The state which leads off the Republicrat presidential marathon gave impressive totals to third-party/independent presidential candidates in the general elections of 1992 and 1996.  Fully 32% of this state's electorate are registered to what the Almanac of American Politics describes as "unaffiliated and minor parties" and this state is a natural for ARP.

    This very conservative Republican Senator, Bob Smith, won by a plurality of 49% in his last campaign for re-election in 1996.  Indeed, the race was so close that the exit polls screwed it up at first and called the victory for his big-spending Democratic opponent Dick Swett.

    Bob Smith is not with us on most issues.  Most notably, he not only opposes campaign finance reform, but even ignored the state's campaign spending limit, exceeding it by $130,000 in his last campaign.  About the only ARP issue where Smith is marginally friendly is the question of trade; he voted against both NAFTA and GATT.

    Now he is running for President, and may very well have lost interest in the Senate as far as a run for re-election is concerned in 2002.   If this is the case, this open seat might very well be the site of a free-for-all.  If that free-for-all turns into a multi-party extravaganza, there may be room for an ARP or ARP-sympathetic candidate.  I suggest our first choice alternative would be to field former Senator Warren Rudman as our very own candidate.  Rudman's credentials as an advocate for fiscal integrity and entitlement reform are impeccable as is his reputation when it comes to working across the aisle to fashion coalitions and pass legislation.  If he agrees to join our PR team this year or next year, then his candidacy on ARP's behalf would seem doubly logical .

    If our dream choice of Rudman is untenable, there are a few other possibilities.  John Rauh has run unsuccessfully in Democratic primaries on a platform of support for the line-item veto and the balanced budget amendment, refused to take PAC money and limited himself to $100 contributions.  He might be a strong Republicrat possibility for us to endorse, should he decide to go for the Democratic nomination again.  Unfortunately, despite his maverick status in the state party, it is unlikely he will bolt it; his wife, Mary, is its vice chairman!  Interestingly, Mary is also interested in elective office, and has run against moderate Republican Charles Bass for his House seat.  However, not only do I not know anything about her political philosophy (it may be less reform-minded than that of her husband) but I am uncomfortable about the symbolism of supporting a paid operative of the Repubicrats.  About the only remaining possibility is Charles Bass, the moderate Republican who currently serves in the state's second congressional district.  If it turns out that Smith, even if he loses his presidential run, has truly lost interest in the Senate, then Bass may very well make his move at that time.  To sum up, if Smith decides to follow in the footsteps of many previous Granite State Senators by serving only two terms, then Warren Rudman should be ARP's first choice, John Rauh could be a strong possibility, with Bass as our Republicrat backup in '02.

    Senator Judd Gregg, junior Republican Senator here, is one of the strongest Senators in the nation when it comes to the issue of fiscal responsibility.  He has one of the highest Concord Coalition rankings in the nation.  His 1997 Taxpayers for Common Sense rating was a whopping 66%, 31 points higher than his party's 35% Senate rating.  However, he is nowhere when it comes to political and campaign finance reform.

    Originally, this Senator was thought one of the most vulnerable in the nation.  He won his seat in 92 initially with a miniscule 48% of the vote.  But in 98 he staged an impressive comeback, scoring a crushing 68%.  We can only hope that after a 2002 victory for reform centrists in Smith's seat, New Hampshire's political environment will be more hospitable to us when this seat comes up next in 2004.  Again, it would appear that Rudman, Rauh or Bass would be our possibilities.  Off-hand, I would say that this Senator, being younger than Smith, and apparently uninterested in higher office, should be targeted by Rauh, while Smith's seat would be a more logical choice for Rudman or Bass, since Smith's possible retirement will make the race more congenial to a current or former Republican like the current co-chair of the Concord Coalition or the current Representative from the Second Congressional District.
 

    We must challenge incumbent John E. Sununu(R)  in '00.  However, while he only won in '96 by a razor-thin margin of 50%, and while pro-third party and independent sentiment is high here, the fact remains that he is now on much surer political ground.  He won his race for re-election by a depressing 67%.  At one time, the Perot Reform Party was talking about mounting a serious challenge here.  That did not materialize in 98 (nothing much materialized from them in 98, always excepting Ventura, Torgerson and Golisano, of course), but that is not to say they might not follow through on that original intention in 2000.  I suggest, therefore, that it is incumbent on us to mount a serious challenge to Sununu before the Perotbots can get a serious foothold here, unless the incredible happens and the Perot Reform Party actually comes up with a credible reasonable candidate.  Again, our choices would appear to be limited.  John Rauh appears to be the only reasonable possibility here, assuming that he meets the state's residency requirements for the race.  If he is not interested in the race (he's run for Senate in the past) we may be forced to fall back on a flag-planting race here, with a goal of receiving no less than 17% of the vote, enough to prevent Sununu from winning an absolute majority in 2000.
 

    We should support incumbent Charles F. Bass(R) in '98 and '00. He is a moderate Republican, and, among other things, is a strong supporter of campaign finance reform, and I believe he has significant Trojan horse potential. Despite his strong support of campaign finance reform, the Perot Reform Party said they would target him for defeat in '98. While that did not come to pass, that is not to say they might not follow through with that threat in '00.  If they did, this would be monumentally selfish and short-sighted of them.  Moderates like Bass will be critical to any successful centrist reform coalition in the future.  ARP should be ready to challenge such an action by Perot, and should not be afraid to pull out all the stops to support Bass and help him defeat any Perot mischief-makers.