Richardson's 'Southern strategy' comment chills state Democrats

e-mail this story Dan Hoover • Beasley must mend fences in Lowcountry (06/13/04) • Pig ploy wins plaudits from some (06/06/04) • 4th District candidates struggling for attention (05/30/04) • Richardson's 'Southern strategy' comment chills state Democrats (05/23/04) • Tenenbaum's candidacy targeted in two-pronged GOP attack (05/16/04)

(A) George W. Bush

(B) John Kerry

(C) Ralph Nader

(D) None of the above

The answer is "D."

Specifically, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who's on Kerry's reputed short list for running mate and who will chair this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Richardson was the keynote speaker at the state Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day fund-raiser on April 30.

Among his remarks in Columbia was this:

"It's important that we not forsake a Southern strategy. You can't run a non-South campaign."

So far, so good.

On May 9, readers of The New York Times Magazine were treated to a very different appraisal from Richardson.

"I don't think it's realistic for us to have a Southern strategy. We should concentrate on either a Western strategy — a Western/Hispanic strategy — which is basically Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida, or we should try to pick off one or two states in the Midwest.

Look elsewhere

"Those have to be the two options to win the presidency," he told the nationally distributed magazine.

Richardson seemed to be saying publicly what Democratic presidential campaigns of the last generation have been quietly doing in practice as the once "Solid South" moved to the GOP.

To Brandon Brown, who's running for the 4th Congressional District's Democratic nomination, Richardson is endorsing the "wrong approach."

"You have to win in the South to be elected," Brown said, adding that he has concerns about weakening the region's voice within the party.

Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told The Times that Richardson had a "valid point, (but) I'd never say it" publicly.

Hispanic strategy

Richardson's comments appear to be rooted in a belief that the party must focus on attracting the fast-growing Hispanic populations of the Southwest and California, among whom Bush has won minority but strong showings.

Those states would then be added to Democratic bastions in the Pacific coast, Northeast and industrialized Midwest.

But the South is also a fast-growing region with its own Hispanic populations, although their voter registration percentages remain low.

The implications of a Democratic bug-out in the South extend beyond the White House: Across the South, five U.S. Senate seats now held by Democrats are open because of retirements. In those Republican-leaning states, including South Carolina, Democrats will need all the help they can get from the top of the ticket.

Nothing new

Giving up on the South is nothing new.

Remember 1988 and Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis (like Kerry, from Massachusetts) and his pledge to wage a "50-state campaign."

Well, he came up a few dozen short.

Since then, the only Democrat to win the White House, Arkansas' Bill Clinton, did so with the aid of a mixed bag of Southern states, one that eluded his Vice President Al Gore's bid to move up in 2000.

From Dukakis to Gore, Democratic nominees made only token appearances in South Carolina, and their campaigns were pared to the bone to ship resources to more competitive states.

In the 40 years since Barry Goldwater began moving South Carolina and her sister states into the GOP, Georgia's Jimmy Carter, in 1976, is the lone Democratic nominee to carry this state. He lost it — and his presidency — to Ronald Reagan four years later.

Erwin 'confused'

Joe Erwin, the state Democratic chairman, who warmly greeted Richardson in Columbia last month, says, "I'm confused," citing diametrically opposing statements by a potential running mate and national convention chairman.

"When he was in Columbia, he talked about the importance of the South. Now these other comments seem to contradict that. I'm not sure" where he stands.

Is Richardson not to be believed in the future?

"I don't know."

Questions of Richardson's credibility aside, Erwin said, "a lot of Democrats are frustrated about the remarks. I've talked to people, good Democrats working real hard for Kerry, and we're all disappointed."

Once the initial irritation and disappointment recede, Erwin said Richardson's remarks, even if they become party strategy, "won't make a huge difference either way.

Going it alone

Erwin said the state party will "treat South Carolina as a battleground state, regardless of who comes in from the outside."

Hastings Wyman, editor of The Southern Political Report, said he hates to see anyone write of the region, but doesn't see any Southern state where Kerry has much of a shot, except Florida.

"I don't like the tone of that, but the strategy behind it might make sense," he said.

"If Bush continues to weaken, Kerry might be able to pick up a Southern state or two, but I just don't see it."

Dan Hoover's column appears on Sunday. He can be reached at (864) 298-4883 or toll-free at (800) 274-7879, extension 4883, and by fax at (864) 298-4395.