Bush on the Cusp; Gore Summons the Dirt-Mongers
I thought about this last Saturday night when Mrs. M and I had supper at Sparks, along with relatives of hers from Los Angeles. (One of whom, my father-in-law Rudy, a reliable Democrat, admitted he might vote for George W. Bush.) Sparks is an upscale restaurant, one of the finest in Manhattan, with an encyclopedic wine list, superb sirloins and lobsters and an all-male squad of waiters who cater to a customer's every whim. Yet, looking around the huge dining room, it was appalling to see the attire of most of that night's clientele. Less than 20 percent of the men bothered to wear a tie or suit; women were dressed in sweats; the table next to ours housed two chubby teenagers with backwards baseball caps (how cool is that, guys?); and I counted more t-shirts than you'd see during a sunny afternoon on the Coney Island boardwalk.
Sparks, Denny's, Hooters, it's all the same. Just as Clinton has "demystified" the presidency with his jogging shorts, cheating at golf, jerking off in West Wing sinks, wearing jeans during international summit meetings, America has become a nation of self-satisfied slobs. (I understand that part of this abominable cultural evolution has nothing to do with Clinton. The days when women wore white gloves and little boys donned Sunday school suits for airline flights are gone forever.) The process is similar to the one by which John F. Kennedy's disdain for hats almost put an industry out of business. It was gradual: In the famous photo of Jack Ruby gunning down Lee Harvey Oswald on Nov. 24, 1963, most of the men still wore Stetsons or fedoras; and in newsreels of baseball games of the era, the stands were full of men, of all economic brackets, with hats perched upon their heads. But not too many years later, hats were seldom to be found.
Clinton has accelerated the dumbing down of the presidency. I'm not making a case for a royal separation between a country's leader and its citizens, but it's disgraceful that the President of the United States has no dignity. Last spring, in Manhattan, the financial companies suddenly abandoned their ritual dress code: every day was now "casual Friday," causing severe heartburn, I'm sure, for clothiers like Paul Stuart, Brooks Brothers and Brioni. I doubt that would've happened without Clinton's slovenly appearances, not to mention Al Gore's shedding his blue suits for poll-tested tight khakis and polo shirts on the campaign trail.
Yes, perhaps this dedicated follower of fashion is putting too much of a burden on Clinton himself for the decline in manners and pride of appearance in this country. But wasn't it grand that Ronald Reagan never entered the Oval Office without wearing a suit and tie?
?
There are numerous reasons why I prefer George W. Bush?who's on the verge of winning the presidency?to his Democratic competitor Al Gore. The nuts and bolts case for Bush's candidacy is clear: far from being the witless dilettante the elite media has evoked in its ongoing caricature of him, the Texas Governor has proposed the most visionary blueprint for the United States in 40 years. Unlike Gore, who was painstakingly groomed for the White House since he was a toddler, which has led him to do or say anything to fulfill that goal, Bush, like Reagan, came to politics later in his life.
Although born into privilege, Bush floundered about in college, attempted a career in business, sometimes successfully, other times not, before shocking the pundits by defeating the popular Texas Gov. Ann Richards in 1994. Critics have said that Bush's Austin "iron triangle" of strategists has encased him in a bubble, fearful that he'll mispronounce a four-syllable word. Fine, that's suitable material for late-night comics. But think about the bubble Gore's been in for his entire life. The second child of domineering parents, Gore never really had an opportunity to wander far from his self-imposed destiny.
At the Al Smith charity dinner in New York last week, Gore joked that Bush's Republican platform would build a bridge to the 1930s. It was a passable one-liner, and appropriate for the occasion. But even a cursory examination of the stark differences in the campaign pledges of Bush and Gore proves that the latter is stuck in the quicksand of the 1960s. While Bush acknowledges that Social Security was a necessary entitlement when it was enacted in desperate times by FDR, he now wants to modernize the program to conform with the realities of the 21st century. Gore says if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bush also says he'll gut the anachronistic, bureaucratic maze known as Medicare and transform it into a subsidy that doesn't pit the old against the young.
Bush has discussed in detail his desire for a complex missile defense system, as well as for restoring the morale of the military and refurbishing its equipment, realizing that with the end of the Cold War, other international crises?which we can't precisely pinpoint now?will inevitably occur. Gore scoffs at these plans, puffing out his chest and stating the obvious: that the United States' armed forces are the strongest in the world. Thanks for the wake-up call, Gen. Gore, but your administration can't boast of having developed a coherent international doctrine in the past eight years. Why was a pharmaceutical company in Sudan bombed? Why was Baghdad blitzkrieged on the eve of Clinton's impeachment?when it was clear such a mission could have, and should have, been undertaken months earlier?
Gore, in hock to most unions in the country, makes robust promises about restoring the public school system, making it a pillar of excellence: hiring more teachers, buying more computers, etc. But he really hasn't the foggiest about why schools are failing at a local level. During his Harlem debate last winter with primary challenger Bill Bradley, the sad-sack, contemporary Adlai Stevenson, Time's Tamala Edwards asked the Vice President why he didn't send his own children to public schools. He dodged the reporter, and thus raised questions about his competence to speak on the issue.
On the other hand, Bush has had a successful record on education in Texas, holding local schools to strict accountability, and has seen positive testing results in just the past few years. Bush is for increased school choice?vouchers is the word, although it's not often used explicitly in this media-distorted campaign?and the opportunity for parents and local officials to act in response to a municipality's unique needs. Education is traditionally considered a Democratic concern?God knows why, since the prevailing infrastructure is a mess?but Bush has shrewdly co-opted the hot-button issue and made inroads into Gore's base of voters.
Then there's the question of taxes. Gore, foaming with the kind of rhetoric that's made him such an unlikable candidate, has distorted Bush's equitable plan, practicing class warfare by saying the Governor intends to reward only the very wealthy. In reality, Bush has laid out a simple tax-cut table that benefits all Americans, regardless of income. He'd decrease the top marginal rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent; on the other end of the scale, those in the 15-percent bracket would have their taxes reduced to 10 percent. In addition, Bush'd abolish the undemocratic estate tax, yet another heinous example of government invading the lives of its citizens, sometimes destroying the businesses for which people have worked their entire adult lives so that they can bequeath something to their children.
There's the queer notion that in a country that's driven by capitalism, the affluent should be punished for being successful. That's the impetus for trial lawyers gouging corporations; that's the reason why left-wing activists, often wealthy themselves, believe in the redistribution of wealth. Bush doesn't believe in any of this nonsense. It's his contention that all Americans should be treated equally, that no one should be screwed by a class-conscious government; that it's morally wrong to penalize those hard-working citizens, who, as Bill Clinton said years ago, "play by the rules." It makes you wonder about some of Gore's celebrity supporters. If they're so concerned about the economic disparity that's inevitable in a nonsocialist state, why don't they divest themselves of their fortunes and put some heft behind their beliefs, instead of merely writing checks to the Gore and Hillary Clinton campaigns?
In addition, Bush will attract to his administration the most able of his father's advisers, as well as some of the smartest and most capable conservative men and women at both the federal and state levels. Such breadth of talent hasn't been seen in decades. Needless to say, Bill Richardson, Janet Reno and Madeleine Albright won't be receiving phone calls from Austin on Nov. 8.
You get the feeling that Gore, as a micro-manager, will appoint himself to every cabinet position, with the exception perhaps of attorney general, which he'll reserve for Tony Coelho. And while a Bush administration won't be staffed according to quotas, as Clinton's was?funny, though, how many rich lawyers the Arkansan chose to represent the "face of America"?Bush's record of bipartisanship and fostering diversity as governor of Texas could be a model for the country.
That's the main governmental reason to vote for Bush. If he fails to deliver, Americans will give him the hook in four years. I must also note, however, that like any future president, there are goals and ideas that can't be revealed during a campaign. For example, if John F. Kennedy had made a central issue his dream of sending a man to the moon by the end of the 60s, citizens would've thought his brain was made of green cheese. Similarly, Bush has a 21st-century vision for America that, should he be elected, won't be revealed until his administration is under way. I'm not privy to Bush's aspirations, but he's hinted broadly at a shift in the way the United States involves itself with countries in the Western Hemisphere. Canada and Mexico, not to mention the rest of Latin America, I suspect, will be integral to Bush's international interests.
?
I've held off on the political ramifications of a Bush victory until this point, because it's essential that the Governor's vision for the country take precedence. However, not to be minimized is how important Al Gore's being defeated is for the project of restoring decency in American public life. It's true that because of a variety of factors?and Clinton deserves credit, too, for having the sense to cooperate and horse trade with the Republicans after their '94 takeover?the United States has enjoyed an unparalleled era of prosperity. That Microsoft has been legally harassed by Clinton's Justice Dept. shows the true nature of his administration, but we'll let that pass for now.
The defeat of Gore, who vigorously defended Clinton on the day of his impeachment, is crucial to healing the nation's psyche. The past eight years of Clintonian mendacity, contempt for the law, corruption, dishonesty and moral decay must be rejected. Had Gore resigned after Clinton admitted that he lied to the courts and the country, he'd now be leading the polls by 20 percentage points. That he squandered any integrity he may have possessed, in exchange for perceived political gain, shows not only that he's a scoundrel, but not a very astute one at that.
?
Barring a cataclysmic scandal, it's clear that Bush will be elected two weeks from now. Clinton knows that it's over; so does Gore's staff. As usual, the candidate himself, in this case Gore, is the last to realize the inevitable. There's a sadness to the final days of a loser's campaign, which is understandable given the hard work, the time away from families and the low wages that most of an organization's foot soldiers have to put up with. I don't think, however, that's the case with Gore's team. For example, when George McGovern lost to Richard Nixon in '72, his aides and volunteers could hold their heads high, knowing that they'd worked in the service of what was?at least in their minds?an honorable cause, and that they'd fought against a ruthless and criminal competitor. McGovern stood for something greater than himself; the same can't be said for Gore. And I'll bet that the vast majority of the Vice President's staff is as sick of him as is the rest of the country.
?
Democrats are now in a state of panic. In Monday's Washington Times, Stan Greenberg, Gore's pollster, told reporter Bill Sammon: "It's going to be a tough two weeks... There's no doubt that after the first debate, the lead we had going in...disappeared. And almost all of that movement was women, college and non-college, old and young... There's some evidence in our data, underneath, that we got their attention in the last debate. But the impressions of the first debate are still with them."
Greenberg must've winced seeing Gore hold a quixotic rally in Louisiana?which is all but settled in favor of Bush?last Saturday, when he could've spent precious time in Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Michigan or New Jersey, all states that Clinton swept in '96.
At the risk of harping on the imbecility of Gore spokesman Chris Lehane?in a few weeks, you'll probably never hear his name again?he continues to symbolize, along with campaign manager Donna Brazile, the incompetence of the Veep's campaign. After Brazile bragged to Sammon in that same Oct. 23 article, saying, "We can make up five or six points on the ground in the final weeks," Lehane chimed in. He said that Brazile's strategy would lead to an "unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort never seen in the history of presidential campaigning."
Another Gore mouthpiece, Kym Spell, commented in Monday's New York Times about Bush's gathering of 28 GOP governors in Austin on Oct. 22, part of his orchestrated, fully unified plan to barnstorm the battleground states in the next two weeks. Spell, as if in a controlled-substance fog, said: "It's a mystery why these governors would endorse Bush's plan to squander the surplus on a tax cut for the wealthy and neglect issues that affect people in their states. Why would they want Bush to do to America what he has done to Texas?"
Am I missing something here, or is Spell a 13-year-old intern who's one of the few Gore staffers who doesn't realize that their hunky love machine (loved that Rolling Stone crotch shot, Jann!) is despised by roughly half the country? One more civics lesson, sweet Kym: the governors campaigning for Bush are Republicans, the very same men and women who enlisted the Texan to run for president two years ago.
And Gore thought he had problems with Bill Clinton poking his nose into the fray, in between show summits in the Mideast, rounds of golf, fundraising and stumping for his wife in New York. The big media buzz last week was the rift between Clinton and Gore that was outlined in a long article by The New York Times' Melinda Henneberger and Don Van Natta Jr. Clinton, according to the Times reporters?two professionals at the paper who aren't couriers for Gore?is hurt that his understudy has ignored him during the fall campaign, especially since his prowess as a politician is as legendary as his lack of an ethical compass.
But here's where Tipper comes in. As the Times duo writes: "Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton were never particularly close, but after 'Tipper's people put out that she and the girls were appalled' by the Lewinsky matter, Mrs. Clinton never forgot it, a friend of the First Lady said."
Gore insisted after the story broke that he was, as he said to great effect at the Democratic Convention, his "own man," and, besides, doesn't the President have a job to do? Apparently not. At a Hofstra University rally on Long Island for his wife last Sunday, Clinton refused to remain muzzled, shouting, "They're wrong. We're right. You've got to fight." Washington Post reporter Michael Grunwald wrote: "[T]he president repeatedly expressed concern that voters do not realize the coming election is a 'big deal' and frustration that Texas Gov. George Bush and other Republicans have 'clouded' the issues at stake. He warned that GOP victories in November would wreck the economy, bring back budget deficits, increase violent crime, boost interest rates, damage the environment, imperil abortion rights and even heighten partisanship in Washington."
Clinton is just one facet of the Destroy Bush Objective. There's The New York Times, which is in an absolute panic over the fact that the Governor is leading Gore with so little time left before Election Day. On Oct. 23, Richard Berke, in writing about the latest Times/CBS poll, suggested that Gore is gaining momentum, writing that "The more time that passed from the final debate, which was last Tuesday, the more people seemed to like Mr. Gore." Times polls are notoriously inaccurate?just ask Bob Dole?but that doesn't stop the newspaper from trying to create a groundswell for its preferred candidate. It's dishonest and irresponsible, but what else is new at the laughingstock of American journalism?
Finally, get ready for a torrent of smear tactics against Bush by Clinton's modern-day equivalent of the SDS/Weathermen. The President himself, as noted above, set the tone by claiming, with nothing to back up the allegation, that violent crime would go up in a Bush administration. Larry Flynt, on the Oct. 20 edition of CNN's Crossfire, told hosts Bob Novak and Bill Press that Bush was party to an abortion in the early 70s. He offered no corroborating evidence to back up this slur. And I'm sure the cocaine stories will resurface; they're probably circulating again even as I write.
Maybe some of this dirt will stick to Bush. I doubt it. No candidate for the presidency has been as fully investigated, often by a hostile media, as the Governor of Texas. Ugly times call for ugly tactics, as one Internet boob wrote two years ago, but if the Gore dirty-tricks unit is planning an October surprise this close to the election, it had better be a humdinger.
OCTOBER 23
Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864. Please include your full name, town and state for publication.