NADER:GORE::DOBSON:GIULIANI. This, on James Dobson's vow never to support Rudy Giuliani, is why nominating him is still a big gamble for Republicans. The money wing of the party may like him; the security wing may like him, too. But for all the talk about how the GOP nominates the "next guy in line," the real precedent they would be breaking should they nominate Rudy is not starting the process by first shoring up their base before moving toward the general electorate.
This is a huge risk, as Al Gore learned the hard way in 2000 with the Ralph Nader defectors.
*
If Giuliani is nominated, Dobson becomes the "Republican Nader" next year. And, on a related note, though E.J. Dionne has a great column today summarizing the state of play for the Republicans -- which concludes with a nice line warning Democrats not to underestimate what a less orthodox, Giuliani-led GOP might be able to accomplish -- I find it unimaginable that Giuliani's nomination could be achieved at no expense to the base. Dobson's statements confirm that there will be a price, perhaps a big one.
Everybody knows the Republicans for far too long have gotten away with taking for granted the votes of people President Bush privately thinks are "goofy" and "nuts." All of which leads me to conclude that, while Giuliani's nomination is probably the best thing for the GOP in the long term, it's the best thing in the short term for Democrats. Those "goofy nutjobs" are not going to troop quietly to the polls for Rudy just to keep the White House. As I argued earlier this week, I think this will be a "statement candidate" year.
(
*
Sidebar puzzler for the Democratic centrists out there: Remember that in 2000, both parties nominated the more rightward of the two major contenders, which for the GOP meant going base-first, but for Democrats meant going center-first. Though Gore won the popular vote, I find it amazing that centrist Democrats say Gore failed to sufficiently move to the center when, in fact, had he locked down his base and decimated the Nader problem in the first place, well ... you know.)
--Tom Schaller
