Al Gore's Not President Yet

Don Van Natta Jr. and John Broder started their story differently: "A day after Vice President Al Gore challenged Gov. George W. Bush to a mutual halt in raising the unlimited campaign donations known as soft money, Gore aides were launching a program to help the Democrats raise $35 million in such funds over the next few months."

This is one reason why November's election will be so close: George Bush has the issues, personality and the reality of Clinton fatigue on his side. On the other hand, Gore is such a tenacious and unrepentant liar, who'll meet with Jesse Ventura on one day to talk "reform," then attend an "Iron Triangle" fundraiser the next. The Texas Governor will have to counteract the Vice President's sleazy attacks on his character and alleged "lack of experience" to be president, as well as demonize his race-baiting, which is disguised as uplifting sermons on Rainbow Coalition harmony.

And once the elite media is fully recovered from its four-month John McCain bender, they'll be tilling the tobacco fields for Massa Gore, tying Bush to the inconsequential Bob Jones (a man who's already been erased from most voters' minds), while ignoring Gore's far more repugnant obeisance to Al Sharpton.

Still, on occasion, the sun shines. Since the Los Angeles Times broke the story last week that, two years ago, Attorney General Janet Reno ignored the advice of Justice Dept. investigator Charles LaBella and FBI Director Louis Freeh that Gore, the Clintons and Harold Ickes be the subject of an independent prosecutor's probe for '96 campaign violations, it gets more difficult for the Vice President to mouth the words, "Like John McCain..."

Rep. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain's most ardent supporters?and, as a younger politician who's likely to run for a South Carolina U.S. Senate seat, one of the first to push for a unified GOP, unlike the bitter former Sen. Warren Rudman?was magnificently blunt with Fox News commentator Paula Zahn last Sunday. He said: "Al Gore, of all people, saying [campaign finance reform] 'is the centerpiece of my campaign.' That would be like Bill Clinton giving sexual harassment seminars. I mean, these guys are just shameless... Al Gore didn't make mistakes on campaign finance reform. I think he broke the law. And this whole Justice Department; Richard Nixon would've dreamed to have Janet Reno during Watergate."

Even The New York Times had to chastise Reno with an editorial on March 11. "These latest documents," the tepid rebuke read, "however, cast further doubt on her wisdom and add to the evidence that she has run a Justice Department that often puts politics ahead of impartial law enforcement." One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish, guys. The Times, of course, could have demanded Reno's resignation, but their agenda of electing Gore doesn't square with that (at this point) mildly courageous stand.

The Democratic establishment counters with Bush's unprecedented fundraising for his nomination quest, even though all the money was legally accounted for and disclosed on the Internet. And let's not forget about Sam Wyly's $2.5 million environmental ad campaign leading up to the March 7 blizzard of primaries?an effort the Bush campaign didn't know about?and just the utter corruption of everything in Texas. Except Lloyd Bentsen and Molly Ivins. As if that holds an incense candle to Gore's willing participation in fleecing nuns for money in California back in '96. But as Gore told the Times last Sunday, that's "old news." Maybe that's Gore's take, but you can be sure it's on the front burner for Maria Hsia, convicted two weeks ago in the scandal. If she does time, maybe she'll receive a form letter soliciting donations for Gore 2000.

Campaigning in Florida, Bush reacted to Gore's Times comments by saying, "I wasn't sure if it was an April Fool's edition or not of the newspaper... One of his close friends was indicted and convicted of fundraising excesses. I think the Vice President is somebody who will say anything to get elected."

It's predictable, but most of America's pundits have written off Bush's chances even though the election is eight months in the future. These are the same writers and talking heads who predicted a former senator from New Jersey?the name escapes me now?was on track to topple Bill Clinton's fatally loyal third-in-command (after Hillary, naturally). And, as Peggy Noonan wrote in the Feb. 22 Wall Street Journal, Bush can "break the code" of his competitor. Noonan: "Mr. Bush himself has demonstrated a gift not all politicians have: He knows how to learn. After failing big time in New Hampshire, he succeeded big time in South Carolina because he quickly admitted he was doing things wrong, figured out what they were and changed them."

This presidential contest will have no parallel to any in the past (the closest probably would be 1960's, with Gore in the unenviable Nixon role). Because of the Permanent Campaign, which Bill Clinton has governed by, but which was also made possible by the technological explosion of the 90s, November's election probably will be the dirtiest since one of Andrew Jackson's in the 19th century. Mike Barnicle, the disgraced Boston writer whom blockhead Mort Zuckerman allowed a weekly forum in the Daily News, managed to ferret out a splendid quote from former Sen. Alan Simpson for his March 12 column. Simpson said: "Al Gore is the single most partisan and nastiest guy I ever served with. He's already calling for debates, huh? Says he wants a couple a week from the conventions right through to the election? Let me tell you: Al Gore doesn't want to debate. All Al wants to do is fight. And he's good at it, too. He's a mean fellow."

Mickey Kaus, a lukewarm Gore partisan (he did work for The New Republic, after all), flips what passes for current wisdom upside down in a Kausfiles dispatch (kausfiles.com). He wrote on March 9 the following ripsnorter about the cliche that any period more than a week is "an eternity in politics":

"It's more like five eternities. Bush probably has time to move to the center, move back to the right, feint at protectionism, convert to Catholicism, divorce his wife, admit he dropped acid, denounce vivisection, embrace Lenora Fulani, enroll in Bob Jones University, then tearfully apologize for all of the above on Meet the Press and still move back to the vital center again before November. O.K., I'm exaggerating. But you get the point. We have no more idea what the public image of Bush will be in November than we have of what Chicago will look like in the year 2100."

Try telling that to the lonely journalists still pining for the derailed "Straight Talk Express" bus, walking around in a haze repeating to themselves that McCain would've creamed Gore?by a 3-to-1 margin, man, because he's for reform!?and refusing to believe that the mercurial Senator will ultimately be a footnote in American politics. These deluded men and women, liberals and conservatives alike, seem to resemble the stoners who woke up at the Woodstock festival in '69 on Tuesday and thought Jimi Hendrix was going to come back to the stage for one more encore. Purple haze is in their brain, baby.

But let's forget about John and Cindy (until the next item) and figure out what Bush must do to beat Gore. Hiring McCain's media-tamer Mike Murphy is crucial, and I'm certain he'll come over to the Governor's side. (Already, besides Graham, Sens. Fred Thompson and Chuck Hagel, avid McCain boosters, have joined the team.) It's not as if this guy is going to sit out an election; if Bush wins, Murphy gets the Carville Prize of 2000, which he can parlay into even more wealth. Besides, he really likes the dirty campaigning that will be necessary, and an actual pleasure, against Gore. In addition, the all-Austin Bush machine needs some outsiders to tamp down their arrogance, something that was abundant in New Hampshire and nearly blew the nomination.

Why Karl Rove is so protective of his power is a mystery to me, since the campaign rightfully parades all the governors who support Bush in front of the public and on the talk shows. As I wrote last week, Bush needs a topnotch speechwriter, and if Noonan and Mark Helprin are unavailable, there's a wealth of conservative talent to be had. The candidate might also spend some of his downtime in front of a mirror, practicing lines and, if possible, figuring out a way not to screw up the English language. Reporters take his often tortured syntax as a sign of stupidity; that's a naive, if convenient, assessment. It's simply a tic, obviously genetic, but still something Bush has to work on, as if he were trying to correct an overbite.

Most importantly, Bush's campaign has to be on the offensive every day for the next eight months, because it's obvious that's what Gore's already doing. A smart start would be to make a biweekly policy speech, at a different locale, obviously in the key states that will decide the presidency. (New York probably should be written off?it's not as if Gov. Pataki has shown any brilliance, despite Bush's surprising primary victory here?but California, with its significant Hispanic population, must be vigorously contested.)

Bush should return over and over to the themes he sounded on March 7, after thumping McCain from coast to coast. That means: education (an issue that Gore is especially weak on), military strength, Social Security and the record of immorality and sleaziness that will form the Clinton-Gore administration's puny legacy. If gasoline prices, unemployment and interest rates continue to rise, the Vice President will (unfairly) be blamed, and Bush must exploit that. And he should not abandon tax cuts. A key passage in his victory speech a week ago was: "And I will cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes?because the surplus is not the government's money, the surplus is the people's money. The polls say cutting taxes is not popular. I'm not proposing tax relief because it's the popular thing to do; I'm proposing the tax relief because it's the right thing to do."

Analysts explain that the lack of public interest in a tax overhaul is because Americans are making so much money in today's economy: a measly $500 is peanuts compared to what they're taking in from investments. A couple of points: day-trading is a fad that will last only as long as the market is strong. Most of these "winners" are amateurs who'll tank eventually?it's not really different from being on a roll in Las Vegas: eventually, the house cleans up. Two, most Americans aren't dabbling with stocks and bonds on the Internet, and will welcome tax relief if Bush can adequately explain why it's so necessary. This is a tall order because the elite media, which is affluent, won't accurately report the Governor's message.

Senate candidate Hillary Clinton demonstrated her political ineptness last Friday, speaking to reporters in Albany. "Vice President Gore and I are for continuing fiscal responsibility. Both Governor Bush and Mayor Giuliani would do a U-turn and take us back to the days of exploding deficits. Bush and Giuliani are for education vouchers, which would take money out of the public schools. Vice President Gore and I would like to support the public schools." For all the silly conjecture that the First Lady is some sort of intellectual giant, she certainly sounds like a moron at least half the time she takes the occasion to open her mouth. She wants to "support the public schools," another way of saying "leave this mess alone." Which means more unqualified teachers (can't fool around with the union) and poorly educated students. This is Bush's single strongest domestic issue, with the possible exception of fumigating the White House. How Hillary Clinton can defend the public school system in New York will be one of the challenges of her campaign. The imagination she'll have to muster boggles the mind.

Robert Novak wrote in his March 12 syndicated column: "Key advisers to Al Gore are pressing for a campaign that would stress the danger of Christian extremists and too much religiosity generally in the White House if [Bush] were elected president." That would be a stupid strategic move, since Gore has bragged so much about his personal relationship with Jesus.

Finally, there's the selection of a runningmate. It can't be McCain, although he'd probably accept if romanced enough. The media would flock to him, while flaying Bush, and he adds nothing to the ticket that wouldn't be equally as valuable as a robust endorsement and a lot of campaigning on behalf of the Governor. I'm sure a deal is being worked out now: Bush will have to accept some sort of nonsensical campaign finance reform language, so McCain can save face, and promise him a key Cabinet post, most likely defense secretary.

At the risk of repeating myself, Bush has to select Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a Catholic most pundits count out because of his pro-choice stand on abortion. Yes, it will stir up a little trouble with the Gary Bauer types, but I doubt they'll sit out the election when the GOP presidential candidate is pro-life, running against abortion-on-demand Al Gore, who'll have the power to appoint Supreme Court nominees. Ridge can win his home state for Bush, as well as neighboring New Jersey. He's a popular Vietnam vet who'll be well-received in the states that will decide the election: the Rust Belt states. We already know that Gore takes New England, New York, Maryland and probably California; likewise, the South and Rocky Mountain states will end up in Bush's column.

Sunshine On His Shoulders I demand some closure to the John McCain farce, and there's no better way to achieve that than by reviling just a few of the hundreds of reporters, news anchors and columnists who followed the Pied Piper of contemporary American politics. Peter Marks, one of the dimmest New York Times writers?quite a distinction?wrote sadly on March 10 that the "romance" of the campaign has evaporated. How tragic. Marks lamented that this "might be the year of the maverick"; instead it's become boring. He even quoted Newsweek's starfucker Jonathan Alter, who said about the McCain fizzle, "It's just the end of the fun."

Marks is just so inadequate a political writer that it's hard not to sympathize with him: what perverse editor at the Times offered a beat in which he could embarrass himself almost daily? One sample, from the same March 10 story: "It was as if a fairly prosperous electorate, content for the most part with how the machinery of government was functioning, wanted something spiritually deeper in its next commander in chief. The sentiment was sensed by reporters."

Hey, dopey: reporters didn't "sense" anything; they invented it.

A March 10 Daily News editorial absurdly denies that the media was McCain's base, much as Sharpton Democrats and union sheep are Al Gore's. Some nitwit (perhaps a relative of Peter Marks) wrote: "John McCain's campaign wasn't a media creation. It was built by real voters who want real change." Oh, baloney. "Real voters" would've given as much attention to McCain as they did Lamar Alexander if it hadn't been for the shameless, and self-indulgent, promotion of the press.

And isn't it thrilling when pundits deign to speak for "us"? Gail Collins, a poor woman's Maureen Dowd, wrote the following in last Friday's New York Times: "Gore-Bush. Deep down, we all knew it would come to this. Bush-Gore. Maybe it will be good for our character. It's really superficial, you know, this desire for a chief executive with charisma. We'll be fine, in time." Since even Collins can recognize (now I'm being presumptuous) that Bill Bradley had no charisma, we know she's talking about Honest John.

Richard Cohen, The Washington Post's most irritating op-ed columnist (except when it comes to Hillary Clinton: man, she must've done him dirty in the last seven years the way he sporadically bludgeons her), was equally grating on March 9. He wrote: "McCain always said he couldn't lose no matter what the outcome. What he didn't say, though, is that we could." Speak for yourself, Dick.

And you too, Mr. Jacob Weisberg, Slate disciple of Michael Kinsley. In his analysis of the decisive March 7 primaries, Weisberg said: "Bradley's speech had all the qualities of his campaign. It was dreary, sanctimonious, and narcissistic. McCain's had the qualities of his. It was jaunty, defiant, and uplifting. Bradley's speech made you feel sorry for him. McCain's made you sorry for us."

Why? I can understand why some Republicans who were smitten with McCain's biography and admired his pro-life, pro-NRA and anti-affirmative action views would be disappointed. Especially if they weren't impressed with Bush. But what's with these liberals? What in the world did they find in common with McCain except that he was "fun" and made them feel like they were in college again?

Writing in the National Journal of March 11, William Powers was wicked in a parody of simps like Cohen, Weisberg, Salon's Jake Tapper, Alter, Howard Kurtz, Collins, James Carney, Chris Matthews and Charles Lane, to name just a handful. Powers: "The orgy is officially over, and we media types are putting our clothes back on and avoiding eye-contact. The morning after is always awkward. 'Good manners and bad breath,' as Elvis Costello once put it. But let's not feel so bad about ourselves. We did what we did, and for all the right reasons. We loosed our passions, followed our bliss. His name was John, and we loved him with every fiber of our being. And what an emotionally starved being it was until he came along."

I can't even get into Frank Rich's March 11 Times column for fear I'll spew all over my tangerine iMac. Rest assured, his piece had about 104 tv, movie and celebrity references, 151 attacks on George Bush and a plug for Hillary Clinton.

Most people have no idea how corrupt journalism really is. Remember, a large portion of the press corps was actually cheering and high-fiving each other when McCain won the New Hampshire primary. What's most incredible is that these asshole are taking McCain's defeat personally. Imagine that.

As for more serious journalists, it's apparent that Michael Kelly's new quarters in Boston (where he's editing The Atlantic, in addition to the National Journal in DC) have not agreed with him. Maybe too many lunches with Teddy Kennedy. How else to explain this Washington Post drivel from March 9: "Had McCain prevailed, the greatly superior general election candidate would have been the Republican one: a smart, tough, funny, cool (the first cool Republican in living memory), experienced, forthright, genuinely attractive war hero, running against an inside-Washington, no-controlling-legal-authority-citing, Naomi-Wolf-hiring, interest-group-kowtowing, sliver-spoon-gumming, establishment-perpetuating son of privilege."

It's a relief that Kelly retains his animus against Al Gore, but if he actually thinks McCain is "cool," we now know the editor must've been the nerdiest kid in his high school. C'mon, just because the Arizona Senator wore shades, told dirty jokes and knew the names of one or two current rock bands, doesn't mean he's cool. There has only been one cool president in the last 50 years and that was JFK; the only possible other cool candidate was Jerry Brown, in '76, '80 and '92.

As for The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, it's getting to the pathetic stage. You mention the campaign, he practically shouts, "BULL MOOSE!" Kristol now has a stake in Bush's defeat this fall; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for his March 8 stand-in as a bookie, saying the odds favoring Gore are at least 2 to 1, I'll take some of that action.

Finally, it took George Will, on March 9 in his syndicated column, to put the "McCainiacs" in their place. He wrote, convincingly: "Journalists created John McCain in their own self-image?almost supernaturally honest and virtuous and witty and irreverent?and they worshipped their creation. So it was perhaps to be expected that the McCain episode, being largely an artifact of the media, would wind up absurdly overanalyzed and preposterously overinvested with epochal significance."

Can I have a witness!

March 13

Send comments to MUG1988@aol.com or fax to 244-9864.