One of the striking things about the large field of Republican presidential candidates is just how diverse it is. No, not in the traditional sense of diversity — they’re all wealthy, middle-aged, Christian white guys — but in the sense there’s a candidate for the various factions of the party.
Some have decades of experience in Washington; some have experience at the state level. Some have a strong business background; some have a strong military background. There are governors, senators, House members, an actor, and a mayor. There are candidates from the West coast, East coast, Bible belt, Midwest, Southwest, and New England. The neocons are represented (Giuliani), as are the theocons (Huckabee), the Know-Nothings (Tancredo), the libertarians (Paul), and whatever the hell McCain and Romney are this week.
Given all of these choices, it’s amazing that a huge field like this has apparently driven the entire party into fits of frustration — not at the difficulty in picking among strong candidates, but in realizing that their seven remaining candidates are probably best described as the Seven Dwarves, none of whom can bring the party together.
For three decades, the Republican presidential nominating contest has served to unify the national party’s coalition of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives in advance of a general election fight with Democrats.
This year, it is ripping that coalition apart. […]
Among members of Congress, the lobbying shops on K Street and the local GOP committees in Iowa and New Hampshire, Republicans are divided, confused and sometimes demoralized about their choices for president. With less than two weeks left before voting begins, the party’s rank and file are being asked to ratify a new direction for the GOP amid the clash of a chaotic and wide-open campaign.
I don’t imagine the Republicans would be willing to just skip the nominating process and let GOP voters write in their favorite next November, but given the widespread disappointment, they might as well.
Soul-searching during a presidential campaign is typical for the Democratic Party, which seems to engage in philosophical rethinking every four years. But it is a rarer instance for Republicans, who typically rally around an establishment candidate, a consensus “next-in-line” who would be a shoo-in for the nomination.
That kind of party discipline helped George H.W. Bush win the nomination in 1988, gave a boost to former Kansas senator Robert J. Dole in 1996 and was crucial to George W. Bush’s victory in 2000. But finding a successor to President Bush, and a new direction for the party, is proving to be more difficult.
“I’m homeless,” said Jack Kemp, a former congressman and housing secretary in President George H.W. Bush’s administration and the party’s vice presidential nominee in 1996. “There isn’t that Reagan sense of optimism, of an inclusionary Republican Party.”
“It’s about as clear as mud,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who has talked to Giuliani and has met with Romney and former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) but remains undecided.
For conservatives, the flaws of each major candidate are just too glaring, GOP lawmakers say.
Giuliani tends to win them on economic issues, but they cannot get by his stand on social issues. They like Huckabee on the social agenda, but do not trust his economic stands. They like the Romney they see now, but they cannot forget the positions he once embraced in Massachusetts. And they dislike McCain’s opposition to Bush’s first-term tax cuts and his crusade to overhaul campaign finance laws.
You’ll notice, of course, that this equation omits Fred Thompson, who is at least marginally a top-tier candidate, and who probably could have been the one guy with no glaring GOP flaws, were it not for the fact that he apparently doesn’t want to actually run for president.
Best of all, the party is receiving very little help from the top, where George W. Bush is a weight on the party’s shoulders, and a name practically verboten among leading GOP contenders. Traditionally, an incumbent, retiring president can help establish a path for his party to follow. Not so much this cycle.
It’s hard to overstate how entertaining it is to see the party that relies almost exclusively on unity wander aimlessly with no direction or leadership. To be sure, this could change once there’s a Democratic nominee Republicans can rally in opposition to. But what does it say about the modern Republican Party that they need a Dem to save their electoral chances?