When he threw his hat into the ring as a contender for the Republican presidential nomination on Sept. 22, Steve Forbes provoked little more than bemused chuckles from most political observers. The millionaire heir to the fortune and business magazine of his late mogul father, Malcolm S. Forbes, Steve Forbes seemed to have neither the experience nor the political acumen necessary to survive the vicious demands of a presidential campaign. But that was before Colin Powell declined to fill what many Republicans saw as a void in the party's field of candidates, and the hunger for alternatives to front-running Senator Bob Dole surged.

And that was before Forbes, 48, began an awesome and costly media blitz that has rocketed him, stunningly, from a campaign oddity to second place in polls in the crucial states of Iowa and New Hampshire, which are sites of the first two major tests of the 1996 campaign. Although Forbes is still in the low teens in most polls, some 20 points or so behind Dole, he has eclipsed other contenders -- to their tremendous dismay -- like Senator Phil Gramm and former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, who have been organizing their campaigns and raising money for several months longer then Forbes. Now they can only watch as Forbes, who, by spending his own personal fortune, need not worry about fund raising, nor about the limits on campaign spending imposed on candidates seeking federal matching funds. And spend he has.

At the start of his campaign, few voters knew much about Forbes' political background. While he touts his chairmanship from 1985-1993 of the board that oversaw Radio Free Europe, it was not a substantial post. More relevant, Forbes comes out of a Republican circle of believers in the theory of "supply-side economics" that was popularized during the Reagan years; that circle includes a number of Wall Street financiers, former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, and veteran GOP consultant Jude Wanniski. And as a close advisor to New Jersey's Republican Governor, Christine Todd Whitman, Forbes was the architect of Whitman's much-heralded but controversial income tax cut. But he has successfully introduced himself to the electorate, thanks to an estimated $7 million spent on radio and TV ads in key markets, which have hammered home his name recognition, fired off attacks on opponents like Dole and Gramm, and constantly repeated the defining element of his campaign: a flat tax. Nevertheless, Forbes lags far behind Dole, and should he continue to rise, Dole and other will surely begin to attack him as an inexperienced, out-of-touch silver-spoon Princetonian tycoon who is burning his fortune on a lark.

Beyond simple expressions of support or opposition, Forbes has yet to detail his positions on most issues. He does support vouchers for school choice and a return to the gold standard, and opposes American troops in Bosnia. He also accepts abortion under certain conditions. Here's a look at the two issues that have thus far been at the core of the Forbes platform:

FLAT TAX: This is the cornerstone of the Forbes campaign, and the issue few voters in New Hampshire and Iowa have not seen or heard him present on radio or TV. Though it competes with similar plans presented by candidates such as Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, Forbes' has attracted the most attention. He proposes a "flat" tax -- a rate of 17% that would affect Americans of all income levels, exempting the first $36,000 of income earned by a family of four. Forbes argues that this would simplify a burdensome and inefficiently complex tax code, and (following the logic of supply-side economics) that by significantly lowering taxes for many higher-bracket individuals and corporations, the flat tax would boost economic activity and create new jobs and prosperity. He brags that tax returns under a Forbes administration could be filled out on post cards, and points out that by eliminating loopholes in the tax code, Washington politicians would have far fewer ways to throw gifts to lobbyists and political allies. But while the flat tax has become a highly fashionable idea in many Republican circles, its leaves it opponents cold. A flat tax, they argue, would mean a windfall for the richest taxpayers and an unconscionable hike on lower-income Americans. It would result in an irresponsible loss of billions of dollars in tax revenue, opponents note, although Forbes argues that in the long term increased economic activity spurred by the tax reform would replace initial losses. (Forbes may also have to face the embarrassing charge that his tax plan would result in lucrative savings for his own coffers.)

TERM LIMITS: Part of Forbes' appeal is that he is running as an "outsider" candidate at a time when the public's opinion of Washington politicians is at rock-bottom. He has run in part on an anti-Washington platform, decrying the influence of lobbyists and basing his flat tax proposal in part as a way of "remov[ing] the principal source of corruption in Washington." Although he has said he supports limits on the terms of all Washington officials, he has not specified exactly what those limits should be. Term limits legislation was one of the most vaunted proposals in the House Republicans' Contract With America, but suffered a defeat that embarrassed House leaders like Newt Gingrich, who has vowed to bring it to a vote again in the next session of Congress. Opponents argue that, rather than diminish the influence of special interests, term limits will make novice lawmakers more susceptible to lobbyists and force those best qualified for public service out of government.