The Best Man for the Job (article) by Randall Raus on AuthorsDen

What Do You Think of George W. Bush? "The Best Man for the Job" (see below) is a column I submitted to the Long Beach Press-Telegram a week before the 2000 presidential election. By then I had come full circle, from initially being stunned at how little George W. Bush knew in some areas of foreign policy (e.g. didn't know who the leader of Pakistan was, referred to the Kosovars as Kosovarians, etc.) to being exhasperated by columnists who dismissed Bush as a lightweight. Al Gore, to my knowledge, had not lost a political debate prior to 2000. The polls following the 2000 presidential debates polls indicated a Bush win. A lightweight simply does not out-debate Al Gore. That's why I believed--at the time--the key to understanding who was best qualified lied in studying the debates. As it turned out, I never got a response from the op-ed editor (undoubtedly overwhelmed election week). However, when I reread the article two years later I found I had used too many glib statements. For example, the conventional wisdom had it that the debates highlighted Bush's personal qualities--such as decisiveness, leadership, and the flexibility to work with the opposition. I lumped those into "more attractive personality", saving space, but sounding glib. Also, I couldn't resist an (undeserved) cheap shot at the Junior Senator from Conneticut. There were other things I'd change, but a lot has happened since Nov., 2000. What do you think of George W. Bush? The Best Man for the Job The debates have been over for a while. But the key to understanding who is best qualified to be president lies in looking back, and examining--from a broader perspective--how the debate process played itself out. The conventional wisdom goes something like this: George Bush won the debates (went up in the polls) even though he was outdebated (nearly all debate experts favoured Gore). In other words, despite Gore's ability to support his arguments with torrents of facts, the debates highlighted Bush's more attractive personality, so Bush won. Even Bush's honesty (relative to Gore's) was explained in terms of personality factors: Bush is "more spontaneous", while Gore "tends to be overzealous" (thus prone to exaggerate), or Gore was even characterized by the dreaded "doesn't connect", or Gore was described as bereft of all-important "teflon", which cast doubt on his ability to survive "questions about his integrity". From the broader perspective mentioned earlier, George Bush-Richard Cheney outdebated Al Gore-Joe Lieberman. Cheney's potential impact on the debates played an important role in his selection as running mate. Bush, dogged by doubts about his own preparedness, knew a ticket he headed could not survive a well-publicized loss in the VP debate. Especially one like the merciless pounding his dad's running mate, Dan Quayle, absorbed in '88. It was savy of Bush to pick Cheney rather than a supposed heavyweight like Jack Kemp--who loss 2-1 to Gore in the '96 VP debate. Cheney is not much on personality, but Bush was aware that Quayle's "likability" did not save him in '88, and that Kemp's "effervescence" was useless against Gore in '96. As it turned out, most voters hardly noticed Cheney's easy win over the dull-witted Lieberman. But a potential disaster had been averted, and Cheney helped Bush in his own debates. Cheney gave Bush a lot of credibility--with Cheney on the ticket Bush could credibly talk about putting together a strong foreign policy team, because Cheney had a lot of foreign policy experience. An aspect of the debates inexplicably missed by the pundits was that Bush responded clearly and succinctly to Gore's key points. On Gore's repeated assertion that his tax proposal was designed to benefit the wealthiest 1%, Bush responded "The wealthiest 1% pay 33% of income taxes, and [would] get 20% of the benefit [of his tax cut]". On Gore's point regarding the high percentage of Texans without health insurance, Bush replied "In Texas, we spend $4 1/2 billion a year to provide health care for the uninsured". On the strong economy, Bush said "There is no doubt that Clinton-Gore have benefited more from the economy, than the economy has benefited from Clinton-Gore". Gore, on the other hand, either ignored, or at most gave partial answers, to Bush's key points. There was a good reason for this. After eight years of fiscal responsibility to pay down the national debt, Gore is tired of being a Republican. He would much prefer going back to being a Democrat. That's why Gore never answered Bush's most important point: that for eight years Clintor-Gore failed to reform health care, or social security. Gore might have said "In '94 we tried to pass universal health care, but there was no money to pay for it. Revenues are up now, but even with more money, we're going to pursue a scaled-back health care package. And, to get it done, I'm willing to work with a Republican congress. As for social security reform, it makes sense to let people invest part of their contributions, but unlike my opponent, we're going to pay for the transition period, by foregoing a tax cut." But if Gore had said all that, it would have meant giving up ideas he cherishes, like a tax credit for college tuition, because there would be no money left after real reform of health care and social security. He is unwilling to bite that bullet. Bush has carefully adjusted his positions to be in the mainstream, the way that Clinton and Gore did in '92. According to a Zogby poll, with the exception of school vouchers and abortion, Bush-Cheney positions are favored by a majority of voters. This includes, surprisingly, their position on gun control. Unwilling to adjust his positions, Gore had to try to win the debates on style: appearing much more knowledgable (unleashing torrents of facts), or the dominant personality (trying to rattle Bush, etc.). In the end the Bush-Cheney team won on substance, because Bush had thought the whole process through. I think Gore's personality is OK. I am even convinced that he knows what a "working family" is. But one thing is for sure, George W. Bush is ready to be president of the United States.
Web Site	Randall Raus
f