Time columnist Margaret Carlson suggests that the Republican conservative base is so unhappy with the current crop of presidential candidates that there's room for a "dark horse" to emerge.
If only they could take John McCain's gung-ho militarism, Sam Brownback's evangelical fervor, Mitt Romney's looks, ... and a month from the life of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- the one starting 9/11/01 -- they would have a perfect candidate.
She's right that the GOP's conservatives aren't thrilled with the totality of Giuliani, or McCain, or Romney, and that none of the lesser-known conservatives in the race have yet caught fire with the base.
But Carlson is wrong - spectacularly wrong - about who might be a winning "dark horse" for the GOP nomination. Carlson suggests Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, but Hagel's recent position on the war in Iraq is not shared by three fourths of Republicans according to recent polls. While Hagel opposes President Bush's new strategy in Iraq and opposes the president's deployment of the additional troops that the commanders say are necessary to achieve success, 72 percent of Republicans in one recent poll say they do not believe Bush made a mistake sending U.S. troops to Iraq. Most Republicans still believe the United States' only good option in Iraq is to stay and win.
Does that mean there's no room for a conservative "dark horse" in the race for president? No. It just means that Hagel is not the right horse - the only kind of "dark horse" candidate that can win the GOP nomination is one for whom the only viable option in Iraq is victory.
Comment Preview