SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

Parties Trade Historical Roles

"Thou shalt not attack other Republicans," decrees Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. Why turn your fire on your own party when there's a perfectly good Democratic Party to attack? For a generation, Republican politicians were virtually prohibited from speaking ill of one another, lest they offend the base by bucking Reagan. In Washington State, the Republican Party can even levy a fine against one of their candidates for attacking another.

Democrats, on the other hand, have no such problem with cannibalism. Former Rep. Dick Gephardt and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, in 2003, spent millions attacking each other in Iowa, while Senators John Kerry and John Edwards rose above the fray to beat both on caucus night. Even Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton went straight to each other's jugulars as they sought to defeat George H.W. Bush in 1992.

This year, though, the roles are reversed. This week's debate was marked by the sharpest gotcha lines of the season, uttered not by Democrats, but by Republican front-runners Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The barbs, over who raised taxes the most, continued the next day, when Romney accused Giuliani of taking first place in the "suing and lawyering" contest after a Giuliani surrogate took on Romney for suggesting he would seek advice from attorneys in a matter of national security.

Romney and Giuliani, as many have pointed out, see each other as their greatest competition. Their campaigns let loose a non-stop barrage of charges and counter-charges, though they aren't alone: During Tuesday's debate, Fred Thompson press secretary Karen Hanretty sent out no fewer than eight releases offering to check the facts on the two front-runners, five targeting Romney and three aimed at Giuliani.

Earlier this year, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee took every opportunity they could to lash out at Romney, and each other. Yesterday even John McCain got into the act, accusing Romney and Giuliani of both raising taxes and fees during their tenures in an interview on conservative radio host Bill Bennett's program. The back-and-forth is joined by outside groups that just can't stand certain candidates, like the Club for Growth, which has run radio ads criticizing Huckabee, and the Log Cabin Republicans, which has run television spots hammering Romney.

On the Democratic side, however, candidates seem to be doing all they can to avoid naming the targets of their attacks. On the five-year anniversary of the Senate's vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama released a web ad highlighting his opposition to the war, then and now. Still, the announcer says "other Democrats fell in line" behind President Bush, and the ad fails to enumerate just who those other Democrats were.

Obama hopes viewers of the ad will know that "other Democrats" include Sen. Hillary Clinton, and, to a lesser extent, former Sen. John Edwards, who both voted for the authorization. But in surprisingly un-Democratic Party fashion, Obama, Edwards and others have rarely seriously gone after Clinton, the runaway front-runner, by name. Only recently have the criticisms stepped up.

With just months to go before the first frozen Iowans appear at caucus doorsteps, Obama has seized on a recent amendment in the Senate, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, that would label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, as the vehicle for beginning more direct comparisons with Clinton. "I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment," Obama wrote in today's New Hampshire Union Leader.

Edwards, of late, has sharpened his rhetoric as well. At a campaign stop in New Hampshire last week, he implied Clinton was "just a little bit better than the Republicans," which "is not reason enough to be the President of the United States," according to the Washington Post. Still, with not a single television ad having named Clinton in a negative light, and, unlike Republicans, with outside groups staying on the sidelines, Democrats have displayed party loyalty more than usual, and are certainly more unified than the raucous, back-biting 2004 primary field.

The two parties may also trade historical roles in who they tap as their nominees. For Republicans, history suggests that the early establishment favorite who leads preliminary polls will get the nomination. George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford were all seen as the choice of Washington Republicans.

In 2006 and early 2007, McCain was the early front-runner. After his decline this summer, and disappointing third quarter fundraising, that looks increasingly unlikely. Some would argue that Giuliani, in fact, appears to be the establishment's choice, but even that assertion is problematic. With Romney riding high in Iowa and even or slightly ahead in New Hampshire and Thompson slowly overtaking the mayor in South Carolina, Giuliani's nomination is anything but a foregone conclusion.

Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to select insurgent candidates who speak to their issues. Few knew Jimmy Carter before he leapt from Georgia to the national stage. Rarely did anyone mention Michael Dukakis as nominee material. Fewer still had heard of the Man From Hope before he left Arkansas for the campaign trail. Yet Democrats nominated them as their standard bearer.

While John Kerry, Al Gore and Walter Mondale were early leaders, but each weathered strong challenges from insurgents like Howard Dean, Bill Bradley and Gary Hart. Democrats seem more impulsive, and a candidate who finds the right spot to scratch can make it far, even with little money or little establishment support.

This year, Clinton's lead is far more solid than any Howard Dean once had. Obama, Edwards and other Democrats are putting all their chips on Iowa, because many realize that a Clinton win in Iowa would start a ball rolling that would be virtually impossible to stop. The Democratic Party is on the verge of acting like Republicans and holding a coronation rather than an election.

Whether it's eating one's own young or nominating the party favorites, it looks more and more like Republicans and Democrats have switched roles. How that will play out in a general election remains to be seen. Still, trying on a new part is rarely comforting for any candidate, and that discomfort could cause a general election ripe for miscues.

And that makes the new playbooks from which both parties are reading all the more exciting.

---

Sphere: Related Content

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: election 2008 |

Sponsored Links