American Politics Journal -- Virginia and Washington: So What?



Home • Latest • Archive • Search

Virginia and Washington: So What?
Even the pundits are ignoring the primary results this morning

by David J. Gonzo

Wednesday, March 1, 2000 (AmpolNS) -- New York -- What a difference two weeks make.

On February 15th, the print and television political pundits were blathering almost nonstop about George W. Bush's "decisive," "dominant," "pacesetting" victory in the South Carolina Republican primary. The man was the story.

This morning, there's not terribly much being said about his primary victories in Virginia, North Dakota and Washington.

Could it be that the press has suddenly had an epiphany? Have they realized that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Dakota and all the other early primary and caucus contests aren't very relevant?

Don't count on it -- I, for one, am not holding my breath.

The topic du jour of many of the opinion makers is not the Bush "wins" but the continuing war of words between GOP frontrunners Bush and John McCain over religious issues -- and the fact that the disproportionate turnout of "evangelical" GOP voters to support "their" (read: Pat Robertson's) man Dubya in Virginia still could not generate a true "landslide" victory of 60%.

A surprising number of columns appeared analyzing the religious right, their disproportionate influence on the Grand Old Party, and the shifting sentiments of Catholic Republicans and independents. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that McCain has succeeded in turning Bush's appearance at Bob Jones University into a broader "wedge" issue. Some are calling it the most openly divisive such issue to hit the party since Watergate.

Bush's campaign "geniuses" responded to McCain's lambasting of the frontrunner with a predictable "Ronald Reagan spoke at BJU, so did Bob Dole, and now all of a sudden it's so wrong?" This pathetic, effete excuse fails to account for a number of mitigating factors:

Moderate Republicans have long resented the Robertson faction for steamrolling core GOP goals (lowering federal spending, shrinking the debt, reducing government head count, balancing the budget) with a set of narrow social issues (restricting a woman's right to reproductive choice, anti-gay legislation, sneaking a brand of evangelical Christianity into public schools)
The House leadership passed over a Roman Catholic priest who was the top choice of a bipartisan committee for the position of House Chaplain, Rev. Timothy O'Brien. Instead, Rev. Charles Wright, a Presbyterian minister, was selected by the Republican leadership following a vigorous lobbying campaign -- which triggered angry criticism from many House members, Catholic leaders, and some pundits (including former Catholic priest John McLaughlin).
Bush rebuffed a call by Catholic bishops of Texas two weeks ago to suspend enforcement of the state's death penalty and review capital punishment in the state.

While some commentators have noted the first of these points, few have brought up the other two.

Therein lies the rub: if Catholic voters feel locked out by the House leadership and excluded from the Bush bandwagon, the result will not bode well for the GOP in November at either the executive or legislative level.

McCain will most likely end up like the metaphoric bearer of bad news in millennia past: his political head on a stake at the outskirts of town, which should be no surprise since he has made a lot of enemies within his own party. Bush will get the nomination -- and lose in November.

But isn't that the problem with the GOP these days -- that too many of them would rather behead the messenger than listen and think?