Missouri Democrats looking at potential divide in 2004

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Wendell Bailey still recalls the breakfasts at the Missouri Governor's Mansion. Term-limited Gov. John Ashcroft was the host. And his guests -- the state treasurer, attorney general and secretary of state -- all wanted his job.

Underneath their cordially guarded conversations, and despite their attacking campaign ads, there was an assumption among the diners that the winner of their 1992 Republican governor's primary would waltz to victory in the general election.

Instead, Republicans lost not only the Governor's Mansion, but every statewide office below it on the ballot.

"It was an implosion. It all blew up inside," said Bailey, then the state treasurer. "They said we set the Republican Party back 10 years. I'm not sure if we did, but it certainly caused divisions."

Today, the table has turned.

Democrats occupy the Governor's Mansion and four out of the other five statewide offices. Yet it is Republicans who appear united and Democrats divided as an internal power struggle once again threatens to divide a political party.

Governor faces Democrat

Democratic Gov. Bob Holden faces an intraparty challenge in the 2004 elections from State Auditor Claire McCaskill, who is expected to officially kick off her campaign this week. Meanwhile, Republicans have cleared the decks of any big-name challengers to their gubernatorial hopeful, Secretary of State Matt Blunt.

But that's just the most obvious example of the Democratic Party's dilemma.

U.S. Rep. Karen McCarthy of Kansas City, vulnerable because of an admitted drinking problem and a pattern of missed votes and staff turnover, also looks likely to face a fierce primary challenge.

And U.S. Rep. Dick Gerphadt's bid for the presidency has created a vacuum in his south St. Louis district that numerous Democrats are jockeying to fill.

Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are openly worried about the effect of the internal battles, especially on the governor's race.

"It has taken the Republican Party now 12 years to recover from that devastating primary they had," said Mike Kelley, a former executive director of the Missouri Democratic Party who now works as a consultant and party spokesman. "And I fear that we may be winding up in the same situation if we continue down this road of separation. I think it sets us up for some impending doom."

Deconstructing a party

Speaking from experience, Republicans involved in the 1992 election say several destructive things tend to happen when a political party begins to divide over something such as a governor's race.

Campaign contributors, grass-roots organizers and core constituency groups all are forced to choose sides. So, too, are the political operatives who manage campaigns and dig up dirt on opponents. And down-the-ballot candidates must walk a precarious tightrope, or tie their fate to the fortunes of one person or another.

"It is impossible to divide a party in a small way," said John Hancock, a former executive director of the Missouri Republican Party who like Kelley now is a party consultant. "Once you began to divide a party, particularly in something as powerful as a gubernatorial primary, you create fissures and gaping wounds that last for a long time."

In 1992, Hancock won the Republican primary for secretary of state after aligning himself with then Attorney General Bill Webster, who victored in the gubernatorial primary over then-Secretary of State Roy Blunt, Bailey and two other minor candidates.

But Webster, bloodied from a negative advertising battle with Blunt and by a federal corruption investigation that later landed him in prison, got solidly beaten in the general election by Democratic Lt. Gov. Mel Carnahan. Hancock also lost to a previously little known Democrat, Judi Moriarity, who later would be impeached and ousted from office.

In some respects, the current divide in the Democratic Party is worse than what Republicans faced a decade ago, because Republicans then were competing for an open governor's seat while Democrats today already have an incumbent, said David Webber, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

"A challenge to an incumbent is just bad news for that party, all the way around," Webber said. "It's easily remembered by the citizens that the governor was challenged by someone in his own party, and that just suggests a weakness, a lack of leadership."

McCaskill already has criticized Holden's leadership while building up her campaign. Her theory is that Democrats would be in a better position against Blunt with someone else atop their ticket.

Long-term weakening

But should Holden survive her primary challenge, Webber said, McCaskill's efforts only would have weakened the Democrats' chances of retaining the governor's office.

The tone of a Holden-McCaskill campaign also could determine the extent to which divisions lingers in years to come. So far, Holden and McCaskill have differed little on such politically divisive issues as abortion and concealed guns.

So long as the divide in the Democratic Party remains based on personalities rather than philosophies, the party should be able to more quickly regroup, said Gary Miller, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

"When any incumbent party can't unite behind the incumbent, then it's more likely the challenger from the opposing party is going to win, and that's a temporary setback," Miller said. But "I tend to think that when factionalism becomes associated with the major policy differences ... then it's likely to be more harmful" in the long run.