GOP Starting Off Slow
First of all, if we're going to get through the next 19 months, let's agree to have a moratorium on invoking the memory of Ronald Reagan. Sure, the first Republican presidential debate last week was held at the Ronald Reagan Library. And sure, the first question was about Reagan's slogan "Morning in America." And of course, Rudy Giuliani answered by saying he would be just like Reagan-trying to "lead from optimism." And then, one by one, each candidate lauded the former president as if competing for his endorsement. Reagan "was a president of strength," Mitt Romney told us; Giuliani would have us believe that in the Iranian hostage crisis, our opponents "looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes, they released the hostages." Sounds like a made-for-TV movie. But here's the point for these GOP candidates: If you keep invoking Reagan, you'll only diminish yourselves.
So enough already. As these 10 men stood behind their rostrums, they looked less like Reagan than game show contestants. ("For $50, 'Should America fund stem cell research?' For $200, 'How would you feel if Roe v. Wade were repealed?") It's no one's fault, really; the field is so large, there's only room for sound bites, not conversation. And it's hard to look presidential when you're sharing the stage with the likes of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who gives new meaning to the question asked by Ross Perot's former running mate, Adm. James Stockdale: "Who am I? Why am I here?"
No first choice. Even so, something did become clear last week: A look at the Republican field reiterates what Republican stalwarts already feel-that there is no obvious first pick. A CBS News poll last month showed that GOP primary voters are unhappy. Sixty-one percent said they want more choices; only 35 percent said they were satisfied with their candidates. "When you're not satisfied, you're always looking for the savior," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio says. And that's why Fred Thompson, a onetime GOP senator and most recently the district attorney on Law and Order, is being talked about as the guy to come in and rescue the party. (Though he can't afford to wait much longer, or we'll think he's not willing to put in the work it takes to win.) But there were some unexpected moments of interest-and new terrain. It's hard to remember a time when GOP candidates were less united on social issues like abortion and embryonic stem cell research. To his credit, Sen. John McCain made his support for stem cell research unambiguous. By comparison, his fellow front-runners Romney and Giuliani seemed downright tortured in their explanations: Romney, trying to explain how he's gone from favoring abortion rights to opposing them in a few years; Giuliani, who favors abortion rights, almost nonchalantly shrugging and saying it would be "OK" if Roe v. Wade were repealed. Really?
Then there was the elephant in the room-President Bush. McCain-whose support for the war has given him a political ulcer and low poll numbers-took the opportunity to talk about how "I would not have mismanaged the war." That's his story, and he's sticking to it. No overt attacks much beyond that on the unpopular president; Bush even received kudos for his decisions after Sept. 11, 2001. But when the conversation turned to Iran, the GOP field rattled its collective saber, almost as if Iraq were a distant-and less harmful-cousin. The use of force is the "final option," McCain said. Giuliani was even more specific: "The reality is the use of military force against Iran would be very dangerous. ... the only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power." The rest was left unsaid. Maybe it's because there wasn't enough time; more likely, it's because no one quite knows what to say.
advertisement
