George Allen, the incumbent Republican senator, finds himself locked in a close race with Democratic challenger Jim Webb. When this race started, it was supposed to be a cakewalk for Allen, who was high on the list of contenders for the nomination for President in 2008. But since August 11, the day of the fateful Breaks incident, Allen has been kept on the defensive, as one thing after another has rocked the campaign. Rather than spending time in primary states and coasting to victory with his huge warchest against an underfunded challenger, Allen has found that himself scrambling to answer multiple charges of racism, admitting that he has a Jewish background, and waiting for the next bombshell. What happened here? Could it be a case of Republicans eating one of their own?
Allen is no stranger to Virginia politics, having served in the state legislature, as a Congressional representative, as governor, and in his current role, as senator. When he first ran for the Senate in 2000, Charles “Chuck” Robb, the Democratic incumbent, tried to make an issue of Allen’s racial history:
Allen has been blasted by Robb for being “racially insensitive.” The Robb campaign cites his record of voting against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday while Allen was a Virginia State delegate, and of establishing Virginia’s Confederate History Month as governor and of publicly opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1991 just prior to taking his congressional seat in 1992.
The Confederate Flag and the noose were also featured as a part of the 2000 campaign:
The campaign exchange was striking by any measure, but especially in a Virginia political culture that rarely discusses race so openly. Robb appeared at the state Capitol in Richmond with black leaders of a state Democratic Party that is widely circulating fliers lambasting Allen as a racial “extremist” who once “hung a Confederate flag in his home and hung a noose in his law office.”
Criticism of the Confederate History Month issue was news back in 1997. The book written by his sister, Fifth Quarter: The Scrimmage of a Football Coach’s Daughter, was published in 2000. None of this stuff stuck in 2000. What is different now?
I think the difference is his presidential ambitions. Had the Breaks incident not occurred, what we are seeing now would have come out next year, as Allen’s nomination opponents attempted to knock him out of contention. Witness the way that John McCain was attacked in 2000, with claims that he was mentally unstable, that his wife was a drug addict, and that he had fathered an illegitimate black child. Breaks allowed the other Republican presidential nomination contenders to release the dogs a year earlier. And Allen is getting it from both sides. In 2000, I could find no conservative publications commenting on Allen’s possible racism; this year, The Weekly Standard and National Review weighed in. The National Review also criticizing him for “race pandering” while the Sons of Confederate Veterans attacked him for degrading them, their flag and their heritage.
The effect here is an undercutting of support for Allen, with moderate voters, with black voters (who the Allen camp claims support him at a higher rate than other Republican candidates) and with the so-called “bubba” vote. Throughout all of this, the Webb campaign has been mostly silent, the netroots notwithstanding. I first suspected the Republicans were behind this when that CCC photo appeared. That kind of digging is the result of opposition research.
Would Republicans with presidential ambitions risk losing a Senate seat by pulling the trigger on this stuff now? I think so, mainly because of Maryland and Michael Steele. Maryland has long been Democratic stronghold, but with Steele in the race, it is in play for a Republican win. (More on this in a later post.) Besides, I don’t think they believe Allen will lose, especially because of the fundraising edge that Allen has. If Allen falls into the danger category and Steele looks like he may lose, expect to see the Republicans jump into this race at the last minute and do whatever they think is necessary to pull off the win.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I don’t know that I’d say that Republicans are behind “all” of this, but I’ve suspected for a while that other out-of-state Republicans (as well as some in-staters) have been willfully fanning the flames to advance other candidates.
Am I upset by this? Not really. Allen was probably going to fall out of the Presidential hunt by his own volition–with Bush’s national poll numbers as low as they are, a candidate who had worked hard to position himself as the President’s ideological heir is probably not nearly as electable as Allen himself wold like to think.
The larger question, then, is “what sort of candidate is the GOP looking for?” McCain seems like a natural candidate to many but he’s beatable. I suspect that Secretary Rice would actually make a pretty good president but–perhaps unfairly–it’s going to be impossible to distance herself from an unpopular Bush administration, so she’ll have to rely on a dramatic reversal of fortunes between now and ’08.
We’ll almost certainly have to wait until Iowa and Nevada to find out who stands the best chance of being the Republican nominee. I doubt very strongly that it will end up being anyone we would consider a household name; it looks like the Republicans are already killing off one insider.
anon – I agree. It is going to be interesting to see who ends up on top as the Republican nominee.