GrammNet Issue 4/12/97.1 Dear Friend of Phil Gramm, Recent GrammNet messages are now being archived by Bart Miller on his unofficial Gramm homepage at http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/3390. Thank you Bart for all your hard work! It's hard to believe, but true, that somebody has already commissioned a Republican presidential poll for the 2000 race. The results of this "confidential" poll were released by Iowa's Speaker of the House, Republican Ron Corbett. Corbett, one of the gubernatorial wannabes for 1998, was the lone supporter of Lamar Alexander in 1996. It's clear that Corbett released the poll to boost Alexander's chances in 2000, since Alexander came in second. Gramm isn't even in the poll, but that would almost certainly change if Gramm started signaling an intention to run in 2000. There is substantial support among Iowa Republicans for Gramm, especially among supporters of conservative Iowa Secretary of State, Paul Pate, who looks like the leading conservative candidate for Iowa governor in 2000. Pate was a supporter of Gramm in 1996 and, unlike Corbett, has a statewide reputation. Both men are from Cedar Rapids, meaning that Corbett will have no uncontested home base from which to draw a core of support in 1998. Pate as governor would give Gramm a substantial boost in 2000 if Gramm decides to run--just as having Governor Branstad supporting Bob Dole helped Dole in 1996. The results of the poll were reported in the Sunday, April 6 edition of The Cedar Rapids Gazette, p. 9A, in a column by Ken Sullivan, a Gazette senior editor. The results of the poll were: Dan Quayle 19% Lamar Alexander 17% George Bush II and Beltway Buchanan tied for third place (percentages not given) Undecided 14% Others mentioned: Steve Forbes, Trent Lott, John McCain Not mentioned: Phil Gramm, Alan Keyes, Bill Bennett, Dick Lugar The poll results suggest that my scenario of Quayle emerging as the mainstream conservative candidate is at least plausible. It's also worth remembering, however, that at this time in 1993 Jack Kemp was the runaway favorite of Republicans. A great deal can happen between now and 2000. -------------- Other Candidates: GrammNet readers, responding to my recent analysis of possible Republican presidential candidates for 2000, mentioned a number of possibilities I'd either forgotten or about which I didn't know previously. They include Malcom Wallop, Connie Mack, Dick Armey, Trent Lott and John McCain. Here's the little that I know about them: Wallop is a poorly-known former U.S. Senator from a sparcely-populated state (Wyoming) who supposedly has a conservative reputation. He also has a somewhat dour countenance. If he does run, I suspect he'll be an also-ran. Connie Mack is a sitting U.S. Senator from Florida. Being from a populous state can be a big advantage, but, as Pete Wilson discovered, is no substitute for a solid national reputation. Iowans, when queried about Connie Mack, are likely to ask, "who's she?!" From the little I know of him, Mack has a reputation for being somewhat of a moderate who talks more conservative on economic issues than he is, and mostly avoids discussing social issues. I think we're looking at another also-ran--if he does run. Dick Armey, House Majority Leader, is my absolute favorite member of the U.S. House. A professor, like Newt Gingrich, Armey sometimes says too much, but not nearly as often as Newt does. Armey, a Texan, is the only economist in the House. Unlike some conservatives, Armey doesn't just have an instinctive dislike of Big Government--he actually knows the ins and outs of why Big Government is wrong. That's why when conservatives like Iowa's Jim Ross Lightfoot were waffling around on raising the minimum wage, Armey led the fight against this jobs-destroying Democrat proposal. I sat next to Armey at lunch at the Heritage Foundation one day a few years ago, and found him impressive in person too. He is dynamic, brilliant, personable and humorous. He is a genuine free-market and libertarian conservative, and yet has impeccable socially conservative credentials as well. He, like Gramm, could potentially unite the various conservative factions. And being from a populous state like Texas won't hurt Armey either. However, being in the House rather than the Senate makes Armey's job more difficult, a difficulty probably only partially offset by Armey's national reputation. And the likelihood of a run by Bush II would mean that they would split the Texas vote, making it hard for either to gain traction nationally. Furthermore, Armey is likely to take advantage of the same law which Gramm used, allowing someone to run for two offices at the same time so that Armey can return to the House if he doesn't get the nomination. This will open him up to the same charges that Beltway Buchanan levelled against Gramm: that's he's "really" just another LBJ. (LBJ had his cronies in the Texas legislature pass the law so that he could run for Senate--he was Majority Leader--at the same time he ran for Vice President.) Beltway Buchanan seems to delight in trashing and defaming the best conservative candidates, probably so that his national socialist psuedo-conservatism will look better by comparison, and also so that he ensures that the party nominates another mushy moderate establishment Republican like Bob Dole. That way, no real conservative gets elevated to a position as unrivaled party leader, allowing Buchanan to continue to pretend he's a conservative. You may recall that Armey once referred to homosexual Democrat Representative Barney Frank as "Barney Fag." Doubtless, if Armey runs, the liberal media will throw that back in his face, but frankly, I think that will help him rather than hurt him in the primaries, and even the general election. While most Americans are tolerant of homosexuals, they're also sick to death of the tyranny of political correctness, and appreciate conservatives who violate its rules. When I was a teenager, one of my standard replies to hearing a girl say she liked a guy was to say, "well he's not my type!" Usually the girl would respond with, "well I hope not!" As an adult, however, when I make the same reply, I often hear, "well I hope not! Oops, I guess I shouldn't say that." While this is just anecdotal evidence, I believe that it demonstrates a larger trend among normal Americans of believing that homosexuality is wrong, but fearing to say so lest they be accused by liberals of "intolerance." I think most Americans secretly laughed at Armey's slip, and understood why he later apologized so as not to be branded with the "intolerant" label. (Doubtless I, too, will be branded as intolerant for even suggesting that tolerance means tolerance, and not approval.) Armey also has an advantage over Gramm: Armey speaks without a heavy Southern accent, meaning that he probably would play better initially with Iowans and New Hampshirites, who, sad to say, tend to be wary of anyone who speaks differently--especially anyone who speaks like a Southerner. And Armey wouldn't have Gramm's problems with big-city Chicago-boy Bob Novak, whose usual conservative wisdom seems to flee for the subway when he hears the term "my mamma" uttered by a fellow conservative. Armey is probably more popular among the conservative elites of the nation, and would probably get most of their support if he ran. In any case, should Gramm choose not to run, Dick Armey would be my favorite candidate of the group. It would be wonderful for a change to see an economist, rather than a professional politician, as president. A particularly bad scenario would be if Armey, Bush, and Gramm ALL ran, hopelessly splitting the Texas and Southern vote. I've been saying since Bob Dole (thankfully) resigned from the Senate last year that Trent Lott is the one on whom to keep your eyes. More politic and less talkative than Newt, Lott has the potential to get quite a bit done in the Senate if he chooses to do so. For instance, in January at a summit with Clinton, Lott turned around the usual "bipartisan rhetoric used the by liberals to pummel Republicans and forced Clinton to drop plans for pro-Democrat "campaign finance reform." While the subsequent revelations of scandal after scandal on the part of Clinton and the Democrats in illegal fundraising has led them to raise the issue again, Lott's timely actions at least delayed the Democrats. Furthermore, Lott is currently standing tough against more Clinton monkey-business on the budget. While Lott isn't quite as conservative as Gramm, Armey or Quayle, he'd probably make a decent candidate. He's more telegenic than Gramm, although his accent could be a problem for him too. More importantly is the impression he's giving to conservatives that he's doing nothing to oppose Clinton or further the conservative agenda. Unless he gets his act in gear, the perception of "do-nothingism" will doom him in 2000. I sat next to John McCain at dinner in Cedar Rapids during the Gramm campaign. He comes across as very intense and a bit quirky, which is perfectly understandable when you realize that he was taken prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese Communists and tortured in a vain attempt to get him to make a "confession" of war crimes. He was a naval aviator shot down over Nam, who survived almost unimaginable horrors. The reason they tried so hard to torture him to "confess" is that his father was an important admiral at the time, and a "confession" by an admiral's son would have been particularly demoralizing for the U.S. side. McCain resisted the torture, which was on a par with what the Jews suffered in the Nazi camps before being killed, and is in every sense a true American hero. I'm not sure how that quirkiness and intensity would play to the American public or even to Iowa conservatives. I do know that Iowa Gramm supporters LOVED him. He exuded a warmth and a brilliance that were wonderful to behold. I would probably rank him as my second favorite, after Dick Armey, if Gramm doesn't run. McCain has done several things, however, to hurt himself with conservatives. He supported official recognition of the communist government of Vietnam. He argued that recognition was an important step in healing our old psychological war-wounds. I respect his position, and still disagree with it. Some conservatives were not so respectful. McCain also supported Dole on supporting Clinton's decision to commit U.S. troops to Bosnia. Again I respectfully disagree, and again many conservatives were not so respectful in their disagreement. Recently, McCain has sponsored more of the trashy "campaign finance reform" laws which restrict your ability to support the candidate of your choice and favor Democrats. Here I don't respect his incorrect position, and believe he's playing politics. Many conservatives are also quite upset with him for this latest error as well. Perhaps he's just misguided, but I think he should know better than to propose yet more rules and regulations regarding what we can contribute to the candidates of our choice. (I've written a column on the subject which I will forward later.) These errors could easily be forgotten by 2000--although it's hard to see Beltway Buchanan restraining himself from twisting McCain's record on Bosnia and Vietnam so as to paint McCain as a "traitor" rather than as an American hero who just made a few errors. With McCain in the race, furthermore, Beltway Buchanan can kiss goodbye a repeat of his strong showing in Arizona, as can Steve Forbes. McCain has other strengths: as a vet and hero he's mostly immune to Buchananite claims of being a traitor on foreign-policy issues. He's also in a good position to grab the vote of the great mass of non-ideological veterans who probably voted for Dole last go around. He's also immune to the criticism that he never served in the military. McCain has no southern accent, so he plays well in the northern states and with the conservative media. His warmth and humor tend to insulate him from the outright wrath of the liberal media. He's known as both an economic and a social conservative. He appears frequently on the Sunday-morning talk shows, and has a national reputation. He got plenty of exposure to Republican activists while campaigning for Gramm and then Dole (after Gramm left the race). If Gramm doesn't run in 2000, and if the liberal media should succeed in turning Quayle into an overcooked political potatoe, McCain could conceivable emerge as the mainstream conservative candidate in 2000. I'm forgetting one more candidate mentioned to me by a GrammNet reader: U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. Hutchison is a dynamic, intelligent, attractive senator from a nice populous state. She plays very, very well on television, and would appeal to conservatives who want to prove they're not sexist by supporting a woman for president. Aside from the fact that the field from Texas is likely to be crowded already--Armey, Bush, maybe Gramm--she has a problem with the more ardent members of the pro-life movement, who have the old communist mentality of: "if you don't agree with us 100% you're the enemy." These more extreme folks among the pro-life advocates created quite a fuss over her more moderate position on abortion--which ironically would be a big step from the status quo in the direction they desire--by trying to prevent her from becoming a delegate to the national GOP convention. She stood firm, and Gramm supported her, and they relented--or didn't have the power to stop her, I'm not sure which. Or maybe the saner pro-life leaders realized that she's mostly in agreement with them. In any case, despite her victory of the moment, it's very likely that she would experience trouble with some of the pro-life folks if she ran for president. She would certainly get mauled by Buchanan, who thought nothing of lying about staunchly pro-life candidates like Keyes, Gramm and Dornan. Still, abortion issue difficulties aside, Hutchison probably would play fairly well in socially conservative Iowa, and certainly in New Hampshire, where economic issues tend to be of greater interest than the social issues are. I've noticed here in Iowa that female conservatives tend to be strongly drawn to female candidates even when the candidates aren't fully in accord with the conservatives views on issues. I know a couple of staunch pro-life women here locally who supported Christine Whitman for vice president--one of them even told Gramm while driving him from the airport to a speaking engagement that he should pick Whitman if he got the nomination. Female moderates seem even more drawn to female candidates. So Hutchison probably would pick up a fair share of the female Republican vote. While she would be an exceptionally long shot for the presidency in 2000, a serious effort would set her up for a more likely shot in 2004 (she'll be 61), 2008, or even 2012, when she'll be 69--still younger than Bob Dole was when he got the nomination. Having said all that, I think it's important to keep in mind that Republicans tend to reward longevity of service. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Dole has all been around, and had served in office, for a long time. Everyone of them had been elected to office more than once. Republicans--indeed American voters in general--are wary of choosing someone who has never help elective office, or who hasn't been on the national scene long. And they tend to like best those who have reached the highest office. Which means that Quayle, as a former Vice President, has an intrinsic advantage over the others. And I think, despite his abysmal showing in the debate against Gore, that Kemp, as a vice presidential candidate, could see a surprising resurgence of popularity in 2000 if he were to choose to run. Still, Kemp has repeatedly shown his lack of political courage when despite being begged by the New York GOP he refused to run for governor, and when he let Gramm's money scare him out of running in 1996. I still think Kemp's time has come and gone, but don't underestimate the ability of many conservatives to suddenly rediscover him--again--in a field crowded with unknowns and a well-known demagogue. Quayle is the sort of candidate whom social conservatives love and economic conservatives can accept. Kemp is the sort of candidate who economic conservatives--at least of the supply-side sort--love, and whom social conservatives can accept. (Note that while Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer and Phyllis Schaffly all lauded Dole's selection of Kemp, Buchanan attacked the selection of Kemp, demonstrating that Buchanan isn't a social conservative but merely an opportunistic, self-aggrandizing demagogue). And given the lack of maturity displayed by conservatives in 1996, a candidate loved by one faction of conservatives and acceptable to another might be the best we can hope for. Will we ever mature enough to nominate a great candidate like an Armey, a McCain--or a Phil Gramm? Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee continues to destroy his changes of ever getting the GOP nomination by holding hearings which equate illegal Democrat fundraising with legal Republican fundraising. The deeper Thompson gets into this nonesense, the more he guarantees he can forget about being president. House Repubicans just voted Thursday to NOT conduct such foolishness in the House, and Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma tried to talk Thompson out of it too. Nickles for president? Seriously though, there could be one saving grace for Thompson: if his investigation leads to the conviction of high-level Clinton administration officials, and an exoneration of the legal activities of Republicans and their allies. But according to Friday's Wall Street Journal, many of the Democrat witnesses are taking the Fifth or fleeing the country. So don't count on anything good coming from Thompson's investigation. The most likely result is further calls to silence groups like the Christian Coalition and National Rifle Association. Fred, what WERE you thinking? Sincerely, David B. Levenstam, CPA, MT, MA Gramm in 2000! GrammNet back issues at http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/3390