One thing observers of the fight for the Republican presidential nomination have to wonder about is who the Christian right will vote for. Rudy Giuliani is leading John McCain in most polls, and neither of them really has their Christian right bona fides in order, what with their multiple marriages, Giuliani's pro-gay-rights, pro-choice history, McCain's poor relationship with Christian conservatives in 2000 and thereafter, and so on into the night.
There's also been speculation over the past few years at what point the Republican coalition between corporatist interests and Christian conservatives would break down. When would they notice that many of their political imperatives were incompatible?
An article in the New York Times suggests that a meeting of prominent Christian conservatives was recently confronted with exactly these difficulties in assessing the candidates.
In addition to their problems with Giuliani and McCain, Mitt Romney is seen as untrustworthy given his history of enormous fluctuations in his beliefs on key issues, and they failed to unite behind other candidates. Even Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, fell short, in part because of the differing priorities of Christian and small-government factions of the GOP.
In an interview, Mr. Huckabee said he believed his roots in the evangelical world helped set him apart from his rivals. "I am not going to them. I am coming from them," he said. He said he did not remember speaking about his opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage, "although I am sure that I must have." He said he emphasized education, among other issues, and talked about an ongoing war "with a radical form of Islamic fascism" which he called "a bastardization of religion."
But many conservatives, including several participants in the Amelia Island meeting, said Mr. Huckabee faced resistance from the limited-government, antitax wing of their movement. Some antitax activists fault Mr. Huckabee for allowing certain tax increases while he was governor of Arkansas, most notably one that was the subject of a public referendum.
The division over what candidate to support was so extreme that:
Finally, in a measure of their dissatisfaction, a delegation of prominent conservatives at Amelia Island attempted to enlist Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina to enter the race. A charismatic politician with a clear conservative record, Mr. Sanford is almost unknown outside his home state and has done nothing to prepare for a presidential run. He firmly declined the group’s entreaties, people involved in the recruiting effort said. A spokesman for Mr. Sanford said he would not comment on the matter.
"There is great anxiety," said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation and an elder statesman of the conservative movement. "There is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that."
When Democrats support different candidates, that's the way it is and has been. When Republicans can't agree, that's something new, as Trapper John laid out in the January GOP cattle call.
There's this trend in Republican primary campaigns, identified by jimsaco in the December Cattle Call, where the Establishment Candidate -- the guy who has the money and the institutional backing -- always wins the nomination, no matter how bleak his chances appear at any given time. Jimsaco dates the trend back to Dewey in '44, and it holds up reasonably well -- with the possible exception of '52, when Ike beat out Taft, and the more concrete exception of '64, when Goldwater upset Rocky.
As Trapper John went on to say, John McCain is clearly the Establishment Candidate for 2008. But he also noted that McCain has significant weaknesses that could disrupt this history. Whether this NYT story is a sign that McCain may be displaced as the Establishment Candidate (but by whom?) or that the Republicans will end up with a candidate a significant group of them can't be enthusiastic about, it's a good sign for us.