The anonymous Republican wearing the ‘Scarlet R’

You know it’s a tough political environment for the GOP when a Republican Senate candidate sits down with reporters and says:

On the Iraq war: “It didn’t work. . . . We didn’t prepare for the peace.”

On the response to Hurricane Katrina: “A monumental failure of government.”

On the national mood: “There’s a palpable frustration right now in the country.”

The same Republican said he “probably” wouldn’t want Bush campaigning with him in his home state, said his party has “lost our way,” and offered stinging indictments of the White House on the war, immigration, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the Dubai ports deal.

There are at least two interesting angles to this. The first is the almost-whining tone this Republican took during his interview. When it came to talking about his chosen political party, he said, “It’s an impediment. It’s a hurdle I have to overcome. I’ve got an ‘R’ here, a scarlet letter.” He added that it would be “tough” to run “as a proud Republican.”

I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but droning on about how awful it is to be a Republican candidate, while bashing the party’s direction and failures, doesn’t make a lot of sense. Of course his party affiliation has become problematic — the same guy had just gone into great detail explaining how the GOP has lost its way.

The second angle is the big mystery: who in the world are we talking about here?

Dana Milbank explained that the interview took place at a DC steakhouse with a Republican candidate who wanted to remain anonymous. He chatted with nine political reporters, but only under the condition that he be identified only as a GOP Senate candidate. “When he was pressed to go on the record, his campaign toyed with the idea but got cold feet,” Milbank said. “He was anxious enough to air his gripes but cautious enough to avoid a public brawl with the White House.”

So, who is it? Here’s the criteria:

* He’s a he.

* The candidate is apparently not currently in the Senate, which means he’s either challenging a Dem or is running for an open seat.

* While criticizing the president, he agrees with Bush on stem-cell research, banning gay marriage, banning flag burning, and the dangers of pulling out of Iraq.

* He’s “immersed in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country.”

* Bill Frist briefly interrupted the lunch interview to tell reporters that this candidate is “the best.”

It sounds like it could be Minnesota’s Mark Kennedy, but he was in his home district yesterday. It could have been Ohio’s Mike DeWine, but he’s an incumbent. Maybe New Jersey’s Tom Kean Jr., except he disagrees with Bush on stem-cell policy.

My money’s on Maryland’s Michael Steele. Anyone else have any guesses?

Update (4:53pm): ABC News is reporting that the Republican who “anonymously described his Republican affiliation as a ‘scarlet letter’ to the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank and others on Monday is none other than Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.” A bizarre triangulation strategy, perhaps? Talking to nine reporters, Steele had to assume the news would break eventually.

Second Update (5:05pm): The AP has it too.

1) Mark Kennedy is a total Rovian Republi-bot and would never openly criticize anyone in power in the GOP. Plus, he graced us with his presence here in MN yesterday (as CB noted).

Can we be sure it wasn’t Joe Lieberman?

  • Who cares. Funny how he hates his party, almost repulsed by them, yet he is running as a Republican.
    And for the record, they haven’t “lost their way”, they have gotten their way and to bad for this guy, their way is really jacked-up.
    This “we lost our way” business is really getting old.

  • As a Minnesotan I can guarantee you it wasn’t Mark Kennedy. He is the definitive Bush 43 toadie. Mark would rather have a barber wire enema than criticize the Boy Blunder.

  • Bravery is in short supply among Washington politicos. If he’s unwilling to state his name, I doubt he’d have the balls to stand up to Republican leadership if elected. Here’s hoping his Dem counterpart wins anyway. … But it is nice to see the cracks continuing to multiply on the right wing edifice.

  • Does nobody else see why this is politically brilliant? For a moment, assume it’s Steele. This is “earned” coverage he couldn’t possibly earn from straight-up criticism. He’s in a blue state; he’s his party’s nominee already, and he needs Democratic votes to win. He’s losing ground in the polls. This gets that Democratic primary completely out of the papers while putting him on the front page. The same would work for wonders for Mike McGavick. He doesn’t have a Democratic primary to contend with, but a) he does have a minor name recognition problem, and b) he’s a Seattlite, which means he’s not running to the state’s anti-Seattle Republican base and needs moderate votes.

    My guess is it’s one of those two guys.

  • jhupp, as long as the guy remains unidentified, it helps both Steele and McGavick, plus anyone else who could possibly be the mystery Republican.

  • If Democrats, myself included, would quit trashing Maria Cantwell for her support of the Quagmire (hard to resist, believe me), she’d be a certainty. As it is she’s making it awfully easy for McGavick to gain points steadily.

    I think the fondest hope for WA Democrats is that they can fill Scoop Jackson’s shoes (Democrat strong on defense). It ain’t gonna happen, not given the mood of most the party – a holdover from McGovern days, no doubt. I happen to think it’s possible for a Democrat (or anyone else) to be strong on defense but sensible, unlike the neocons and the Bush Crime Family. Who, if Democrats would only make this point, are actually weakening us on defense by stirring up the entire world and bankrupting the next generation at the same time.

  • Over at AmericaBlog, John in DC is saying the DSCC suspects it’s George Allen
    He raises some interesting points:

    CLUE: The candidate allowed that he opposes a pullout from Iraq, agrees with Bush’s veto of human embryonic stem cell research, and supports constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and flag burning.
    REALITY: Allen thinks everything is fine in Iraq, opposes stem cell research, and backs the constitutional amendments.

    CLUE: The candidate “hit Bush from the right, such as when he opposed Bush’s proposed guest-worker program for immigrants.”
    REALITY: Allen voted against the Senate’s immigration reform bill, and accused Bush of making a “straw man argument” on immigration.

    I realize this ignores the ‘non-incumbent’ hint, but I not fully sold on that being a criteria.

  • It’s the Maryland candidate — just read it somewhere. His name is Michael something.

    How’s that for imprecision?!

  • Makes sense; Steele can play the “honest kid afraid of the big bad bully.” The indie vote could slide his way, and the GOP would rally behind “the chance to change for the better.” A game-plan like this could even suck up some disgruntled Dem votes along the way.

    If Frist was actually “in” on this interview, then I’ve got to say it—something smells a lot like a “staged” interview here. Not so much that the questions were rigged, but rather that the replies and comments were planned out, well in advance, by some senior Republican strategists.

    Could this be the GOP rolling out a new model? A “test-drive” to see “how many fish bite into the hook?” A Rovian-2.0 upgrade, perhaps? Curiouser and curiouser….

  • I can’t imagine George Allen saying the “scarlet letter” bit. That would be would be much more believable from Steele, having to deal with being a black Republican.

  • Steele has nothing to lose and can chat with impunity. He was a party official in MD before waking up as Lt. Guv one morning, paired with some guy named Ehrlich. They rode in on the surreal ineptitude of the Kathleen Kennedy Townsend campaign, in case anyone is wondering how blue Maryland landed these red clowns.

    Steele is a non-weight politically and is not expected to make the race competitive. All the drama here disappeared when the two-person Dem race for the nomination saw one guy drop out.

  • The one candidate who dropped out was running for Md. governor, a different race entirely. In the Senate race, the two major candidates (Cardin, Mfume) for the chance to go up against Steele are both still active.

  • I don’t see how this will benefit Steele. The Dem primary winner can say:

    “Here’s what Steele says about his party. I agree completely – Steele’s just made the case for why the GOP shouldn’t be running Congress any more.

    “In other words, Steele says you shouldn’t vote for Steele. He’s 100% right.”

    In fact, Mfume and Cardin ought to agree to a 2-day truce in their primary battle, just so they can both focus on getting this message out, right now while it’s hot.

  • Comments are closed.