Is this guy the McCain of 2008? We often get one candidate in the primaries that the media and independents latch on to as exciting and fun to watch. In 2000 that guy was McCain, who often said that the press covering him was his base. In 2004 it was Howard Dean on the left that got the press appeal for a while. Now it seems that the right has the maverick of 2008 in Ron Paul. We'll take a look at what I consider to be the three main criteria for the "maverick" primary candidate and how Ron Paul fits in the role.
First I would like to say that this is a disappointment for all Democratic second tier candidates. One great hope of all second tier candidates on both sides is that they can catch fire as the maverick stand out candidate and set themselves up as a future leader of their party. Most will never get to be president but most that get that honor do parlay it into success. Dean got to head his party as a bribe not to run again because of his power as the maverick. McCain is one of the leaders in his party and very well may get his party's nomination again. So there is a great deal to be gained by acquiring what I call the "maverick" honor. This time a Republican has slid into the role and his name is Ron Paul.
There are certain criteria that have to be met for a candidate to become the media maverick candidate. I'm using what I see as the main three. Let's dive into them by using McCain and Dean as examples and show how Paul has taken that mantle. I will say also that not every primary season has a maverick in the sense I'm discussing it here but lately we have seen these media and moderate mavericks (alliteration!) come about.
Number 1. The maverick must attack his own party's establishment. McCain called the Religious Right agents of intolerance and opposed his party's stance on campaign finance reform. Dean called out his party on their enabling of Bush on Iraq. He said he was the leader of the "democratic wing of the democratic party". The maverick candidate catches fire by slamming the establishment and finding a willing audience of disenfranchised base voters. Ron Paul, is a Republican of the old school. He attacked the hero of 9/11 and said he should read the 9/11 report. Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War and is opposed to spreading freedom by force. That is the Neocon vision he is attacking. There is a George Will sect of the libertarian Republican Party that has been looking for that voice. This begins the brush fire...
Number 2. The maverick must be media friendly. McCain was surrounded by adoring media on the Straight Talk express. Why? He was kind to them and gave them great quotes. McCain didn't have the money to compete with Bush but if he could get free press he might have a chance. The press helps spread the maverick's message which then finds a sympathetic independent and moderate ear on all sides of the political spectrum. Dean had this as well as we all know. Dean was open and honest to the media. Dean gave voice to criticism of the party establishment and he provided the political mouthpiece for those thirsting for an anti-war message. The media reported him, people on both sides of the aisle heard him, and he gained traction. Paul is proving to be excellent with the people covering him in his own right. Anyone that saw his performance on "Real Time with Bill Maher" or "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" realize he has an ability to connect with both sides of the aisle and be funny (which is important). He also has friendly conservative media including George Will writing columns in support of him. The fire continues to spread...
Number 3. The maverick usually has one pet issue. This pet issue by nature of the maverick has to be partisan neutral. That is to say it has to be something that disgruntled voters on both sides of the aisle can latch on to. Which is what the maverick needs. McCain centered his campaign around campaign finance reform. He was going to clean up Washington. It isn't fair to say that was his only issue but it was what he built his campaign around. This was clearly something people of all political stripes could get behind. Dean's issue was the Iraq War. Actually his issue was healthcare originally. That was why the good doctor got in the race but the Iraq War quickly became his focal point, I think everyone would agree about that and it was the issue that pushed him to the front of the pack. Anti-war sentiment was growing by many independents and newly minted moderate Republicans that voted Republican in 2002. For Ron Paul it isn't as easy to pin down. I think that he, like Dean, is being thrust as the anti-war candidate but in a different way than Dean. Paul is against the idea of big government and logically speaking is against nation building and imperialism. There is a group of Republicans that agree with him and that group is growing. Obviously there are some left leaners that also oppose the war and don't think Democrat candidates speak strongly enough about getting out. Paul can say he voted against the war and is against the rationale in principle. That is what we call a wildfire.
Of course we know how the narrative ends. McCain was the closest to actually winning after being the maverick. He won New Hampshire, Michigan, Arizona, and a couple other primaries. Dean was the front runner and seeming nominee until Iowa. We've yet to see how Paul will translate on votes or if he can even sustain his momentum. And as such I think it is incumbent on some second tier Democrats to look into taking the role from him before he cements himself. Who could do it?
Probably the most likely candidate in the Democratic primary that could take the maverick spot is Joe Biden. Biden is forecful, outspoken, and willing to take political risks. He has nothing to lose and could use the maverick label to actually thrust himself into the top tier. Problem is that while he could be a media darling, appeal to those disgrunteld across the aisle, and have experience to hold his own he just doesn't have a pet issue that a broad spectrum could get behind. He refuses to take the road less traveled on Iraq and that right now seems to be the maverick-esque issue to take on. But I think Biden has the most potential as a maverick candidate in the field.
Kucinich? Just has no credibility. The media could interview him all day and he still can't say anything worth quoting or that would make him likable. The guy just can't get traction.
Gravel? Irrelevant. He doesn't even like himself.
Richardson? Far too establishment. He refuses to say anything outlandish and a maverick has to be setting himself apart not trying to appear the most establishment.
And now for the obvious choice we'll hear about soon in the comments no doubt...Al Gore. Could Al Gore be the maverick? He has the issue. Global Warming is something that we clearly see as now a bi-partisan issue. But is Gore willing to buck his own party the way a maverick has to do it? Dean railed against the Dem establishment something Gore has been hesitant to do and a maverick has to be against all the power on both sides to gain the necessary traction with independents and moderates on the other side of the aisle willing to jump. Can Gore become the darling of those that report on him? That remains to be seen. He isn't exactly the best interview subject. He can be difficult to like at times. Those are both hurdles that he would have to overcome.
But I will say this...it is possible. The only way Gore would have a chance is to wrest the maverick position from Paul and hope for the best. He might could do it.
If any of you support a second tier Democrat this blueprint is their best chance to break into the triune top tier of Billary/Obama/Edwards. Right now I think it is clear that Ron Paul is in the best position to take it and within months may actually do it which will make him a national star. But the deal isn't closed yet. Can a democrat take it? Yes. Will they????