calls himself “Michael Savage.” I often listen to his show on my way home after I’m done with my live broadcast. Not only does this colleague regularly rip President Bush and the Republican Party, he’s called in the past for the President’s impeachment (for “treason” among other things). He also speaks in hostile, derisive, dismissive terms about the M-G-R Triad, expressing contempt and hatred for McCain, Giuliani and Romney alike. In fact, a few days ago Dr. Weiner (a.k.a. Michael Savage) devoted most of an entire show to discussing his own prospective campaign for the Republican nomination—a juggernaut which will no doubt pose just as great a threat to the status quo as the Tancredo bandwagon or the Ron Paul boom.
If “Big Media” had actually decided which candidates secretly to anoint, how could it be that literally dozens of stations would broadcast both the Michael Medved Show and the Michael Savage Show, simultaneously promoting two radically different perspectives? (No, I won’t be backing the Savage-for-President jihad).
The truth of the matter is that talk radio and internet outlets like Townhall provide for a huge range of free-wheeling, two-fisted, openly debated, fervently disagreeing conservative opinion: there’s no malign, omnipotent power cutting off dissent or discussion.
And yes, I long ago invited each of the minor Republican candidates to come on my show, and I’ve promised to give each of them a full hour on the air (having previously welcomed McCain and Romney for fascinating interviews, with Rudy scheduled in a few days). The Huckabees and Brownbacks of this world haven’t gotten themselves well-enough organized to actually respond to my standing invitation, but when they finally get their acts together and agree to talk with me and with listeners on the air, I’m sure they’ll provide entertainment and enlightenment. And then, after this diverting discussion, we can get back to the serious business of actually selecting a serious candidate for President among the obvious, inescapable Big Three.