Editor's note: This is the second of a two-part series on the Republican party.

THE DOOMSAYERS are at it again. Many political watchers--both liberal and conservative--have marked Patrick J. Buchanan's candidacy as the beginning of the end for the Bush presidency.

Part retribution for Bush's deviations from Reaganism and part fulfillment of long-held fears about his moderate Republicanism, a revolt on the Right does indeed seem to be brewing. Many conservatives find commentator-turned-candidate Buchanan an eager and capable tool to use in drawing Bush back to the Right--and perhaps evicting him from office.

Others, however, dismiss Buchanan as a crank who stands no chance on a national level and who seems to be a "David Duke without the peroxide." What is the truth? Is this man a threat to the head of his own party, or merely an irresponsible columnist who has grown too big for his britches? Probably the latter. Here's why.

TO HIS CREDIT, Buchanan, by most accounts, is considered to be a serious challenger. His nationally broadcast shows on CNN and his widely syndicated newspaper column have given him a loyal audience, with particularly strong backing among the Republican Right.

In addition, Buchanan qualified for federal matching funds faster than any candidate since the funding system was implemented in the '70s. In fact, he has already outraised Governor Moonbeam (Jerry Brown), though he still has a long way to go to catch Bush ($700,000 versus $10 million).

And most recently, all of the president's weaknesses have seemed to play to Buchanan's advantage since he is the only conservative challenger in the race (a certain neo-Nazi notwithstanding).

In pivotal New Hampshire, Buchanan enjoys surprisingly strong support. This is partly due to New Hampshire voters' disaffection with Bush, partly due to the appeal of the poison of protectionism which Buchanan preaches and partly due to the support of The Manchester Union-Leader, New Hampshire's foremost newspaper. In short, when one looks below the surface, Buchanan seems to pose a credible threat to Bush.

A closer analysis, however, reveals that Buchanan is not the one to capture conservative voters. To begin with, his complete lack of elective experience and his questionable statements on race and immigration make for a weak candidacy. Even more importantly for his election hopes, however, are his differences with most conservatives on the issues of free trade, America's role abroad and Israel.

While Buchanan's lack of experience in elective office may very well make him a better person than most politicians, that does not qualify him to sit in the Oval Office. Any student of government knows the value of political alliances, a seasoned staff and prior experience in dealing with everything from foreign leaders to Congress to the federal bureaucracy.

Buchanan served as a speechwriter in the Nixon White House, as an aide in the Ford transition and as Reagan's director of communications. Wow. Several Harvard professors, including Professors Roger B. Porter, Martin S. Feldstein '61 and Robert D. Putnam have served in much higher posts, and I wouldn't want to see any of them as president, either. (Well, maybe Marty.)

Still, many conservatives are happy to hear at least part of what Buchanan is saying. Yet unless he puts his proposals into practice (or, of course, causes Bush to adopt them), his impact as a candidate is not much greater than his impact as a columnist/commentator has been.

To put these proposals into practice, he needs to be able to work within the structure of government. Those who would disagree have the specter of Jimmy Carter (shudder) as a man who campaigned against Washington and tried to govern without it as well. A Buchanan presidency would be similar in terms of its ultimate effectiveness (i.e., nil).

As for his questionable statements, they don't necessarily impugn his character--but they do call his judgment into question. A litany of offensive remarks have been credited to Buchanan by friends and critics alike in recent months. Even William F. Buckley, a hero of Buchanan, found it "impossible to defend [Buchanan] from the charge of anti-Semitism."

Yet while the cranky columnist complains about the Israeli "amen corner," he had been, until the onset of the Intifada, an advocate of a pro-Israel policy. The Intifada, he argues, convinced him that there were strong arguments against Israeli claims.