 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 February 2000 Issue No. 468 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 February 2000 Issue No. 468
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Focus Profile Travel Books Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Shake-up after New Hampshire
By James Zogby *Since 1952, when New Hampshire gained its status as the first state to hold its primary election in the presidential nominating process, its voters have often defeated expected winners while catapulting underdogs to victory.
This year's Republican contest was no exception. Arizona Senator John McCain's 49-30 per cent victory over Texas Governor George Bush has dramatically transformed the Republican race for the 2000 presidential nomination.
For the past year, the Republican establishment has galvanised around the Bush candidacy. Determined to win back the White House, they sought a candidate they felt would lead the party to victory. The support Bush received was immediate and overwhelming. He raised massive amounts of money and secured most of the major endorsements of the Republican leadership.
The Bush campaign became a juggernaut. He was declared the "inevitable" candidate and the "electable" candidate.
As the Republican field of candidates faced this "inevitable" Bush victory, many found themselves unable to compete. Early on, the field dwindled from 12 to six candidates. It was at this point that the campaign began in earnest. Despite Bush's money and endorsements, he was forced to actively campaign and meet his remaining challengers in frequent debates.
Bush's vulnerabilities began to emerge. Some criticised his command of issues and others poked fun at his frequent misstatements.
Most troubling, however, was the attack against the establishment for attempting to anoint Bush as the nominee without a real test of his political abilities. In the Iowa caucus, Bush won a clear, but undecisive victory over his nearest rival, Steve Forbes. Bush's only substantial challenger in the race, John McCain, chose to ignore Iowa and focus his campaign effort on New Hampshire.
With its reputation for anti-establishment candidates, New Hampshire provided McCain with a perfect setting to launch his campaign. McCain, like Bush, sought to establish his candidacy in the centre of the Republican Party -- not a captive of the religious right wing. Unlike Bush, however, McCain cast himself as the establishment's opponent.
His challenge to reform campaign finance rules and his proposals to reduce middle class taxes (while leaving the higher tax brackets as they are) have angered the establishment.
While issues have played a role in the McCain candidacy, more compelling factors have been his biography and his "puckish" personality. McCain was a wounded Vietnam War hero. As the longest-held captive prisoner of war, he was a legend even before he ran for public office. Coupled with this powerful personal story is the candidate's engaging and freewheeling personality, which won over the nation's press corps and provided him with enormous free and favourable publicity.
The power of the McCain candidacy was first noted by pollster John Zogby 10 months ago. With Bush riding high, Zogby conducted what is known as a blind poll. He found that when voters, who at that point did not know McCain, were given his biography, support for his candidacy increased dramatically. Zogby's conclusion was that when voters supporting Bush, Dole, Kemp and Quayle -- names they knew from earlier campaigns -- got to know McCain, he would eclipse the field. This is apparently what has happened.
After winning in Iowa, Bush set his sights on New Hampshire in an effort to defeat McCain and end his candidacy. He knew it would be difficult, since the latter was showing signs of strength there.
The Bush campaign and George W. Bush, himself, invested time and resources to win New Hampshire.
The story, therefore, is not merely that McCain won, but that it was such a massive victory -- which has given his national campaign a major boost. A new Zogby International poll taken two days after New Hampshire now shows McCain leading Bush in South Carolina -- the next big Republican primary contest. Only two days before New Hampshire, Bush was leading McCain in South Carolina by more than 20 percentage points.
US President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore (left) and George Bush (right)
(photos: AP, AFP)
At the same time, the New Hampshire "bounce," as it is called, has boosted McCain to a three per cent lead in Michigan -- a state in which McCain had been given little chance of winning.
The New Hampshire victory has also helped McCain to raise money to compete. In the 48 hours after New Hampshire, the McCain campaign reported having spontaneously raised more than $740,000 in unsolicited contributions over the Internet. National polls now show McCain faring better against Democratic candidates in November than Bush. This is most disturbing news for the Bush campaign. What has sustained Bush's effort so far has been its "inevitability" and his "electability." McCain has now challenged both assumptions and has left the Republican establishment reeling.
Now to the Democrats. While Al Gore, the Democratic establishment's candidate, won in both Iowa and New Hampshire, there appears to be trouble ahead for the vice president. At one point, it was believed that if Gore won in both states, the Bradley candidacy would be over. Gore did win, but not without difficulties. Just a few days after Iowa, Gore had opened up a 12 per cent lead in New Hampshire. The pundits were numbering Bradley's days. At that point, Bradley, who had remained "above the fray" for much of the campaign, began to fight back. In fact, when Gore attacked Bradley early in the campaign, Bradley appeared to be thrown off stride and became defensive. Now it was Bradley's turn to strike back and, in two instances, draw blood.
When Bradley reminded voters of the Clinton-Gore involvement in campaign finance irregularities in 1998, he was hitting an especially weak point in the vice president's candidacy. Bradley decided to challenge Gore on the issue now, rather than wait for Republicans to do it in the fall. But it was on another issue that Bradley succeeded most in hurting Gore's campaign. In one debate, Bradley challenged Gore by saying that while the vice president had changed his position on abortion, he, Bradley, had been a consistent supporter of a woman's right to an abortion. It is a well-known fact that Gore changed his view on this issue during the 1980s.
Here, Gore made an inexplicable error. He might have acknowledged that he had indeed held a different position, but, after reflection and discussion, now supported a woman's right to abortion. Instead, he categorically denied ever having held a contrary view, stating, "I have always supported Roe v. Wade," (the Supreme Court decision that guaranteed abortion rights). With this, the issue no longer was abortion, but Gore's tendency to exaggerate his record and appear to dissemble when caught in a conflicted situation. Bradley sharply noted, "If you don't tell the truth in a campaign, how can people trust that you'll tell the truth when you're president?"
Many believe that this controversy was, in part, the reason that Gore's victory in New Hampshire was smaller than it might have been. He had been leading by 12 per cent, but that closed to a five per cent margin, giving Gore a narrow 52-47 per cent victory.
Gore won, but the questions of his honesty and campaign finance will continue to haunt his campaign. It is not certain whether these questions will impede his chance to win the Democratic nomination, but what Bradley has succeeded in doing is forcing the Democratic Party leadership to ask whether or not a candidate with these problems can defeat a Republican in November.
In the early months of his challenge to the "inevitable" Gore nomination, Bradley based his candidacy on the premise that only he could win in November. As George W. Bush's campaign trail started showing weaknesses, Gore's chances against Bush began to look much better. As a result, the Bradley campaign appeared to lose its raison d'être.
With McCain's surge after New Hampshire and with a wounded Gore emerging from a narrow New Hampshire victory, the issue of "electability" is surfacing once again. It is still quite early in the 2000 campaign and there will no doubt be many twists and turns before the parties have chosen their nominees. What is clear, however, is that there is no inevitable Republican or Democratic candidate. Both parties' establishments received that message in New Hampshire.
* The writer is the director of the Washington-based Arab American institute.
