I hate it when someone tells me, ‘I told you so’. However, I cannot help myself
and have to tell the conservatives – I told you so, I told you so, your horse
will never make it.
Gore has already launched his campaign against Bush, challenging him to ban
so-called soft money, to eliminate all of the 30- and 60-second radio and TV
ads, and debate on a separate issue twice a week. Gore called for "a contest of
ideas and not insults, a campaign conducted in full daylight and not through
secretly funded special-interest attack ads or smear telephone calls."
Touché! That is what the Christian conservatives could have expected if they
would not be so close-minded.
The liberal media amplified the challenge, and Ted Koppel, on Nightline,
pressed Bush to answer the challenge. Of course, Bush ducked the challenge,
excusing himself by a vague possibility of "debate fatigue," and once more
insulting Gore as a hypocrite on campaign-finance reform.
Lott, Limbaugh, and the rest of the Christian right could have foreseen the
tactics of the Democrats, when they picked an unable horse, which cannot accept
this kind of challenge, and thus, looks cowardly and fishy in the public eye.
That is precisely why this tactic of the Democrats will be the silver line of
the liberal media for the entire summer.
Gore learns fast, at least, faster than Trent Lott and other Republican leaders
in the Senate who picked Bush as their winning horse. Gore watched the
Republican primary debates closely and learned that Bush is awkward and stiff
alongside his rivals at a podium. That is why Gore practiced on Bradley the
tactic of leaving the podium in the middle of a debate and approaching the ramp
in order to get all the attention of the public. Gore also learned that, in
debates, Bush tends to be evasive on many concrete issues, retreats into
abstractions, and is tensely defensive on personal remarks. Gore also learned
that, in debates, Bush, when questioned by a rival, cannot keep an eye-contact
for more than 10 seconds and turns them away, looking shy.
Why, on the earth, did Lott and other donors pick Bush as their winning horse
and are now shaking in their boots? There were probably not many fish in the
pond. As you know, a lobster becomes a fish where there are no fish any longer.
Probably they assumed that Bush was already tried by the fire of battles for
governorship. They saw him in a private stable, not in a public stadium; they
saw him in a narrow party circle of state debates, not on the national arena.
In his private and staged conversations with media-men or senators, Bush appears
often as well balanced and thoughtful. Sometimes, he can demonstrate that he
sees the forest behind the trees, though he often does not see the trees.
However, he is good at listening to advice and criticism on how to see those
trees. Consequently, the donors did not pay the close attention to his public
appearance until New Hampshire, where he was invisible and speechless. Only
then, they realized they bought a horse from a cunning Gypsy-Baker, who make it
up just before the party fair. However, at that time, it was too late to
acknowledge their mistake. They have already been in the middle of the stream
and spent more than $50 million.
There is no a doubt why Gore wants to debate with Bush right now. Gore is
disciplined, aggressive, well versed, and is always keeping in mind the advice
of his mother – "relax, smile, attack." Gore excels in public forums and learned
how to dictate the subject matter in such debates. Gore has nearly the same
economic and political program as Bush. Indeed, Bush wants to cut taxes at the
expense of the mythical surplus and Gore wants to fix the Social Security from
the same mythical source. Bush says that he is a "compassionate conservative and
a reformer with results, who will uphold the honor and dignity of the office."
However, he had acted against McCain surreptitiously and with great cynicism.
Gore says to his constituency that he will "fight" for them, alluding to the
lower class. However, he did not say with whom, for what, when, and how he will
fight. That is precisely why his plan is Clintonesque by content and by form.
So, there is nothing much to talk with Bush about content. Consequently, Gore
likes the debates not for their content, but only for their format.
So far, in their opened and concealed debates, both candidates of the major
parties gave the public as many insults and buried as many issues as they could.
Would formal debates produce "a contest of ideas and not insults"? Most likely,
they would not. What Gore really likes in such debates is their format, because
formal debates will likely prove to the majority of Americans that Bush is dumb,
if not a coward.
However, what real choice does Bush have? None, unless the economy turns really
sour. You cannot teach an old dog new tricks. He cannot fake debates with Gore,
as he did amidst Bower, Forbes, Keyes, and McCain. Bush must now debate Gore,
because, by June, there will be no one else around to stay behind, unless Pat
Buchanan will take the third podium.
If Bush will debate only against Gore, he will definitely lose. And even if
Buchanan will take the third place in the debates, he will probably take the
lion share of moderates’ votes. However, that is precisely about whom should be
in those debates, because the moderates will define the fate of Bush. Roughly
speaking, Gore already has a half of the electorate; and even if a tiny fraction
of the moderate Republicans will join the Democrats in November, it will be
enough for the president Gore. And survey after survey told us that from 10 to
15% of the moderate Republicans will vote for Gore in the two men race.
From now on, Bush will be no longer able to duck the debates without being
explicitly or implicitly accused in using "soft money and attack ads" to cover
up his inability to debate "issues and ideas."
Either debating or not debating, the outcome will show that Bush is inapt to be
the president, because he cannot effectively show the large audiences his
ability to inspire and lead them.
I told you so, I told you so! When you pick your winning horse not by its merits
(looks, character, and performance) but solely on its pedigree, you will
probably lose your bet.
03/12/00
[email protected]
Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on
04/10/03