Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 22, 1994 TAG: 9405240002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: D-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By MARK J. ROZELL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
North's retort to growing Republican concern over his electability is to invoke George Allen's remarkable achievement in winning the governorship last year. Unfortunately for North, the polling data reveal that the analogy is flawed.
Last year, when Allen trailed badly in the polls, the public knew little about the Republican nominee. Allen had low name-recognition, and most voters had not formed opinions of him. That created an opportunity for either the candidate or his opponent to frame the Allen image. We know who won that battle.
Today, North has 100-percent name recognition and statewide negative ratings of about 50 percent. In some areas of voter-rich Northern Virginia, his negative ratings soar above 70 percent.
Unlike Allen last year, North has little opportunity to frame his own image. Most Virginians already have strong feelings about the man.
After reviewing the polling data, the legislative director of the American Conservative Union concluded, "North is the candidate who, if history is any guide, simply cannot win a general election." Although North today dismisses any such conclusion as perpetrated by a liberal "media elite," prominent conservatives are leading the charge that his nomination will ruin a golden Republican opportunity to take the Senate seat now held by Democrat Charles Robb.
In a recent campaign memorandum, North's campaign manager alleged that a cabal of liberal journalists and pundits has been flacking for Republican opponent Jim Miller. This claim struck me as bizarre because Jim Miller is the most conservative candidate running for the Senate this year. The motive of this attack is now clear: To maintain support in conservative circles, the North campaign must characterize any unflattering analysis of his electability as a deceitful leftist ranting against a good conservative.
What the North campaign has failed to adequately address is all of the conservative-based criticism of the candidate.
For example, George F. Will, the nation's most respected conservative journalist, writes of North that "identifying conservatism with this loose cannon on the pitching deck of American politics is a recipe for recurring embarrassments on the right." Will describes North as a man who "seems unable to tell what the truth is."
Then there was the Ronald Reagan letter. The former president made it clear that North has been spreading false stories about Iran-Contra and about the former president's knowledge and actions. If Reagan, the hero of modern American conservatism, is "steamed" at North, shouldn't conservative activists listen?
Many conservatives became doubly steamed at North when he replied that people close to Reagan were feeding false information to the former president - a thinly disguised effort to appeal to the caricature of Reagan as an amiable dunce who can't think for himself and only knows what others tell him.
More galling to many true conservatives who revere President Reagan is the dismissive response of the North campaign to the fact that distinguished Reaganites support Miller: In effect, the North campaign characterizes the Reaganites as insider elitists, part of the Washington Beltway crowd.
Whatever happened to the Reagan Revolution? Since when did it become a matter of dishonor in conservative circles to claim credentials as a Reagan White House adviser or Cabinet official?
Last year, the Reader's Digest - not exactly a part of the "liberal media elite" - featured an article on North that portrays the man as incapable of telling the truth. Among the examples cited: North's detailed stories of one-on-one meetings with President Reagan that never took place (Reagan confirms that the meetings never happened); and stories of personal closeness to former CIA Director William Casey and spending time visiting the Casey home. Mrs. Casey says she has never seen North.
In the remaining time before the state Republican convention, delegates must decide between North, whose nomination most likely will forfeit any Republican chance of winning in November, and Miller, who, according to the legislative director of the American Conservative Union, "would make the better nominee against Mr. Robb in the fall."
Delegates too must come to grips with these important questions: Which candidate deserves the opportunity to carry the mantle of Reaganism for the Republican Party of Virginia? North, the man who has incurred the wrath of Reagan and other leading conservatives? Or Miller, the man who served his president honorably?
Mark J. Rozell is an associate professor of political science at Mary Washington College.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB