WHAT HAS LAMAR ALEXANDER to show for his six years as a presidential candidate? According to a recent poll, only 2 percent of New Hampshire Republicans are behind him, while another poll of Republicans nationwide puts his support below 1 percent. He has less cash on hand than any of his announced GOP rivals, save the hapless Bob Smith. One of New Hampshire’s top media strategists, Pat Griffin, recently quit his campaign. Adding insult to injury, Alexander is disliked by political reporters and has become a punching bag for late night talk-show hosts. Jay Leno recently mocked his campaign slogan — “Bringing out the best in America” — as more appropriate for a mayonnaise ad.
Pretty rough stuff for someone who in 1996 came close to knocking off Bob Dole in New Hampshire, and perhaps to winning the GOP’s presidential nomination. So what’s wrong? Why isn’t Alexander doing at least as well as, say, Steve Forbes or Dan Quayle? Credible theories abound: He has a weak message and is too risk-averse; the voters are tired of him; his base is defecting to George W. Bush.
But Alexander will have none of that. En route to a Republican dinner in suburban Washington’s Prince George’s County, he provides a remarkably upbeat assessment of his candidacy: “I see myself in pretty good shape. Among the new crop of candidates, I’m the best prepared to be president. I’ve got the best organization in Iowa and New Hampshire. I’ll be able to raise enough money to compete in the earliest primaries. . . . I also have the most passion and the strongest amount of experience in the issue I believe the Republican party needs to put front and center, and that is creating the best schools and helping parents.” But what about those polling numbers? “They are not an indication of much of anything except what’s been on television in the last few days.”
Persistence is a recurring theme with Alexander and it’s easy to see why. He lost a race for governor in 1974, but was elected four years later after walking across Tennessee. And at this time four years ago, the plaid-clad former secretary of education was being dismissed by pundits as having no chance against better financed and more established candidates like Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, and Pete Wilson. In the end, he did better than all of them.
So is Alexander to be taken seriously? In the highly complex Iowa caucus, organization is critical. While Alexander’s rivals are just starting to cobble together their core supporters, he has already enlisted campaign chairmen in 62 of the state’s 99 counties. They are working under the supervision of Alexander’s national chairman, Terry Branstad, the state’s former governor and the winner of five statewide elections, and of Brian Kennedy, a former Branstad aide who had a very successful tenure as chairman of the Iowa Republican party. Kennedy brings years of organizing experience and some talented associates, David Kochel and Mary Boote. And Alexander isn’t leaving anything to chance: He’s spent 44 days in the state since January 1997. All of this, says Dave Yepsen, the veteran political reporter at the Des Moines Register, gives Alexander the best organization in Iowa. His goal is finishing first or second in Iowa — a real possibility given his organization and the fact that he placed third there in ’96. If he succeeds, he’ll stride into New Hampshire with momentum money can’t buy.
But the road to Iowa is not without its problems for Alexander. His campaign reported less than $ 87,000 in cash for this year’s first quarter. This leads many GOP insiders to speculate he’s not ready to compete with rivals like Bush, who had more than $ 6.7 million on hand. And with the primary schedule compressed, “money is more important than ever,” says Mel Sembler, the Republican National Committee’s finance director, a Lamar man in ’96 — but, though officially uncommitted, sympathetic to Bush this year.
The Alexander team say their money figure is low because they held only one fund-raiser in the first quarter, while 26 are planned for the second quarter. But this just means they are now under door-die pressure to raise a lot of money. Their most significant fund-raiser will be in Nashville on May 4. Alexander needs at least $ 1 million — perhaps as much as $ 2 million — from this dinner to offset the negative impressions left by his first-quarter figures, and to have enough money to carry his campaign forward.
Alexander should be able to breathe a little easier knowing his finance chairman is Ted Welch, who’s regarded as the country’s foremost Republican fund-raiser. But in an interview, Welch says little to suggest all is well with his candidate. Asked to compare this year’s money chase to the one-four years ago, he draws an analogy to childbirth, saying “if you could remember how difficult it was last time, you wouldn’t do it again.” He also acknowledges “the polls are not helping our fund-raising.” And when asked for an estimate of how much money the Nashville dinner will bring in, he refuses to provide even a ballpark figure.
Alexander also concedes fund-raising is more difficult now than it was four years ago. This time, he points out, the party has a clear front-runner and it lacks the “deep excitement and energy” it had in 1995. Nonetheless, Alexander predicts he’ll have more money in January 2000 than he had in January 1996. If so, he’ll be a viable candidate. If not, he’s doomed.
Yet another problem is Alexander’s message. He wants to limit the federal government’s role in the schools, go to a two-rate tax code, and advance a more muscular foreign policy. Each of these will appeal to many, if not most, Republicans. But his competitors are likely to put forward even more ambitious — and more conservative — ideas. This could leave Alexander struggling just to get noticed.
The rap on Alexander is that he’s been too cautious. Earlier this year, he zinged Bush’s “Compassionate conservatism” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, characterizing the phrase as “weasel words.” But when reaction to the article was mixed — Michigan governor John Engler said “Lamar hurt himself a great deal with those comments” — he backed off. He no longer talks about the subject unless asked. And while he says he doesn’t regret launching the broadside against Bush, he did call Bush’s father after the article appeared to say he meant no disrespect. That captures the gentlemanly side of Alexander, but also makes one wonder if he’s too nice to survive the slings and arrows of a messy Republican primary — just the kind of primary he should be hoping for.
The do-no-harm strategy would have made more sense in ’96, when Alexander was betting that he’d be the most acceptable alternative if Bob Dole stumbled. In this campaign, Bush could, of course, stumble. But it’s not obvious that Alexander would emerge as the compromise choice. John McCain and Elizabeth Dole are far more likely to occupy this niche. Indeed, Alexander’s biggest problem of all in Iowa and New Hampshire will be protecting his moderate base — which McCain, Dole, Bush, and John Kasich will all be courting.
The irony of Alexander’s current woes is that he might be very appealing in a general election — something that worried Bill Clinton in 1996. If he’s going to win the nomination though he’ll need to make inroads with conservatives, raise tons of money, and take some chances. That’s a lot to ask of any candidate. For Alexander, it could make the difference between mounting a serious challenge for the nomination and beating an early retreat.
Matthew Rees is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
