Stopping the New Todd Akins

Republicans can see the next wave of clamorous extremists coming. Now they have to neutralize them.

UNITED STATES Ð AUGUST 12: Rep. Paul Broun, M.D., R-Ga., arrives to hold his town hall meeting at the Oglethorpe County Farm Bureau in Crawford, Ga., on Monday, Aug. 12, 2013. 
Getty Images
Nov. 18, 2013, midnight

MARI­ETTA, Ga. — The most dan­ger­ous man in Re­pub­lic­an polit­ics also has one of its loudest voices. Paul Broun had walked in­to the middle of the chan­delier-ad­orned ball­room, for­go­ing the mi­cro­phone used by oth­er can­did­ates who spoke on this Sat­urday morn­ing. The con­gress­man was ad­dress­ing the Geor­gia Fed­er­a­tion of Re­pub­lic­an Wo­men at a lux­ury hotel an hour north of At­lanta, the kind of gath­er­ing ser­i­ous can­did­ates for the Peach State’s open Sen­ate seat must at­tend.

And Broun is a ser­i­ous can­did­ate — to the deep anxi­ety of nearly every Re­pub­lic­an lead­er from At­lanta to Wash­ing­ton. His voice boomed as he de­livered his four-minute stump speech, arms raised as he swiveled side-to-side to ad­dress an audi­ence of mostly older wo­men. The deeply re­li­gious politi­cian was not un­like a preach­er ad­dress­ing his con­greg­a­tion.

“There’s four ques­tions I ask about all le­gis­la­tion,” bel­lowed Broun, dressed in a tie-less black suit and, at 67, still pos­sess­ing a full head of white hair. His check­list: Does the coun­try need it; can the coun­try af­ford it; does it square with the Con­sti­tu­tion’s ori­gin­al in­tent?

And there is one more thing: “Does it fit with the Judeo-Chris­ti­an bib­lic­al prin­ciples that the na­tion was foun­ded upon?”

Broun didn’t elab­or­ate. But he didn’t have to. For many Re­pub­lic­ans, it’s all the re­mind­er they need about why he can’t be the party’s nom­in­ee. Last year, Broun called the Big Bang the­ory and evol­u­tion “lies from the pit of hell.” The re­marks, caught on video­tape dur­ing a speech at a loc­al church, have defined him as one of Con­gress’s most con­tro­ver­sial law­makers. And they were hardly the only in­cen­di­ary com­ment from a man who once com­pared Pres­id­ent Obama to Ad­olf Hitler, be­fore Obama even took of­fice. (He later apo­lo­gized.)

On this Oc­to­ber morn­ing, Broun kept his speech ano­dyne, vow­ing to ease the coun­try’s debt bur­den and make life bet­ter for fu­ture gen­er­a­tions.

But es­tab­lish­ment Re­pub­lic­ans — or whatever you want to call the col­lec­tion of strategists, donors, and lead­ers who value re­tak­ing the Sen­ate above all else — aren’t for­get­ting what lies be­neath. Be­cause they know two things about Geor­gia’s Sen­ate race: Paul Broun can win the party’s nom­in­a­tion, and if he does, the GOP will be saddled with its next Todd Akin.

Every­body re­mem­bers Akin, most of all Re­pub­lic­ans run­ning cam­paigns last year. The con­gress­man’s gasp-in­du­cing sug­ges­tion that wo­men, des­pite all sci­entif­ic evid­ence to the con­trary, could pre­vent them­selves from be­com­ing preg­nant after rape, cost the party a win­nable Sen­ate seat in a red state. But the dam­age re­ver­ber­ated far bey­ond Mis­souri — his com­ments be­came a cinder block tied to the ankles of Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates across the coun­try.

The party can’t bear a re­peat, not while fa­cing its last best shot at tak­ing the Sen­ate  from Demo­crats. And not while it tries to re­hab­il­it­ate its im­age be­fore the 2016 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, a con­test Re­pub­lic­ans are des­per­ate to win. So GOP lead­ers are vow­ing to step in. And they’re not only train­ing their sights on Geor­gia. Just as Akin wasn’t the only ham-handed GOP nom­in­ee — think Richard Mour­dock in In­di­ana and Christine O’Don­nell in Delaware — Re­pub­lic­ans na­tion­wide are on a search-and-des­troy mis­sion for can­did­ates they fear could em­bar­rass the party.

Party op­er­at­ives de­scribe the loom­ing battle as an ef­fort that will look less like an all-out as­sault and more like a series of stealthy pre­ci­sion strikes, be­cause every­one in­volved ac­know­ledges that any at­tempt to meddle in a GOP primary is fraught with risk. Rank-and-file con­ser­vat­ives, the kind who pick primary win­ners, don’t like be­ing told what to do.

But no mat­ter what that strategy looks like, the en­su­ing in­tra­party show­downs will de­term­ine more than the shape of next year’s midterm elec­tions. Re­pub­lic­ans will re­mem­ber 2014 as either the mo­ment GOP eld­ers re­gained con­trol of a party that had slipped from their grasp, or the one that saw hard-liners fin­ish a coup six years in the mak­ing. When the res­ults come in, every­one will know who’s run­ning the Re­pub­lic­an Party.


Bey­ond Broun, the lineup of trouble­makers stalk­ing Sen­ate races is a mix of new and fa­mil­i­ar names. In Alaska, 2010 Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee Joe Miller is back for an­oth­er go-round in a three-man race. Oth­er than los­ing to Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s write-in ef­fort, his cam­paign was most mem­or­able for hav­ing hand­cuffed a loc­al re­port­er. An­oth­er 2010 re­tread, former Col­or­ado GOP nom­in­ee Ken Buck, once com­pared ho­mo­sexu­al­ity to al­co­hol­ism.

Bob Vander Plaats wasn’t a Sen­ate con­tender in 2010, but he is well-known to any­one fa­mil­i­ar with Iowa polit­ics and he’s a mag­net for con­tro­versy. The prom­in­ent so­cial con­ser­vat­ive lead­er, who nearly won the party’s 2010 gubernat­ori­al nom­in­a­tion, has called ho­mo­sexu­al­ity a “pub­lic health risk.” Vander Plaats is mulling a cam­paign in a primary that already fea­tures a hand­ful of can­did­ates.

Mark Har­ris is also a so­cial con­ser­vat­ive, but he’s far less well-known na­tion­ally than his Iowa coun­ter­part. In North Car­o­lina, the Baptist pas­tor spear­headed the 2012 ad­op­tion of a con­sti­tu­tion­al ban on gay mar­riage. His nom­in­a­tion would be­get a re­newed de­bate over an is­sue the na­tion­al party can’t back­ped­al from fast enough.

And if Broun wer­en’t enough, the Geor­gia GOP field has an­oth­er po­ten­tially com­bust­ible can­did­ate: Rep. Phil Gin­grey. Earli­er this year, Gin­grey de­fen­ded Akin’s com­ment about rape, then apo­lo­gized.

Oth­er can­did­ates might yet emerge; Re­pub­lic­an op­er­at­ives like to point out that al­though Akin was nev­er the es­tab­lish­ment fa­vor­ite, few con­sidered him an enorm­ous li­ab­il­ity. Mostly, he was just known as a soft-spoken politi­cian with an un­re­mark­able le­gis­lat­ive re­cord. But for now, these are the ones on the GOP’s early-watch list.

None of them, ac­cord­ing to Re­pub­lic­ans, amount to half the threat posed by Broun. They’re either seen as not cred­ible enough to win the nom­in­a­tion (Gin­grey and, es­pe­cially, Miller), un­likely to enter at all (Vander Plaats), less com­bust­ible than their résumé would sug­gest (Har­ris), or run­ning in a state that Re­pub­lic­ans have already writ­ten off (Buck). “From a Re­pub­lic­an stand­point, Paul Broun is the only one we’re really wor­ried about,” said a GOP strategist track­ing the 2014 Sen­ate races, gran­ted an­onym­ity in or­der to speak can­didly about the polit­ic­al land­scape.

Broun isn’t only the ca­ri­ca­ture of a con­tro­versy-court­ing politi­cian. He ac­tu­ally has the ped­i­gree of a top-flight politi­cian — his fath­er, Paul Broun Sr., was a long­time Demo­crat­ic state sen­at­or from Athens, Ga., and a friend to former Pres­id­ent Carter. A doc­tor and a Mar­ine, the young­er Broun was de­ployed to Afgh­anistan last year as a Navy re­serv­ist.

In per­son, Broun car­ries on with voters like an old mas­ter of re­tail polit­ics. At the Wo­men’s Fed­er­a­tion, he hugged and clasped the hands of all those who ap­proached him, greet­ing them with his Geor­gia-in­flec­ted bari­tone and a warm smile. And re­gard­less of what he’s said in the past, Broun ap­pears in­tent on tak­ing a more con­ven­tion­al line now. The most rad­ic­al notes in his stump speech call for ab­ol­ish­ing the Edu­ca­tion De­part­ment and the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency — not ex­actly main­stream think­ing, but hardly ex­treme po­s­i­tions with­in the Re­pub­lic­an Party any­more.

In an in­ter­view, Broun didn’t talk about abor­tion, tak­ing on the es­tab­lish­ment, or even Pres­id­ent Obama; nor did he take the bait when asked about these sub­jects. He ex­plained his can­did­acy’s ra­tionale in the most con­ven­tion­al way. “I’m rep­res­ent­ing those two little boys over there,” Broun told Na­tion­al Journ­al, point­ing to kids in match­ing base­ball uni­forms. They, like Broun, were at­tend­ing a chili cook-off hos­ted by the county GOP. “So that when they grow up they’ll have a job. So when they grow up, they’ll have a strong eco­nomy. So that they’ll have op­por­tun­ity to be suc­cess­ful in life and provide for their fam­ily and not have gov­ern­ment telling them how to run their lives.”

Asked if he planned to emu­late Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, the con­ser­vat­ive base’s cur­rent rock star, Broun de­murred. He has a lot of friends in the up­per cham­ber, he said, and wants to work with Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats.

Broun’s pae­ans to mod­er­a­tion, however, don’t change the cent­ral fact of his can­did­acy as the es­tab­lish­ment sees it: He’s a tick­ing time bomb. In its telling, Broun had a free pass to his con­gres­sion­al seat, win­ning a spe­cial elec­tion in 2007 by few­er than 1,000 votes against a gaffe-prone can­did­ate. He’s held the safely con­ser­vat­ive dis­trict ever since. Broun’s past — which in­cludes his con­gres­sion­al of­fice spend­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars on mail­ers — has nev­er got­ten the kind of scru­tiny it would in a high-pro­file Sen­ate con­test. This is a can­did­ate who earli­er this year voted for former Rep. Al­len West to be speak­er of the House, has bragged about be­ing the first to call Obama a “so­cial­ist,” and — of course — flir­ted with birther­ism.

The GOP fears that if Broun wins the nom­in­a­tion, MS­N­BC will have enough con­tent for weeks.

Re­pub­lic­an op­er­at­ives and lead­ers in At­lanta and Wash­ing­ton firmly be­lieve that Broun hasn’t just been the vic­tim of a few un­for­tu­nate gaffes. One Re­pub­lic­an strategist, fa­mil­i­ar with Broun and un­af­fili­ated with a rival cam­paign, put the chance of the law­maker stir­ring con­tro­versy the way Akin did at “al­most 100 per­cent.” Oth­ers were just as blunt. “Broun’s can­did­acy does rep­res­ent a real threat,” said Joel McEl­han­non, a GOP con­sult­ant in the state. “Geor­gia voters tend to be con­ser­vat­ive, but on a statewide basis they tend not to be crazy. So that’s a prob­lem for someone like Paul Broun.”

But the party es­tab­lish­ment’s fight to con­trol the cam­paign in Geor­gia is not tak­ing place on a level bat­tle­field. The primary is a mul­tic­an­did­ate free-for-all where the top two can­did­ates move on to a run­off. In a race fea­tur­ing a former sec­ret­ary of state, a wealthy busi­ness­man, and three House mem­bers, cam­paign in­siders say it might take only 23 per­cent of the vote to reach the run­off.

Broun’s home dis­trict and his deep ap­peal to Chris­ti­an Re­pub­lic­ans of­fer him a clear path to reach that num­ber in a race with no sol­id fa­vor­ites. And in a two-can­did­ate run­off, the think­ing goes, any­one can win. “I think it’s still a jump ball,” said Jack King­ston, Broun’s col­league in the House and rival for the Sen­ate.


The GOP’s con­sult­ing class is keenly aware that its job won’t be easy. Ma­nip­u­lat­ing Sen­ate races is like play­ing a game of three-di­men­sion­al chess: Every move brings a cas­cade of con­sequences, few of which even the sav­vi­est of op­er­at­ors can pre­dict.

Just con­sider how many act­ors will be in­volved in next year’s Sen­ate races: the can­did­ates’ cam­paigns; the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Com­mit­tee; the es­tab­lish­ment-friendly Amer­ic­an Cross­roads; busi­ness groups such as the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce; out­side con­ser­vat­ive groups such as the Club for Growth; and the biggest wild card — in­de­pend­ent su­per PACs fun­ded by wealthy donors. A con­ser­vat­ive re­volt paired with loosened cam­paign fin­ance reg­u­la­tions have com­bined to en­dow a lot of very dif­fer­ent groups with a lot of very big check­books.

As much as each is watch­ing the race, they’re watch­ing one an­oth­er just as closely. If, for ex­ample, the cham­ber began a TV ad cam­paign tar­get­ing Miller in Alaska, it could draw a coun­ter­at­tack from an or­gan­iz­a­tion such as the Jim De­Mint-foun­ded Sen­ate Con­ser­vat­ives Fund. And sud­denly a can­did­ate whom Re­pub­lic­ans pray will slip quietly in­to the night is in­stead thrust in­to the spot­light, earn­ing a boost not just from ad­vert­ising but from loc­al base con­ser­vat­ives who tra­di­tion­ally flock to anti­es­tab­lish­ment can­did­ates.

Such a scen­ario is Geor­gia GOP lead­ers’ night­mare, so much so that some wise men ad­vise against any kind of en­gage­ment with Broun and his ilk. “If you go on TV and you’re at­tack­ing Paul Broun, to a cer­tain ex­tent, you’re only giv­ing him aware­ness and re­cog­ni­tion he wouldn’t oth­er­wise have,” McEl­han­non said. “Ig­nor­ing him might be the best thing to do in this cir­cum­stance.”

But here’s where yet an­oth­er wrinkle is ad­ded to the game: If Re­pub­lic­ans stay out, Demo­crats will surely jump in. After all, Akin didn’t win the GOP’s nom­in­a­tion on his own. Demo­crats, spear­headed by Sen. Claire Mc­Caskill, ran ads pump­ing up the un­der­fun­ded can­did­ated­ur­ing his three-way primary, thinly dis­guised spots that os­tens­ibly den­ig­rated the con­gress­man as too con­ser­vat­ive but were de­signed to help en­sure Akin’s vic­tory.

There’s a uni­ver­sal ex­pect­a­tion in Geor­gia that Demo­crats — wheth­er it’s the Nunn cam­paign, the Demo­crat­ic Sen­at­ori­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee, or the Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity PAC — will try to provide a sim­il­ar boost for Broun. “Based on what oc­curred in the 2012 Akin primary, it wouldn’t sur­prise me if there was some mis­chief on the part of the na­tion­al Demo­crat­ic Party to try to in­flu­ence the out­come,” said Eric Tan­en­blatt, a prom­in­ent Geor­gia Re­pub­lic­an who was Mitt Rom­ney’s na­tion­al fin­ance co­chair­man last year.

The es­tab­lish­ment GOP also has a batch of less­er tools at its dis­pos­al. Fueled by op­pos­i­tion re­search, it can ma­lign trouble­some can­did­ates early, be­fore they gain mo­mentum, to cut off sup­port and fun­drais­ing. A few Re­pub­lic­ans with thick wal­lets could form their own su­per PACs, and, free from the con­tro­versy at­tached to a group like Cross­roads, launch at­tacks. The party might be able to rely on the GOP’s busi­ness wing, fed up after Oc­to­ber’s dual gov­ern­ment-shut­down and de­fault im­broglios.

The no­tion of an or­gan­ic, grass­roots push-back against the act­iv­ist class by “main­stream Re­pub­lic­an” rank-and-file is the es­tab­lish­ment’s nir­vana. Such an idea is gen­er­ally mocked as im­plaus­ible — mod­er­ate Re­pub­lic­ans, by defin­i­tion, are not as com­mit­ted to the cause, and hence will al­ways cede con­trol to the more in­volved con­ser­vat­ive hard-liners.

But in Iowa, the mecca of grass­roots polit­ics, the GOP is try­ing to prove the skep­tics wrong. Most ob­serv­ers ex­pect that the party’s nom­in­ee will be chosen at the GOP state con­ven­tion, where some 2,000 del­eg­ates will gath­er. (Un­der Iowa rules, the nom­in­ee is picked at the con­ven­tion if no can­did­ate re­ceives at least 35 per­cent of the vote, and few ex­pect that any­one in a field that could ul­ti­mately run six can­did­ates deep will cross the threshold.) Con­ven­tions of­ten are a polit­ic­al dis­aster for Re­pub­lic­ans — that’s how the los­ing Vir­gin­ia tick­et of Ken Cuc­cinelli and E.W. Jack­son emerged — be­cause only act­iv­ists go through the four-step pro­cess to at­tend.

This year, however, es­tab­lish­ment Re­pub­lic­ans are re­cruit­ing main­stream voters to par­ti­cip­ate. “Get­ting people who don’t feel real strongly about any­thing to show up for a con­ven­tion is a dif­fi­cult thing to do, but be­cause of things like the shut­down “¦ they’re get­ting mod­er­ates roweled up,” said Doug Gross, a long­time GOP op­er­at­ive in Iowa. “Woody Al­len was right: At least half of life, or 90 per­cent of it, is show­ing up.”

And some Re­pub­lic­ans hope that con­ser­vat­ive out­side groups, if they don’t lay down their swords, will at least swing their blades more care­fully. Amer­ic­an Cross­roads, which isn’t leg­ally barred like the NR­SC from talk­ing to its third-party coun­ter­parts, is provid­ing all or­gan­iz­a­tions with what amounts to an op­pos­i­tion-re­search file on every cred­ible can­did­ate. “The groups who spend ser­i­ous re­sources need a re­view of all the pub­lic state­ments, pri­or votes, and a gen­er­al sense of what that can­did­ate will look like in a gen­er­al elec­tion,” said Cross­roads spokes­man Jonath­an Col­le­gio.

He ad­ded, “We don’t want to nom­in­ate a can­did­ate and then find out they had dabbled in witch­craft or have ugly views about what con­sti­tutes rape. At the end of the day, the Demo­crats will find out everything they need to know about that can­did­ate, and Re­pub­lic­ans need to know everything about them too.”

Broun re­jects the no­tion that out­side groups will de­term­ine the elec­tion. Asked about the po­ten­tial in­flu­ence, he paused at length. “Geor­gi­ans are go­ing to elect the next sen­at­or,” he said, a re­sponse he echoed sev­er­al times dur­ing the in­ter­view.

He might be right. It’s not as if Re­pub­lic­ans wer­en’t mind­ful of mak­ing sure the most elect­able can­did­ate won pre­vi­ous races, and they wer­en’t able to stop people like O’Don­nell and Mour­dock from win­ning the nom­in­a­tion. “I’d like to play shortstop for the Braves next year, but it’s not go­ing to hap­pen,” said one of­fi­cial from a Geor­gia cam­paign. “There are some things you just can’t con­trol.”

The ladies back in the Wo­men’s Fed­er­a­tion ball­room would agree. A vic­tory line of hand­shakes, con­grat­u­la­tions, and hugs awaited Broun after he fin­ished talk­ing. None of the at­tendees, many of whom had worked in GOP polit­ics for dec­ades, cared about his con­tro­ver­sial past or the es­tab­lish­ment’s deep doubts about his can­did­acy. None seemed to care that the Demo­crat he would face in the gen­er­al elec­tion, Michelle Nunn, the daugh­ter of pop­u­lar former con­ser­vat­ive Demo­crat Sam Nunn, is a strong con­tender with ser­i­ous fun­drais­ing chops.

And Broun him­self seemed the least con­cerned. “Michelle can’t win this race,” he whispered to Heath Gar­rett as the long­time Re­pub­lic­an strategist walked to the front of the room to de­liv­er his own speech. “Even Demo­crats are telling me that.” Gar­rett, a friend of Broun’s, shook his hand, nod­ded slightly, and then pro­ceeded to the mic to de­liv­er what amoun­ted to an im­pli­cit re­buke of Broun. “We have to win back the Sen­ate if we’re go­ing to im­ple­ment any of our con­ser­vat­ive prin­ciples,” he said. “What are we do­ing “¦ to make sure a con­ser­vat­ive who can win in that state is the nom­in­ee for the Re­pub­lic­an Party?”

But Broun, through it all, didn’t seem to be pay­ing at­ten­tion. He sat in a chair in the back corner of the room, legs fol­ded and glasses at the tip of his nose, read­ing a smart­phone. He didn’t look wor­ried.

What We're Following See More »
McCain Family to Endorse Biden
8 hours ago

"The late Sen. John McCain's family plans to support former Vice President Joe Biden's White House bid, backing the Democrat not only in his party's crowded primary race but also in a general election matchup with President Trump, the Washington Examiner has learned. In an extraordinary snub to Trump, who derided McCain's Vietnam War service and mocked him even after his death last August at age 81, the McCain family is preparing to break with the Republican Party. McCain represented the party in Congress for 35 years and was chosen as its presidential nominee in 2008, losing to Barack Obama."

Trump Opposes White House Aides Giving Congressional Testimony
12 hours ago

"President Trump on Tuesday said he is opposed to current and former White House aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration and House Democrats. In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said that complying with congressional requests was unnecessary after the White House cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference and the president’s own conduct in office."

Nadler Subpoenas Unredacted Report
5 days ago
Mueller Made 14 Criminal Referrals
6 days ago
The Report Is Here
6 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.