January 16, 2000
Crowding most of the primaries and caucuses into the early months of this year would seem to create a very short campaign. For the Seattle Times, however, this is entirely too leisurely a pace: on December 10, it chose Bill Bradley not only as the Democratic candidate but as the next president and, being confident of its wisdom as few but editorialists can be, told us to vote the same way.
The house column on December 10 informed us that the endorsement had been made then because of a "campaign that began earlier than ever and a field that may be narrowed to two main contenders in caucuses and major primaries by March 7." As stated, this explains nothing. Judging from a column by the editorial page editor yesterday, it is intended to say that the Times wants to influence the vote and has to move fast because the nominees may be set, except for formalities, by March. Even this only explains picking Bradley as the Democratic nominee.
The choice was made primarily because of the former Senator's "steadfast commitment to racial equality." The December editorial acknowledged that the paper's concern is unusual: "race relations are not high on the public's radar...." The Times believes that they should be, and therefore Bradley is the choice because he "makes race the centerpiece of his campaign." A cynic might be tempted to believe that the Senator, whatever his deeply held personal views, has emphasized the issue because he is running behind Mr. Gore among black voters. The Times believes, however, that Mr. Bradley is pure, transparent and guileless, so this can't be so.1
The editorial lists several other issues on which Bradley is in its view, correct. An exception is his failure to get in line as to the repeal of the estate tax; the Times' liberalism has its limits.
Two general comments in the editorial are, I think, pertinent. The Times tells us that "Bradley calls up the best instincts of a Democratic party that lost its way." If that is true, he deserves attention. However, I'm not altogether convinced, as one of his legislative accomplishments, praised by the Times, was the 1986 tax bill (appropriated and modified by Reagan but retaining the central feature), which flattened tax rates. Those rates were properly, and more in line with Democratic principles, unflattened later.
The other observation is that he has "authenticity." I don't know what this means, but it is a point made in many of the comments about his appeal, so it's important, if only as a matter of image.
In her column yesterday, Mindy Cameron attempted to explain the decision to endorse. A reader had complained that it was premature, pointing out that "the race has barely begun." Her response combines a muddled extension of the metaphor with self-congratulation:
Wrong. This presidential race is a marathon. Just because few people have lined the streets to watch the runners slog through the first 20 miles doesn't mean that there's no race.
How could we possibly know? Well, by paying attention to those early miles. That's the job of newspaper people: pay attention when others are not and pass on information to readers.
On this page, we go beyond information and share our opinions about what we've learned.
***With few people paying attention, the field of candidates could be narrowed to two finalists by early March. In that scenario, presumed frontrunners - Gore and Bush
- win.An early endorsement by a serious newspaper editorial page is a call to pay attention....
***Bradley is the underdog in the battle for his party's nomination. But the more people pay attention in Iowa, in New Hampshire and in the early primary states, including this state on Feb. 29, the better they will understand why people from Sen. Patrick Moynihan to Mayor Paul Schell to columnist Molly Ivins agree that Bill Bradley ought to be our next president.
An editorial endorsement requires a certain hubris when directed toward the paper's readers on the eve of the election; addressed by a minor newspaper to the nation eleven months in advance, it is fatuous.
_________________________
1. Increasingly, abortion rights became Senator Bradley's signature issue, directed at Mr. Gore's change of views on the subject.
Feb 13
The Times apparently has no influence in Iowa and not enough for its purposes in New Hampshire; Bradley lost badly in the former and decisively in the latter. It will be interesting to see whether the paper's endorsement has any more effect here at the end of the month.
Meanwhile, both parties have crucial contests in South Carolina. McCain has not quite had the courage to exploit his overwhelming victory in N.H: he's waffled on the Confederate flag issue and has descended to Bush's level in his ads, a tactic now abandoned.
Gary Bauer dropped out and Steve Forbes finally gave up; neither endorsed anyone, but the supporters of both probably will go mostly to Bush.
George W. and his compassionate-conservative, reformer-with-results platform need to be brought up short by a reference to the parade to death in Texas prisons and the lack of effective protection for the rights of the accused in that state. However, no Republican candidate is going to call him on that.
Feb 14
Senator McCain's brief lead in the polls in South Carolina has evaporated, so unless they are wrong or he routs Governor Bush in tomorrow's debate, the Bush bandwagon may shift back into high gear.
Charles Krauthammer proposed a McCain-Bush ticket in tonight's column, which may be moot if Bush does win. In addition, his thesis was that McCain has a better chance against Gore than Bush, something not borne out by the polls I've seen. Leaving polls aside, the proposal makes some sense. McCain would fare better in debate with Gore and his appeal to independents and even to some Democrats could be crucial. The reports that independents have been undecided between McCain and Bradley, not exactly ideological soulmates, suggests that character may be much more important this year than platform.
Feb 15
With Bauer, Forbes, Dole, Hatch, Kasich and Quayle out of the Republican race, and with Keyes marginalized, the burden of providing some interest in the primaries falls entirely on McCain. For that reason alone, one has to hope that he survives S. Carolina. Certainly there is little to keep the voters awake on the Democratic side.
The Reform Party has imploded, Jesse Ventura defecting and The Donald deciding not to favor us with his presence. However, any group in which Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani can be allies has the potential to fill the entertainment gap. Her endorsement of him, beginning with "In traditional political terms, Pat Buchanan stands for all the things that black progressives such as myself revile," and winding up with "We're going to integrate that peasant army of his," promises that this odd couple will provide as many laughs as Neil Simon's.
Feb 16
Actually, one of the Democrats has given us some (probably unintended) comic relief. A new ad for Senator Bradley features Michael Jordan. No doubt the idea is to remind us of Bradley's athletic career as well as to trade on Mr. Jordan's fame. However, Michael is noted of late for commercials featuring cartoon characters and every time I see his campaign ad I expect it to end with th-th-th-that's all, folks.
Feb 17
Gary Bauer endorsed Senator McCain yesterday which, if his supporters follow him, would be a significant gain for McCain, who said, with some understatement, that his lines of communication with religious conservatives "haven't been as firm" as he would have liked. There also have been several defections from Bush to McCain, including Dan Evans and Ralph Munro here and the California Secretary of State, whose name I forget.
The revelation that Bush spent $50 of his $70 million by Jan 31 has undercut the impression of inevitability based on unlimited funds. If McCain wins in South Carolina, there may be a stampede.
Feb 27
Ours on February 29 is not one of them, so McCain may do well here. Bush has been running his "John McCain lies about me" ad here repeatedly, which is more than a little strange: Washington voters aren't likely to be impressed by it under any circumstances and McCain isn't running the offending ad, so George W. is presenting himself not only as a whiner, but as one who whines about imaginary slights. Bush's ad is interesting in two other respects: he has lost the pronounced southern accent he displayed in South Carolina, and the tax cut, formerly the centerpiece of his platform, has dropped to fourth on his list of things to do with the surplus.
Meanwhile Bradley is running attack ads against Gore here, also claiming that his opponent doesn't tell the truth. Seattle should be Bradley territory, although the endorsement of Mayor Schell carries less weight than it would have without the WTO fiasco, and the negative ads may hurt as much as they help. The Times repeated its endorsement of Bradley today; the P-I, not having chosen the next president, had recommendations for both races and nodded toward McCain and Gore.
I haven't seen any poll numbers and the only report of a poll (in the NY Times; what are the local papers good for?) indicated a win by Gore but the Republican contest too close too call. The former corresponds to my uninformed guess, but I would have bet on Bush. However, one never knows: Washington voters are not easily predictable, and the large number of independents here should help McCain. Another hopeful indication for McCain is that there are more yard signs for him than for Bush in Bellevue, which is establishment territory.
Feb 28
Governor Bush has sent a letter to Cardinal O'Connor apologizing for "missing the opportunity" to criticize the anti-Catholic and anti-miscegenational views of Bob Jones University. His appearance there has caused a great stir, surprisingly so as pilgrimages to religious-right shrines are de rigueur for Republican presidential candidates. McCain made an issue of it in Michigan and probably would have done so elsewhere, but the main impetus for the letter seems to be the amount of negative press attention.
Bush's Bob Jones speech and his more general appeal to the religious right in South Carolina were the culmination of a peculiar repositioning which had been underway since the Iowa campaign. Last fall, he was presenting a centrist, almost independent view, seemingly preparing for the general election. However, he was criticized for being too confident, for expecting a coronation, for undermining his support in Congress, and Pat Robertson made some menacing noises. Perhaps because of these reactions or because of the Forbes threat in Iowa and McCain's surprising
momentum in New Hampshire, Bush started moving rightward in Iowa and did so
emphatically in South Carolina. By all reports, Bush is closer to the center than his
recent behavior would indicate, although probably less so than the Congressional critic
of last year. Certainly he has raised doubts as to whether he has any views sufficiently
fixed to be affirmed whatever the audience. This ironically validates the McCain ad, so
offensive to Bush, which claimed that he's another Bill Clinton.
This afternoon, KING-TV posted on the internet the results of a poll it commissioned, conducted last weekend. It shows Gore leading 64-28 among Democrats and Bush ahead 55-33 among Republicans. Gore trails Bradley among "unaffiliated" voters, 13-11 and Bush has a greater problem, losing them 29 to 15. Toting all of this up produces a composite vote of Bush 24, McCain 23, Gore 22, Bradley 13, with 3% for Keyes and 16% undecided. This is based on calling 500 voters, so relying on it leaves much to faith, but it's consistent with the New York Times poll.
Feb 29
The Fox Network's "Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?" has generated criticism across the spectrum and Fox has announced that the show will not be perpetrated again. However, someone always can be found to voice an opposing view, and the NY Times presented a column by one today.
The writer, having grown up watching other examples of "reality" entertainment such as the Newlywed Game, sees nothing novel in "Multimillionaire," no reason for all the comment. Worse yet, she thinks that this sort of thing is in a noble tradition. "[T]he species that wouldn't...be curious to see Rick Rockwell pick his bride (or tune in a week later to watch Diane Sawyer interview her) would not have included such acute chroniclers of the human comedy as Jane Austen...." Perhaps this conflation of absurdly disparate depictions of "the human comedy" simply reflects the intelligence of someone whose favorite show was Candid Camera, who thinks that it is "compelling" to watch people unmasked on TV, who is not "too high-minded" to watch brides for sale. Or maybe I'm just out of touch with modern sensibility; the reviews of the recent film of Mansfield Park indicate that trash and Jane Austen now are considered compatible.
Mar 4
The McCain campaign has taken two serious, possibly fatal blows. He needed a win in Washington, not because this state is influential and certainly not because of the few delegates at stake. However, it was a semi-open primary, one which gave him the opportunity of winning the total vote. McCain's numbers have been suspect all along because of his weakness among Republicans. However, wins are wins and momentum is all; he needed such a symbolic win going into the much larger test on March 7.
Final totals are not available and, due to the number of mail ballots, probably won't be until the reporting deadline of March 10. Since election night, the tallies have shown McCain winning the unaffiliated vote easily, losing the Republican vote by a wide margin and losing in the total count. As of today, the totals are Bush 31.32%, McCain 30.7%. Gore has 23.23%, Bradley 12.11%, Keyes 1.65%; Bauer, Forbes, Hatch and LaRouche (will we never be rid of him?) divide the rest. Over the last two or three days, McCain has slightly narrowed the gap in the total vote, and there are about 180,000 ballots left to count, so it is possible that he may yet win that contest, but it would be too little and too late.1
The other setback is the reaction to McCain's attacks on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. His speech in Virginia was a gamble, and probably not a good one; subtler reminders of Bush's alliance with the intolerant and nutty elements of the religious right would have been wiser. Any chance of a positive reaction was destroyed by his intemperate remarks a day or two later; calling Robertson and Falwell evil influences mimicked the style he condemned. The attack even allowed Bush to accuse McCain of setting one religion against another, gliding past the fact that this all started with Bush's playing up to an institution which does just that.
________________________
1. 3/13/00. Final tally, all voters: Bush 402,287 (30.72%), McCain 399,980 (30.55%), Gore 310,405 (23.71%), Bradley 162,725 (12.43%). The polls were on target. McCain did better than I had expected and worse than I had hoped.
Mar 8
John Carlson asserted in today's column that the Democrats are in trouble in Washington because the total Republican vote in the primary was larger than the Democratic. On its face, this is an accurate assessment: as of today the total vote for Democratic contenders is 449,340, for Republicans 796,525. However, his analysis certainly is incomplete; many who voted for McCain will, now that Bush is to be the nominee, vote for Gore in November. Although Carlson did not mention it, the statistic which best supports his prediction is the split of the unaffiliated vote; McCain had by far the largest share, but Bush drew more than Gore.
Mar 16
George W. Bush told the NY Times yesterday that he learned nothing from John McCain; the same is true of George Will. In the column published in today's P-I, Mr. Will reiterated his belief that campaign contribution limits would inappropriately inhibit political expression, that they would be "inimical to democratic values." The column was largely a report of a paper delivered by a Professor Priest. Much of it, as recounted by Will, is rather vague, but one statement is clear: "And, Priest notes, contributions or promises of future contributions 'can increase the likelihood that a candidate will honor his or her election promises, just as a bond enforces performance of a commercial contract.'" In other words, contributions buy politicians. At least we're agreed on what the money is for.
Mar 17
In old-style horror movies, the villain was large but slow-moving, menacing but slow-witted. The NRA would be perfectly cast in the role. Although it still is a huge, lumbering threat, it isn't going to outthink anyone. This is demonstrated by the foolishly offensive "Clinton is a liar" ads delivered by a smirking Charlton Heston, and more emphatically by the comments of the NRA vice president, Wayne LaPierre. Last Sunday, he delivered this: "I believe [Clinton] needs a certain level of violence in this country.... He's willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda - and the vice president too." The stunning idiocy of this statement has been pointed out, but Mr. LaPierre stands by it. He also was quoted as stating that the NRA would go "face to face" with Clinton and Gore throughout the campaign. Al can only hope.
Apr 18
The Governor of Illinois decided recently to suspend executions because of the incidence of wrongful convictions. There have been approving comments by other conservatives who have been supporters of the death penalty. It is heartening that they have acknowledged the problem, but one must wonder why it has taken so long. The investigations which led to the Governor's action disclosed that a significant number of innocent people had been convicted but, apart from the exact numbers, this should not be news.
Some have found it necessary to justify their concurrence by attributing it to a generalized distrust of government. As George Will put it, "Capital punishment, like the rest of the criminal justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in order." Apparently I was mistaken in thinking that Mr. Will had emerged from his ideological cul-de-sac.
In one respect, pointing the finger at government has merit. Many of the cases of wrongful conviction have been brought to light without the help of those to whom the criminal justice system is entrusted. There may indeed be an institutionalized defect, and this branch of government may have forfeited our trust. However, I seriously doubt that this revelation will lead to calls for dismantling the system, for liberalizing criminal laws, for building fewer prisons. Conservatives throw rocks at only selected government windows; if their skepticism were genuine, if egregious errors resulted in withdrawal of support, the Pentagon would have been put up for sale long ago.
As long as I'm picking on George Will, let's examine the conclusion of the column in which his approval of the moratorium is stated.1 Most it is devoted to a favorable review of Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted, a book by Barry Scheck and others. However, at the end he reminds us that he still believes.
Two powerful arguments for capital punishment are that it saves lives, if its deterrence effect is not vitiated by sporadic implementation, and it heightens society's valuation of life by expressing proportionate anger at the taking of life. But that valuation is lowered by careless or corrupt administration of capital punishment, which "Actual Innocence" powerfully suggests is intolerably common.
Will's first argument in support of capital punishment is an unproven assumption modified by an excuse for the lack of proof. If there are persuasive studies showing that more executions lead to fewer murders, I have not seen them,2 but Mr. Will gives himself an out: the lack of a positive correlation is explained by the fact that we don't put enough people to death.
The first argument at least is potentially subject to validation. The second is inherently unprovable; it is an appeal to poetic justice. Some years ago, Will described this view as "the intuition that it is disrespectful of human dignity not to take a life as punishment for especially cruel, wanton or cold-blooded killing."3 This will not do: capital punishment requires a firmer foundation than a dubious notion of moral equivalency.
Still earlier, Will was an opponent of the death penalty; again, it was an intuitive matter: "Much opposition to capital punishment is, like mine, a strong emotion searching uneasily for satisfactory reasons to justify it." Most of that column was devoted to his lack of success in finding such a reason. However, his opposition remained strong: "Pending more powerful evidence that capital punishment is a powerful deterrent saving innocent lives, the burden of proof is still on those who say that today the valuation of life can be enhanced by violent deaths inflicted by the state, in private, in cold blood."4 That more powerful evidence still is lacking.
What has changed is his view of human nature, society and the state. I think that his earlier instinct was sound, that brutalization is a greater risk than a failure of proportionality. At the least, he located the burden of proof correctly then, which means that he is wrong now.
_____________________
1. April 6, 2000.
2. 10/18/00: A study by the New York Times, published September 22, shows that the trend lines in homicide rates in states with and without the death penalty are virtually parallel, but with homicide rates in the capital-punishment states substantially higher. The general disparity held up in comparisons between similar states, e.g., North v. South Dakota, Massachusetts v. Connecticut.
3. Ca. April, 1987. (That suggested that only some murders deserved the death penalty, seemingly more moderate than his current position.)
4. November 29, 1976.
May 4
The latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll shows Bush with a 46-41 lead over Gore, reversing the March result, when Gore led by 3 points. This is not a surprise, as Bush has been more visible and more positive than Gore and has, once more, moved toward the center. Where Gore is remains unclear to me and it seems to baffle more astute observers as well.
Gore's attack-dog approach isn't working now and may not in the future, as Bush has a flair for injured innocence. In addition, the recent news hasn't been favorable: Gore's opportunistic reaction to the Elián González controversy did not play well and there are reports that he may have lied to investigators about the fund-raising excesses.
The detailed numbers should be even more worrysome to the Gore camp than the totals. He trails among men, white women, suburbanites and independents.
June 12
Critical discussion of capital punishment has continued and, not surprisingly, Texas is at the forefront. Gov. Bush recently ordered a stay of execution to allow DNA testing. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death penalty of a Texas inmate because of ethnic stereotyping by a witness for the state in the penalty phase. That witness, a psychologist, in effect told the jury that they could take into account, in determining whether the defendant was too dangerous to live, that he is Hispanic. The Texas Attorney General now has agreed that six other death sentences involving that witness are tainted.
As pointed out in Actual Innocence, only a small number of cases are subject to reversal by the use of DNA testing. The limited survey by Scheck, Neufeld and Dwyer suggested that there must be many other suspect convictions not subject to such definitive reevaluation. This was confirmed by a study reported today in the New York Times; a review of death penalty cases from 1973 to 1995 determined that they have been riddled with error.
The Texas ethnic stereotyping decision offers a clear test for the other six cases involving the same witness; The Times yesterday carried an article on a Texas lawyer who has represented, perhaps incompetently, a dozen defendants condemned to death, half of whom have been executed; Actual Innocence identified a forensic expert whose reports were false and fraudulent. These all present patterns which should encourage and facilitate reexamination, but other sources of miscarriage often will not present such convenient models.
There is a built-in momentum toward conviction. This has several components; as to particular defendants, one is, contrary to the formula, a presumption of guilt by most jurors. Another, tending toward too readily finding someone to charge, is the need for convictions, especially in a time, such as the present or at least recent past, when the public has been anxious about the crime rate. As pointed out by Alan Dershowitz in another context,1 the American system of politicizing the criminal justice system including, at the state level, electing judges and prosecutors, exacerbates this tendency by making these officials subject to, and encouraging them to play on, the desire by victims' relatives for retribution and the fearful public's demands
for toughness toward crime.2
_____________________
1. November 29, 1976.
2. 7/18/00: These tendencies now are fed by Vice-President Gore's ill-considered support for a victims'-rights constitutional amendment.
June 18
I read Sexual McCarthyism last week. Not surprisingly, I found myself more in agreement with Professor Dershowitz' views of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal than with those of William Bennett, whose The Death of Outrage is the only other book about the affair that I've read thus far.
Sexual McCarthyism included two provocative ideas: Clinton should have allowed the Jones case to be decided against him by default, and the prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department should be spun off to a permanent, independent office of public prosecutor. The former might well have spared both Mr. Clinton and the country the ensuing spectacle and the concomitant assaults on the law. The latter, if pursued, might redeem the experience.
July 20
Vice President Gore is advocating adoption of a victims'-rights constitutional amendment. This seems so obviously a bad idea that I was very surprised to find how widely it is supported. It takes some hubris to disagree, especially for one with no expertise in criminal law, but I do.
The proposal is sponsored by Senators across the political spectrum, led by Kyl and Fienstien and including Biden, endorsed by Attorney General Reno and the Attorneys General of a majority of the states, including mine, and warmly supported by Lawrence Tribe. Professor Tribe and Senators Biden and Fienstien generally are considered to be liberals, so one might expect them to be careful about defendants' rights. On the other hand, the Attorneys General presumably would not support a measure which would interfere with prosecution. The support of both groups is a puzzle, as this measure is at once a threat to a defendant's right to a fair trial and a restraint on the discretion of prosecutors.
As a matter of constitutional theory, it is equally bad: it violates the basic principle that the Constitution should not be amended except to deal with a matter of fundamental importance; in addition, it is a detailed, procedural measure, suitable in form as a statute but with no place in the Constitution.
Aug 1
The Republicans are embarked on their quadrennial exercise of duping the voters into believing that they have something in common. Thus far, George W's bland generalities seem to be doing the trick.
Having learned from the 1992 debacle, a variation on the theme was introduced four years ago: the convention presented a soft, moderate, inclusive, non-judgmental image, which required pushing Newt Gingrich aside. The opening ceremony of the current convention followed the same script, banishing the Congressional delegation to New Jersey.
It is amazing that anyone thinks that this will work, that everyone suddenly will forget what Republicans really believe, as clearly manifested by their votes in Congress. In 1996, few were fooled, but Bob Dole hardly was a warm and fuzzy candidate, and he undid the convention's work in his acceptance speech. Governor Bush is shrewder, so is unlikely to make the same mistake. The GOP's biggest advantage, however, is Vice President Gore's lack of appeal.
Aug 2
Trent Lott was allowed a few minutes on stage tonight. Apparently he hadn't listened to Dick Cheney's interview by Jim Lehrer, in which Cheney repeatedly and rather pompously announced that this would be an entirely positive campaign, in contrast (and this isn't being negative, you realize) to Clinton's recent, terribly unpresidential comments. Senator Lott, given the assignment of introducing Lynn Cheney, who introduced her husband, couldn't resist attacking some of Gore's votes in Congress. He also plumped for a few Republican bills; providing drug coverage to seniors drew less applause than eliminating the estate tax.
Mr. Cheney apparently hadn't listened to his interview either. His acceptance speech was of the usual vice-presidential sort, attacking the other guys.
There were a few positive phrases, nearly all devoid of specific content. Bettering schools came down to "improving standards" and letting parents keep more money by cutting taxes; those richer parents would do something useful to their children's education, I guess. Clinton and Gore have only talked about saving Social Security, but we'll save it, he said, thereby only talking about it, and as briefly as possible. However, this was a rouse-'em speech, so we can't expect much.
The rest was all directed to the character issue: George W. Bush will restore decency, integrity and honor to the White House; we're weary of the Clinton and Gore routine; they offer legalisms and carefully worded denials, but we'll offer a stiff dose of truth; the military will have a commander-in-chief they can respect; the man from Hope will go home to (pause) New York; we'll never see Gore without thinking of Clinton; can anyone say that the man for the job is Al Gore?
This was delivered in Cheney's low-key manner, which made it seem moderate, enough so that, with a slight reservation by Mark Shields, the experts assembled on PBS gave it high marks.
Aug 3
They also gave high marks to tonight's speech by George W. Bush; Mark Shields commented that if Gore was hoping that Bush would stumble, he had to be disappointed. Bush did not stumble, which isn't much of surprise given that the speech no doubt had been had been vetted and rehearsed and was read from a teleprompter. It was an adequate speech, but if I were Gore, I would be encouraged.
Much of the speech was a generalized, humane, optimistic, liberal call for a better world. This part was remarkably unlike anything associated with the GOP. Maybe Bush is a new kind of Republican; Paul Gigot described this theme as Bush's version of the third way, not attacking the welfare state, but proposing a tweak here and there. More likely it's just rhetoric. In any case, it seems a peculiar strategy, the message being we'll do a better job with Democratic programs.
Gigot identified one of its major weaknesses, although I'm not sure that he saw it as such. As he noted, the challenger usually says elect me because times are bad; Bush said elect me because they're good. In order to sell this odd product, he struck the theme that Clinton has wasted opportunities. He didn't identify any, and I'd be surprised if many people think that that is true. This argument seemed to me to be an admission of disadvantage: times are good, and all the Republicans can say is that they'd be even better under us.
The second major element in the speech was that Clinton - and Gore, mostly by association - are bad people. "Elect me and restore honor and dignity" is the message. Bush apparently hopes to conflate the two themes, to lead people who think that Clinton messed up morally to believe that he messed up as a leader; polls indicate that people thus far have resisted this notion. One interesting sidelight to this theme is that Bush is not approaching this as an open election, but is running against the incumbent, who has become, on both sides, Clinton-Gore. If voters are more unhappy with Clinton's behavior than happy with the economy, this may work; if not, it may be a blunder. Gore has yet to project an appealing persona and is turning voters off with attacks; it might be smarter to leave Clinton alone and run just against Gore.
The remaining part of the address was core conservatism: give the military better pay and equipment, build a missile-defense shield, eliminate the estate tax, lower the income tax, ban partial-birth abortions. Here Bush drew a distinction between the parties and stated real issues. However, he apparently doesn't expect them to attract many independent voters, as these topics were conspicuous by their absence until tonight. This was simply a message to the right not to worry: he remembers who he is.
Aug 7
The second Republican theme obviously got the Vice President's attention. Today he announced that his running mate will be Joseph Lieberman. As Senator Lieberman's only claim to national fame is his denunciation of President Clinton's behavior re Monica, Gore has conceded the impact of the character issue and has decided to declare that he too disapproves of that behavior. Now he's playing the reverse game from the GOP: as to the economy and other policy matters, he's Clinton-Gore; as to character, he's virtuous Al.
Aug 8
The attacks by Cheney and Bush on Clinton's character were moderate in delivery, but in substance they are a rerun of the semi-hysterical denunciations of the President by the House managers during the impeachment trial: cleanse the office, said Henry Hyde; restore decency to the office, says Dick Cheney. It will be interesting to see whether the toned-down, retrospective version goes over any better.
Aug 21
The Gore and Lieberman acceptance speeches were effective. There was little in the way of dramatic rhetoric and both stopped short -in Gore's case, well short - of eloquence, but both told us - Gore in detail - what they would do if elected, which was crucial for two men who in different ways were still unknown quantities. Both speeches were informal, Lieberman's conversational, which was a pleasant relief from the usual stiff address, often delivered as if amplification had not been invented. (The champ, though, for informality, was Tommy Lee Jones, who was so laid back that it seemed that he hadn't given any thought to what he would say.)
Both speeches have been criticized for their lack of soaring inspirational phrases, which is fair both as literary criticism and politics; they didn't give the campaign any theme or slogan. However, content is more to the point, and they were far superior to the Republican efforts in that respect.
Mark Shields, in his column published in today's P-I, thought that there should have been more criticism of Governor Bush's record. I'm not sure that any more of this would have been helpful, given Gore's pledge to be positive and Bush's tendency to whine about negative campaigning. However, more should have been made of the differences between Democratic and Republican philosophy, with special reference to what the GOP did when in the White House, contrasting what the Clinton administration has accomplished. I thought that this was especially important given Bush's "squandered opportunity" argument. Belatedly, I discovered that this had been
the major theme of President Clinton's speech, which I missed. He hit the right notes,
including the irresistible echo of Reagan: "...let's remember the standard our Republican
friends used to have for whether a party should continue in office. My fellow Americans,
are we better off today than we were eight years ago?"
Gore pointed to the record, but dwelled more on what he wants to add to it. I assume that this route was chosen in part simply because he has ideas for improving the nation that he would like to carry into practice. However, it seemed to reflect three other preoccupations: he is trying to become his own man, something that he rather pathetically declared himself to be during his speech; he wants to disassociate himself from the Clinton embarrassment; and merely running on the record would play into the Republicans' hands, as voters are more likely to identify them with standing pat and preserving prosperity, despite their record on both topics.
It has seemed to me that Gore has tried too hard to distance himself from Clinton on the character issue. Part of this is hypocritical, as Gore also is under investigation for campaign finance abuses. As to Clinton's various Monica-related sins, I thought that the effort was misdirected. Repudiating Clinton on morals makes it more difficult to embrace him on policy, and it wasn't clear to me that the voters would punish Gore - or even Clinton if he could run again - for those sins. Reminding them of the Republicans' impeachment excesses might be more effective than trying to pretend that it all didn't happen.
That was my view until a judge let it slip that a new grand jury has been empaneled, perhaps to indict the President. (Why, one might ask, was the judge talking to a reporter about a pending matter?) Based on that report, I began to waffle. In a column in today's NY Times, Sean Wilentz showed that he is made of sterner stuff. He did not mention the leak about the grand jury, but must be aware of it. Nevertheless, he advocated "gently" reminding voters of the "fierceness and arrogance with which both Kenneth Starr...and the House Republicans pursued the president." This is especially important because Bush, as Wilentz notes, not only made coded attacks on Clinton's character, but made a point of disclaiming any responsibility for the partisanship in Washington, implying that it was Clinton-Gore's fault. The Governor may not be
responsible for the partisanship and the ugly atmosphere, but his party contributed to them mightily, and Gore needs to remind people of that. As Wilentz said,
For partisan gain, [the House Republicans] refused to heed the people's desire to move beyond the scandal and they recklessly endangered the Constitution.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton is arguably the most important and traumatic
political event of the last two decades. It is simply a disservice to voters for Democrats to let the Republicans get away with their not-so-veiled attacks.
Sep. 8
Living in the 41st District gets better each year. In the primary for the State House of Representatives, we have a choice in Position 1 between a Republican and a Libertarian; in Position 2, between a Republican and two other Republicans; for the State Senate, between a Republican and, well, a write-in. I can't help wondering when it was that I became so wealthy and how I managed not to notice it.
Oct 19
The awkward, programmed Al Gore more or less disappeared during his convention address, which gave his campaign life for the first time since the primaries. He had, and has, the advantage on the issues, not only because he has a better grasp of the relevant facts than Bush, but because Bush is running on a New Deal Lite platform, a "me too, but I trust the people" campaign. Democrats can only think wistfully of what Clinton would have done to that.
Gore hasn't done much, especially in the debates. In the first, he was the automaton again, rarely answering a question directly, ignoring opportunities to poke holes in Bush's arguments, unwilling to compare the last seven years to the preceding twelve for fear of being associated with what's-his-name. Instead, every response was a speech, usually the same one.
At least he was assertive. However, someone decided that such behavior was unseemly, that modesty is the indispensable attribute of a president. Accordingly, in the second debate, he was subdued to the point of lifelessness. In addition, after the first debate, he'd been caught in some of his frequent exaggerations, so at the second, he was chastened. The result was to bring him down to if not below Bush's modest level. The result was generally scored as shown in a Jeff Danziger cartoon: Bush & Gore play cards; Bush celebrates, having beaten a pair of twos with a pair of threes.
In the third debate, Gore reverted to form and, as in the first meeting, was the dominant player, both in substance and presence. The latter, however, has led to a rerun of the expressions of dismay over his bullying behavior. One would think that we were electing the prom king, not the commander-in-chief.
An excuse offered for these comments is that assertiveness offends women, which is one variation on a theory that female voters are especially superficial, that to them image is everything, and that the thought of an assertive president would be frightening. This is patronizing and I think it's nonsense. God knows, I don't have an especially high opinion of the American voter, who has superficiality in abundance, but it seems to me that women are, if anything, more interested in issues and less inclined to image voting than men.
Whatever the excuse, the Bush camp has seized on the bully theme. The New York Times reported today that Governor Thompson of Wisconsin said that "Mr. Bush had been well raised by his parents," but that Mr. Gore had not. "'Don't interrupt people when they speak,' Mr. Thompson said.... 'Don't be a bully.... Don't interrupt people. Come November, we should send Al Gore back to kindergarten.'" It gets worse. Barbara and Laura Bush were campaigning in Michigan on a theme of "W stands for women." They were upset that Gore had come too close to George W. while wandering about the town-meeting stage:
In an interview on their bus, they made clear that they thought that Vice President Gore had gone several paces too far, especially when he moved within a few inches of Mr. Bush to stare him down.
"I thought he literally was going to hit him," Barbara Bush said....
We shall see how much that and his generally weak performance at the third debate hurt Mr. Bush. Certainly the first two debates, if that is the proper term for these vapid encounters, helped him enormously. This is partly another triumph of lowered expectations, at which the Bushes seem adept. The Governor was considered to be at a great disadvantage, an impression reinforced by his seeming fear of any formal encounter. Instead, he did rather well at the first two, and Gore was far less effective than expected.
The debate formats and the softball questions protected Bush. Combined with Gore's disappointing performance, they reinforced any tendency on the part of the voters to fall back on character or image or personality or some such test. This is not good news for Gore, but he is not the first Democrat with this problem. Republican presidents, Nixon aside, have not been elected during my lifetime because of their grasp of issues. They have been elected in part by projecting an image of the real America, as opposed to the elitist, immoral, socialist, etc., etc. Democrats.1 They also have been elected because they were amiable.2 Amiability against command of the issues is not an equal contest: consider Eisenhower v. Stevenson or Reagan v. Mondale. I must confess that I have difficulty detecting Governor Bush's reputed charisma, but the consensus is that he has it; the Vice President certainly does not do well in that department, so unless the voters have a sudden attack of seriousness, George W. will have to adjust to living in awful Washington.
_________________
1. 7/20/01: This theory is more artfully expressed in Paul Krugman's new book, Fuzzy Math: "My opinion is that those who voted for Bush did so mainly for cultural reasons - that they saw him as a defender of traditional values against a godless modern world, that they percieved themselves as voting for a regular guy against the representative of a consescending elite."
2. "Amiability" may be more common in Jane Austen's novels than in political commentary. In my implied resort to the former source, I appeal for support to Gail Collins, who began her October 17 column, "An Ode to Pork," as follows: "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a town in possession of a congressman running for re-election must be in want of a new parking lot."
Oct 20
Our choices for president and vice-president are not limited to Republicans and Democrats. The voters' pamphlet informs us that we may vote for candidates from the Constitution, Freedom, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, Socialist, Socialist Workers and Workers World Parties. (Buchanan is on the Freedom ticket, although his statement refers to the Reform Party.)
Minor parties are said to be the source of new ideas. These parties do advocate ideas whose time has not come, such as abandonment of the war on drugs (Green, Libertarian and Socialist), programs from which the Democrats have pulled back, such as universal health care (Green and Workers World) and ideas not currently in favor, such as abolition of the death penalty (Green and Socialist). But many of the positions advanced either have had their day, for example socialism (Socialist, Socialist Workers and Workers World), from the mere suggestion of which the Democrats recoil in terror, or are extreme forms of positions toyed with by the Republicans, such as shrinking the government to eighteenth-century size (Libertarian and Constitution); the Green platform has its own form of this back-to-Eden mentality.
Oct 23
The Seattle Times is challenging the Wall Street Journal for the prize in journalistic schizophrenia. Unlike the Journal, where the disconnect is between the editorial page and the rest of the paper, in the Times it is inside the house editorial. The Times' first choice for president was Bradley; its second is...Bush? Weird as it is, yes. After deciding last December that the only man for the job was a maverick Democrat, because of his views on race relations, the paper yesterday advocated the election of a mainstream Republican because of "the overpowering need for integrity and civility in office" and "for a realistic balance between government and commerce...." For the first, read no more nasty intern-chasing and for the latter, tax relief for the wealthy.
As is its recent practice, the Times pulled back the curtain on its oracular performance, revealing not Frank Morgan but Frank Blethen, publisher and anti-tax crusader; in her separate column, the editorial page editor explained the mechanics of the endorsement: the editorial board consists of eight editorial writers and four members of management, including the publisher and two others from the Blethen family; "In close calls, the publisher's side wins."
Oct 29
Today the Seattle Times offered its endorsements for the Senate seat now held by Slade Gorton and for four of the nine House positions, in each case selecting the Democrat. There is nothing wrong with those choices, but what sense does it make to endorse a Republican for president and Democrats for Congress who will vote against much of his program, including, I would expect, the tax breaks for which the Blethens pine? Apparently it was the staff's turn.
Oct 30
Completing the picture, the Times today published its endorsements for the remaining five House seats, selecting four Democrats.
A letter to the editor published yesterday concluded, as I had, that the Bush endorsement had been motivated by a desire for tax relief, even though that was conveyed only in code. The writer noted the earlier advocacy by the Blethens, through an editorial and advertisements, for repeal of the estate tax and asserted that "The Bush endorsement is an act of pure cowardice because it is based on a single issue that was never even mentioned." Perhaps in response, the only endorsement today of a Republican for Congress included this bit of candor among the reasons for supporting her: "[Rep. Jennifer] Dunn was the House sponsor of the Death Tax Elimination Act - important to this newspaper's opinion pages and owners...."
Also in today's Times is a column by Molly Ivins stating her admiration for Ralph Nader and her determination to vote for him, but suggesting hesitantly that voters in states where the result is in doubt should vote for Gore. After pointing out that Bush and Gore are not indistinguishable, she said, "In Texas, we'll vote for Nader and a perfect world. You swing-state progressives need to make the hard choice - but you're not making it just for yourselves ...." Not a ringing statement of support for Gore, but better than nothing. (The same hint was dropped in an advertisement in yesterday's New York Times: "In this state, a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.... If you live in a state where the race is close, vote your conscience." The ad was placed by "Citizens for Strategic Voting," claiming not to be affiliated with any candidate. The National
Abortion Rights League now is running a television ad attacking Bush's views on abortion and warning that a vote for Nader will turn the Court over to the likes of Scalia and Thomas.)
Ms. Ivins believes that her third-party vote in Texas is a safe declaration of principle, but she confesses that she regrets having abandoned the Democratic candidate once in the past. In 1968, outraged by the Vietnam war, she could not vote for Humphrey (presumably because, as Johnson's loyal Vice President, he had had to profess support for the war) so she cast a write-in vote for Eugene McCarthy. 1 The difference between Nixon and Humphrey seemed clear enough to me although I was too, by then, an opponent of the war. However, I understand the dilemma. In 1972, I still could not vote for Nixon, especially after four more years of war, but could not bring myself to support Senator McGovern. Therefore, like Ms. Ivins four years earlier, I virtuously tossed away my vote on a write-in.
Because of my 1972 vote, I can sympathize with the Nader supporters; however, I don't agree with them because I have another parallel experience. In 1980, I was, like so many Democrats, disappointed in Jimmy Carter. He had been conservative, indecisive, ineffectual, etc., so how could one support him? A declaration of principle was called for, so I voted for John Anderson. Never mind that the only real-world alternative was Ronald Reagan, longer on charm than smarts and dedicated to an agenda which would make Carter look like Ted Kennedy. A vote for Ralph Nader this year is much more like my later apostasy than my earlier and the choice is easier. Gore is more of a liberal than Carter, and Bush is, well, longer on charm than smarts.
Two reasons exist for voting for Nader and the Green Party, one traditional, one contemporary. The traditional reason is that the mainstream parties will, for various reasons, fail to embrace some good ideas, and the function of third parties is to give those ideas expression and build support for them. For this purpose, the more votes for the third party the greater its influence. The contemporary reason is related to federal campaign funds: if Nader draws 5% of the popular vote, the Party will be eligible for funding in 2004. Therefore, if one believes in the platform a vote is not wasted because it will increase the chance for eventual success. The odds that a third party will elect a president are long. However, the funding argument doesn't necessarily depend on any such assumption; more funds may lead to a better showing, which may lead to wider
acceptance of the platform or parts of it. Nothing is wrong with either argument other than the fact that one must make choices, and these considerations may have to give way to others. Voting for Nader in an undecided state is justified only if it is true that there is no important difference between the major candidates. If Nader really believes this, he is too uninformed to be taken seriously as a political leader.
____________________
1. It isn't clear why Ms. Ivins disavows her 1968 vote. Was Texas not a safe state for Nixon? Does she now have a higher opinion of Humphrey?
Oct 31
The Green platform is stridently, and consistently, opposed to big business. It also claims to be opposed to big government, but it is full of proposals which presuppose an active federal government. Another seeming inconsistency on this point is that, although the platform repeatedly states its preference for local over more remote government, virtually all of its effort in Washington is directed toward the presidential election. According to the Party website, there is only one Green candidate for state office (the State Legislature from a Seattle district), and none for any more local position. Its only other candidate in this state is running for Congress.
Nov 2
The Libertarians, on the other hand, are fielding candidates here for all sorts of state offices: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Attorney General, Commisioner of Public Lands, Insurance Commisioner and the Legislature. It always strikes me as inconsistent that people who disdain government should want to manage it. The Libertarians have this in common with the Constitution Party and, to no small degree, the Republicans. Yes, they can argue that they are running so that, once elected, they can cut government down to proper size, but it still seems odd that they are so anxious to be a part of the evil thing.
Nov 9
We still do not know who the next president will be, although the odds are that it will be George Bush. Although he trails in the incomplete national popular vote and in the electoral vote, he has, at this moment, a lead of 225 votes in Florida, and its 25 electoral votes would put him over the top. No doubt the exact margin in Florida will change, but clearly it will be tiny compared to the 6 million votes cast in Florida and miniscule compared to the 100 million nationally. Any number of things could change: the recount isn't complete in Florida, let alone official; there are absentee ballots to count there; recounts are underway in other states; the winner in Oregon (and in some reports, New Mexico) hasn't been determined yet; Bush may pull out the popular vote; and some electors may not follow the usual script. However, there is a strong possibility that Governor Bush will lose the popular vote and win in the electoral college with one vote above a majority, based on a few votes in a state governed by his brother, those few votes under a cloud because of various alleged irregularities: not an auspicious start to a presidency.
If this occurs, any number of factors will be pointed to in dissecting Gore's loss, prominent among them his failure to win Tennessee, Clinton's failure to win Arkansas for him, and Nader's vote in Florida, far more than Bush's margin. As Democrats feared, Nader may have given the election to Bush. If Nader had drawn a significant percentage nationally, perhaps he could escape the spoiler charge; winning about 3% hardly justifies the damage done.
Nov 17
The continuing uncertainty in Florida has prompted numerous calls to bring the process to an end. Some have come from the Bush camp; those are readily translated into "Go away and let George play Predident-elect." More disinterested observers have offered the same advice, but the message, on a practical level, still is the same: Gore should concede. Some of this is based on fears of a consitutional crisis, embarrassment that the world's leading democracy can't get it right, or simple impatience, none of which deserves much atttention.
However, if I were one of Gore's advisers, I might concur for reasons of self-interest; a concession would be statesmanlike and would help to preserve his chances for 2004, especially against an incumbent who seems to have lost the popular vote. It may be too late for this gesture; certinly the safest time for it has passed. The Republican efforts to block vote counts may have further weakened Bush's claim to legitimacy, so a concession still may be timely, but Gore needs to do it while he has something to concede.
Dec 5
The Seattle Times apparently wishes to make clear that its editorial page is, in an older tradition, a mouthpiece for the owners; none of that modern public-service - objectivity nonsense. The Times' current concern is a strike against it and the P-I by the union representing reporters and clerical workers. Both papers are publishing small editions, written by management employees and, at the Times, some replacements. In Sunday's Times, the abbreviated editorial page contained two signed columns, one written by the editorial page editor, both of which were critical of the union's position; no opposing view was offered.
An article on the strike in the New York Times commented that Seattle is a strong union town; that was true once, but no longer. The best evidence is the fact that the strike is not supported by other unions at the papers, whose members remain on the job. The only solidarity being shown is by senior reporters, many of whom would gain little if the union's demands were met.
Dec 11
On Friday, the Florida Supreme Court decided that a lower court ruling against Gore was erroneous and ordered, by a vote of 4 to 3, hand recounting of all ballots shown, by machine processing, to lack a presidential selection. Rather than limit this to the counties for which Gore had made application, the Court included all Florida counties, which rescued Bush from a tactical error but was a sensible result. The count began.
A start, however, is all that it was allowed. Bush applied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for a stay and was refused. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, less fearful of the political thicket or more willing to substitute its judgment for that of Florida voters, election officials and courts, granted the stay. Justice Scalia rubbed salt in the wounds of Gore's lawyers by reciting that the stay was based on the substantial chance that Bush would prevail on the merits.
If Gore had been elected via the recount, there always would have been the accusation that he "stole" the election. The idea that one can steal an election by counting the votes seems ludicrous, but the element of subjectivity in the analysis of the uncounted ballots would give the claim just enough plausibility to be accepted by many, especially as it would be combined with the notion that an election should be final the day after, even if suspect.
There have been numerous hand-wringing letters, editorial columns and comments in straight news reports, all critical of Gore's determination to carry on the fight. Some are traceable to partisanship and some to a journalistic tendency to find crises for marketing purposes. However, there has been a surprising tendency to find something improper in Gore's refusal to concede, some of it apparently based on the supposed ill - effects of prolonging the uncertainty. It's true that the stock market has been nervous, but it reflects the reactions of the least rational and most easily frightened segment of the population. Elsewhere, life goes on as usual despite the supposed constitutional crisis.
If the Supreme Court decides the outcome, it will establish Gore's credentials as a martyr and effectively cancel the criticism leveled at him for resorting to the courts. It will underscore the doubts as to Bush's legitimacy, relegating him to the Hayes category, a President who lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote under a cloud.
Throughout the post-election period, the odds have been against Gore's being elected. Even if all of the votes were counted and even if that had shown him to be the winner, action by the Florida legislature or Congress could supervene. I can't help wondering whether Gore's strategy has been based less on the prospect of winning than on forcing Bush into this position. Gore could hope for a repeat of history: Hayes served only one term.
