Today's topic is Sen. Tom Cotton, a clear beneficiary of the 2016 Republican presidential primary.
That primary removed the whole top layer of GOP presidential prospects. Most of the people who were in that race aren't coming back. Those who might come back fall into one of two categories: Donald Trump, and those who failed to stop him. Trump will either get elected president or will lose. Either way, there's not a long list of Republicans ready to replace him.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will certainly be a force in 2020 or 2024, depending on what happens with Trump. But Cruz is forever branded as the man the Republicans wouldn't pick even when there was no alternative but Trump. I don't count him out, but don't think he's automatically the next nominee, either.
I used to nod, smile and think "Oh boy" when Cotton's fans talked about him as presidential timber. I still do, but now wonder who's left. I'm sure plenty of Republicans are just as green but ambitious as Cotton. I just don't know them. So few tall trees remain standing in the GOP forest, a sapling like Cotton has a shot.
What sets Cotton apart is that he's not a chickenhawk. That's the biggest thing. Another is that he's not a NeverTrump. That matters, for reasons I'll propose in a minute. And, as Cotton supporter state Rep. Charlie Collins, R-Fayetteville, reminded me, Cotton is very, very disciplined physically, intellectually and psychologically.
To be clear, I'm not endorsing Cotton. Anyone who thinks he's not ready for the prime time or actively loathes him, though, better watch out. This man is closer to the presidency than he appears. His refusal to allow a dying woman to fill an ambassadorship gives pause, but it's not the sort of issue most general election voters care about even if they should.
Now, for the non-chickenhawk factor. Trump is demonstrating that fear-mongering for political gain doesn't work so well in a general election if voters don't believe you'd make them safer. I wish I had thought of that, but admit not thinking of that until reading an extremely perceptive piece in the New York Times.
I still believe Cotton's famous 2015 "letter to the Ayatollah" was a mistake, but his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, for instance, isn't knee-jerk. There's a rigor to it. At least, unlike Trump's, Cotton's views are coherent. You can argue he's dead wrong, but you better have the facts straight. If things get worse in the Middle East -- and they always do, it seems -- he will have been "warning" us for years. An argument can be made that he gives the wrong warnings, but -- once again -- it will be debatable.
Oh, and by the way, he forsook years of what could have been a highly paid law career out of Harvard to join the Army and get shot at in Iraq. He mentioned that in his congressional campaigns a few times.
Then there's Cotton's quiet tolerance of Trump, a man who the crowd Cotton runs with -- big donors -- utterly despise. National Review magazine came out with an article June 15th called "The Cotton/Sasse Divide." Cotton doesn't openly criticize Trump. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., does. Which of those two will be perceived as the future of their party, the article wonders.
I'm just a wiseguy from Arkansas, but I can answer that one. Cotton is making the smarter bet here. Sasse's criticism of Trump -- however justified -- won't be forgiven by many Republicans, especially in the likely event that Hillary Clinton wins the presidential race. And if Trump wins, Sasse is toast.
Cotton's more reserved approach means he could unify the party if Trump is defeated and will face no bad consequences if Trump wins. Cotton has not offended the pro-Trumpers or those so partisan they believe any nominee of the party deserves support. Meanwhile, the anti-Trumpers -- even though they are Cotton's donors and patrons -- will never hold much of a grudge against one of their favorite young prospects. The fact Cotton could bring this very badly divided party together only enhances his appeal to the donor class.
So suppose Clinton wins, forcing the Republicans to swallow the very dregs of defeat. Two senators criticize President Clinton II's policies in the future. Which will carry more weight: One who at least didn't attack the party's alternative to President Clinton, Phase II, or the one who did? No one has to be a pundit to figure that out.
Commentary on 06/25/2016