While Bush Works, Gore Shimmies for Soft Money; Time Gets Snookered

While Bush Works, Gore Shimmies for Soft Money Last week was probably the most extraordinary in George W. Bush's political career.  While opponent Al Gore was huddling with advisers on how to fashion yet another persona (calling Andrea Dworkin!), breaking only for an embarrassing ultra-whiteboy shuffle at con-artist Terry McAuliffe's record-shattering fundraiser at DC's MCI Center, Bush continued to set the agenda for the presidential campaign. He strongly criticized the Clinton administration's interference in two Israeli elections; laid out a coherent defense strategy, with reassuring GOP heavyweights like Colin Powell, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Donald Rumsfeld standing mute by his side; sparred with religious fanatic James Dobson over the upcoming vice-presidential selection, demonstrating his independence from the extreme right wing of the party; joined with President Clinton in helping to pass PNTR for China by rounding up some stray Republican House votes; and continued to successfully push his message of reform?that Democratic mantra?by selling his relatively mild plan to partially privatize Social Security.

Bush must run a superlative campaign to defeat Gore, who's still the favorite, given the economy, complacent electorate and peacetime conditions. But so far, the GOP can't complain. His flimsy but necessary rapprochement with McCain came earlier than expected (Gore and Bradley have yet to kiss and make up); it's obvious that Bush will ask Powell to be his secretary of state; he's rebuffed extremists in his own party, making the wildly inflated Bob Jones snafu seem like it happened a generation ago; and he's even proposed a few summer debates. Bush strategists are mixed on this gambit, but I think it makes sense: the more debates that take place, the less significant they become. Also, Gore's exaggerated reputation as the reincarnation of both Abe Lincoln and Stephen Douglas sets an unrealistic bar in the minds of the media. Unless he creams Bush with calm, devastating rhetoric, it's unlikely he'll emerge as a clear winner. (The media also conveniently forgets, in its self-imposed biases, that Dan Quayle clocked Gore in the '92 vice-presidential debate.)

It's imperative that Bush control the campaign's gestalt through the GOP convention in late July. Gore will likely receive a strong bounce in the polls after his own coronation a few weeks later in Los Angeles, and then he'll wage a massive advertising attack on Bush's record in Texas. The Vice President and his surrogates will harp on abortion, the death penalty (Tucker Carlson's Talk article, in which Bush allegedly made fun of killer Karla Faye Tucker, will be revived; ironically, that piece might survive the magazine itself), the pollution in Houston, health care and, if relevant at the time, the batting slump of the Astros' Jeff Bagwell. You get the picture.

Concurrent with Gore's slash-and-burn campaign, Bush would be wise to launch a $20-million advertising blitz of his own. Half should go negative on Gore, emphasizing his lies, lack of integrity, exploitation of his family for political gain and closeness to the most immoral president of the 20th century. The other half should treat Bush's own accomplishments in Texas. Gore will present Bush's state as the equivalent of a Third World nation, a hard sell since Arkansas and Tennessee aren't exactly beacons of racial tolerance, education and environmental reform and the elimination of poverty.

But every day that goes by this spring only strengthens Bush's standing with voters and the media. Gore continually claims that polls don't matter at this point and that the electorate isn't paying attention. But what's he supposed to say, that he's had a disastrous post-primary period and is in danger of losing the election?

In one sense, Gore is right: the public at large isn't tuned into politics. And guess what? Come October, the World Series, gasoline prices, the upcoming holidays and personal triumphs and hardships will still trump politics. It's not as if the entire country will hang on every word that Gore or Bush says?hell, half the adult population in the United States doesn't even vote.

As I've written before, a key component to a winning political campaign is luck?and Bush keeps rolling double-sixes. The Boston Globe's Walter V. Robinson, a tough reporter, printed a story on May 23 that reported that Bush, as a member of the Texas Air National Guard, didn't report for duty for a period of more than a year in the early 70s. Bush was in Alabama, working on a '72 Senate campaign, and in military records obtained by the Globe, there's no evidence he attended Guard drills in that state, as he was required to do. Bush responded to Robinson's story by saying, "I did the duty necessary... That's why I was honorably discharged."

Ultimately, Bush probably did dodge some drills in order to pursue other interests; and the fact that he spent an inordinate amount of time back in Texas fulfilling his Guard mandate in early '73, before going on to Harvard Business School, suggests the equivalent of skipping a bunch of college classes and then cramming for the finals. None of which was vital to the security of the United States then, but can you imagine the impact this story would've had at the height of the South Carolina and Michigan primaries? An infatuated media would've blasted Bush on behalf of former POW McCain, and the Texas Governor might still be waging a fight for the GOP nomination.

The elite media is reacting to Bush's surge, and Gore's surprisingly Dukakis-like campaign, in strange ways. For example, The Washington Post, which obviously is in favor of Gore but has nonetheless remained less partisan than the shameless New York Times, has started to understand that the Vice President might not be able to inherit Clinton's job. On May 26, the Post's Robert Kaiser wrote an article, headlined "Is This Any Way to Pick a Winner?," that examined a study by six political scientists who've accurately predicted the presidential winner in most of the last 13 contests, although the only two examples cited extensively were the reelections of Bill Clinton in '96 and Ronald Reagan in '84, not exactly cliffhangers. But the model that men like the University of Iowa's Michael Lewis-Beck and the University of Buffalo's James E. Campbell use seems fairly sound: it's based on the economy, and given today's boom it's no wonder that the academics are united in predicting a Gore victory.

However, the studies largely ignore the intangibles of any given campaign. In this year's, for example, there's the "Clinton Fatigue" factor, the desire for change after eight years of Democratic White House rule and the plain fact that Gore hasn't presented himself as a likable or competent candidate on the stump. Sure, he defeated Bradley, overcoming a rocky start that was hampered by a bloated overhead and overconfidence, but that came with a price. He lied about Bradley's record, lied about his own and came across as a man who simply attacks his opponent and offers no specific ideas of his own.

It may work against Bush as well this fall. But there are differences between the Bradley and Bush campaigns. Where the former New Jersey senator was above it all, refusing for most of the campaign to strike back against Gore's disgraceful distortions of his positions, Bush's team reacts within a half hour?reminding one of Clinton's successful "War Room" strategy of '92?and usually ups the ante.

Also, a robust economy didn't do Prime Minister John Major a fat lot of good in 1997. He was buried in a Labor Party landslide, despite the fact that voters "liked" him more than Clinton-clone Tony Blair. Brits were simply ready for a change after so many years of Tory dominance, first with Margaret Thatcher and then Major.

However, what's most striking about Kaiser's story is that the Post chose to print it on the front page, despite the fact that there was no conceivable defense that the article had any "news" value. A valid and interesting op-ed submission, certainly; but its placement tells me that Post editors are concerned that Gore's rickety (not to mention "risky") campaign is tumbling out of control. After all, Gore's incompetent press secretary, Chris Lehane, says that the Veep's mission is to introduce himself to voters.

Say what? As if we haven't had more than our fill of Gore since 1992.

Lehane told The New York Times on May 26: "Part of running for the presidency is introducing yourself to the American people. People want to know about the experiences that influenced his thinking... Vice presidents are famous but not well known. Most people's notion of him is standing behind a podium." Or taking money from Buddhist nuns, defending a boss who's an admitted perjurer or affecting the cadences of a preacher when he's in front of a Baptist congregation. Lehane has his spin, I have mine.

Congressional Democrats are clearly nervous as well, even though publicly most claim that Gore's stumble is temporary and the party will not only retain the presidency but take back control of the House as well.

In a May 25 New York Times article, Rep. Charles Rangel, who stands to become chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in a Dick Gephardt-led House of Representatives, told reporter Katharine Q. Seelye: "People are starting to ask, 'When does [Gore] get started? When does he get focused? How did Bush catch up? When does the show hit the road?'... They're saying, 'If this is a policy to lay back and wait for the debates, then share it with somebody!' There's no fiery speeches being given; we don't have surrogates out there."

New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, in the same article, tried to advance a more positive analysis of Gore's plight, saying, "Until Al Gore goes to Los Angeles and receives the party's nomination and campaigns in his own right, he will still be identified by most Americans as Bill Clinton's vice president. There is still not a separate identity, and only the dramatic departure from Los Angeles is going to create this new identity."

Left unsaid is the worry that Clinton will never let go, that he'll continue to shadow Gore's campaign for better or worse. He's a champion fundraiser, but also a vivid reminder of the scandals that plagued his wasted eight years as president. (Keep your typing fingers in check, Clinton partisans. This president had the fortune to preside over an economy that roared despite his best efforts to derail it?remember universal health care and the debilitating '93 tax increase? And most of his accomplishments, all post-'94, have to be shared with the Republican-led Congress that forced him back to the political center.) Unlike Ronald Reagan, who let George Bush emerge as his own man early in the '88 campaign, saying, "Win one for the Gipper"?horribly corny, but the GOP base ate it up?Clinton won't let go of any campaign unless he's forcibly removed.

In addition, Gore has the peculiar distraction of the President's wife's running in the most high-profile Senate race of 2000, draining money, media attention and volunteers from his cause.

Gore's in such a fix right now that he dispatched consultant Robert Shrum to order up a positive column from shill-for-Democratic-hire Thomas Oliphant, the laughingstock of DC's press corps. Last Sunday, Oliphant dutifully wrote in The Boston Globe: "Here's a classic example of the kind of thing that drives Al Gore to distraction. A former reporter, Gore is making the classic politician's goof in thinking that what appears in print or on the air has any significant bearing on whether he does or doesn't get elected president." Job well done, Tommy: we'll send McAuliffe over to the pad with an autographed golfball from Bill Clinton.

And Gore can forget about his typically brazen attempt to co-opt John McCain. After the McAuliffe soft-money bonanza last week, the subject of a glowing June 5 article by Time reporter Michael Weisskopf, the Arizona Senator was plainly disgusted. McCain's reaction to the faux-populist gathering: "The event tonight has aroused...suspicions of malfeasance and corruption for any objective observer to the political process."

But other reporters and pundits have, as Bush has advanced bold proposals (even if they're admittedly short on details), reacted less reflexively against the Republican nominee-in-waiting. For example, Jack Germond, the septuagenarian reporter whose best days are behind him, a nasty and paleoliberal piece of work who savaged President Bush, has actually praised the Texas Governor for his recent campaign efforts.

Writing with Jules Witcover in the May 26 Baltimore Sun after Bush's foreign policy address with Powell, Kissinger, etc., Germond said: "This is good politics. Foreign policy issues rarely make any difference in presidential elections as long as the national security is not threatened. All that is required is for the presidential candidate to persuade voters he would be a safe choice... The bottom line for Americans on most of these matters is whether they can trust those who have the expertise to provide the right solutions. As the governor of Texas and the former owner of a baseball team, George W. Bush doesn't automatically qualify as an expert. But he is acting aggressively to show voters he is a prudent man with access to all the experts."

Back in February, as Bush was battling with media darling McCain, it was inconceivable that such words would slosh forward from Germond's keyboard.

Even editorialists at The Boston Globe, in the absence of anything positive to say about Gore's campaign, have doled out grudging praise to Bush, a turn of events that's nothing short of remarkable. In a May 26 edit, the Globe wrote: "If the ideas on security that George W. Bush offered Tuesday are indicative of the coming presidential campaign, the election may be more interesting and substantive than the pundits are predicting. Bush might be tantalizingly vague about some matters, but the issues he addressed concern the gravest responsibilities of a commander-in-chief. As Bush properly noted, there is a need to question premises of the nation's nuclear doctrine that have remained largely unchanged and unexamined since the sudden end of the Cold War... In this as in his other proposals, Bush displays a welcome inclination to take a fresh look at costly and dangerous old assumptions."

Bush's aggressive campaign has only emboldened those journalists who, if not Washington Times-like cheerleaders, have been critical of the Clinton administration. For example, the superb Charles Krauthammer, lampooning Gore's mantra of "risky"-this, "risky"-that, wrote in last Friday's Washington Post: "Bush may be hurt with some voters for wanting to tamper with Social Security. But he is likely to gain more from having the courage to do what a lame-duck President Clinton, who could far more easily have tackled it, has resolutely refused to do... You look at George W. Bush and it is very difficult to see an extremist lurking inside. People see him as a lightweight perhaps, but not as a radical. The core issue in 2000, as in 1980 [when Democrats similarly dismissed Ronald Reagan as a doofus who had no chance at defeating Jimmy Carter], is whether the challenger is up to the job. Ironically, Gore's tactic?the relentless charges that Bush would take the country down dangerous new roads?may help Bush raise his stature by validating his claim to be a leader and a reformer."

Time Gets Snookered The June 5 issue of Time features a tantalizing but mostly bogus story about the Bush campaign by Michael Duffy. He reports that the top person on George W. Bush's list for potential runningmates is former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, who's currently the Justice Dept.'s special counsel on the Waco investigation. Danforth is a fine, serious man and a perfect fit for many Republicans: he's pro-life, led the nomination battle for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and at 63 won't pose a threat to Bush's brother Jeb, should the Florida Governor want a shot at the White House in the future.

But Duffy's been duped by the Bush camp. There's no way the Texas Governor will tap Danforth, despite his strengths (not the least his ability to pick up Missouri's 11 electoral votes), unless he unexpectedly falls in the polls between now and the GOP convention. Danforth is an Episcopal minister, which is almost enough to rule him out, given Bush's earlier difficulty with religious politics this year. Just like Robert Novak's May 28 report that retiring Florida Sen. Connie Mack, a pro-life Catholic, "is emerging as a serious possibility" for veep (after all, if Bush has to pick someone from Florida, you're looking at a Gore landslide), Duffy's Time piece is simply camouflage for Bush's leading contender: Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.

While Al Gore is mired in all sorts of muck?campaign chief Tony Coelho's legal difficulties, Bill Clinton's interference, his wife Tipper's chronic depression, indecisive wardrobe decisions?and doesn't have time to concentrate on selecting, and properly vetting, a runningmate, Bush's aides are doing just that. So it's no surprise to see the fakes and trial balloons out in the media. New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman? An exceptional governor and person, says Bush. Rep. John Kasich? A driven and motivated budget-cutter, says Bush, and hey, we'd sure like to win Ohio. And so on, with Danforth, Mack, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating and even the no-shot Gov. George Pataki.

It's no accident that Ridge has been the subject of so many articles in the press recently. The National Review, in its June 5 issue, blasted Ridge as a liberal Republican, whose difficulties for the party go way beyond the mere problem of his pro-choice stand on abortion. John J. Miller, demonstrating once again that conservatives often act like pre-Clinton Democrats and would rather be ideologically pure than win, reaches back to Ridge's House tenure, damning him by saying that in 1987 and 1988 he "aligned himself with the Reagan White House only 40 percent of the time." Shiver me timbers, why not just gas Ridge now and get it over with! This is a stupid argument put forth by NR, and I believe it's rather halfhearted. Remember, Ronald Reagan picked Bush's father in 1980, despite the "voodoo economics" flap and his soft stance on abortion.

In fact, Miller closes his article on a conciliatory note: "In April, Ridge caused a minor stir when he said that he thought the GOP should change its pro-life position. He hasn't retreated from that belief, but now he's careful to moderate it. 'I expressed a personal opinion. I've never been part of any effort to do that and won't be this year,' he says. 'We should be fighting Al Gore, not each other.' No matter what the issue?abortion, missile defense, the capital-gains tax?that's pretty good advice."

I'm sure the Bush campaign is telling Ridge to raise his profile, mostly to get conservatives used to the idea that he'll be the veep candidate. In a May 28 New York Times article, Francis X. Clines writes: "Of all the things he is being called lately by his critics, 'liberal' and 'dove' make Gov. Tom Ridge laugh out loud. 'I'll bet the only combat ever seen by the guy who wrote that has been in front of a Nintendo machine,' said Mr. Ridge, his credentials as a Bronze Star combat veteran of Vietnam unsullied by the slings and arrows now pelting him from within his own Republican Party."

And that's where it stands. Ridge's muted pro-choice position will reassure independent voters who might be spooked by a 100-percent anti-abortion ticket; his record in Pennsylvania (which would win Bush 23 electoral votes) is conservative; he's from a working-class family and earned a scholarship to Harvard; and, most importantly, Bush gets along with him. The religious right will swallow Ridge's nomination, even if James Dobson and Pat Robertson don't. Ralph Reed hasn't peeped about Ridge; Gary Bauer, aka Mr. Life Begins At Conception, hasn't either, and besides, he endorsed John McCain (who's squishy on abortion) in the primaries after withdrawing himself.

Ridge, whose career and personal life have been thoroughly examined by Bush's Austin team, is currently undergoing his final interview. If nothing scandalous turns up in the media, he's Bush's pick.

May 29

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](%3Ca%20href%3D%22mailto:mug1988@aol.com%22%3E) or fax to 244-9864.